Mr. Speaker, I should like to make an announcement. In terms of the provisions of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1961, the term of office of the elected Senators expires on 24 November 1965. The Government has therefore decided to recommend to the State President that the electoral colleges of the various provinces and the territory of South West Africa be summoned by way of the required proclamation to meet in the respective capitals for the election of Senators on 26 November 1965. This announcement is being made now, so that when the members of the various electoral colleges are making their arrangements for the recess they will keep this date in mind.

This announcement is simply a courtesy gesture so that hon. members will be able to make their arrangements timeously.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a second statement. I have received the following request to the Government of the Republic of South Africa from Chief Leabua Jonathan of Basutoland—

In considering this appeal the Government took into consideration the problems flowing from the effects of the drought on maize production in this country and the relief measures which it is already applying to its own people. It, however, also recognized the desirability of responding sympathetically to such an appeal from a neighbouring State. The Government has therefore decided to make a donation of 100,000 bags of grain, consisting of 50,000 bags of White Maize, and 50,000 bags of Kaffir Corn. Parliament will be approached in due course to vote the funds required but it is hoped to have the grain available in about ten days. Arrangements are being made with Chief Leabua Jonathan to enable those made responsible by him to convey these bags of maize and Kaffir Corn to all the areas of Basutoland where the need exists. Quantities varying from 2,750 bags to 8,250 of each will be provided at nine conveniently situated centres in the Republic, near the Border, for ease of transport. This contribution should give extensive relief, particularly to the women and children.

Hear, hear!

I move—

I rise on a very small point. In dealing with Clause 1 in the Committee Stage yesterday the Minister said that, if there were others who felt as the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) did about the punctuation or the language of this clause, he would be glad to have his advisers consider the matter. I do indeed think that the meaning would be better conveyed if there was a comma inserted in line 18 after the word “executed”. It would then read “executed, or died”. I think that puts it beyond any doubt.

The alternative to that submission would be to have the word “who” inserted after the words “or” and “died”, so that it will read “a person who was executed or who died while being transferred from one prison . . .

If the only difference between the hon. member for Pine-lands (Mr. Thompson) and myself is a comma, I gladly make him a present of that comma. I shall see that the necessary is done.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a third time.

We have given our approval to this Bill and I set out the reasons during the second reading. There are, however, one or two points which have not yet been settled and the Minister has undertaken to consider them before the Bill goes to the Other Place. One is in regard to the definition of the area of operation of these corporations. The Minister has also told us that once this Bill becomes an Act,. the corporations will be able to appoint agents to carry out tasks in the reserves and to help in the development of the reserves. The Minister has also promised that, in establishing industries in the reserves, he will see that the standard of industries outside the reserves is maintained inside the reserves. We trust in him to see that that is done.

My appeal to him is this: In appointing agents the Minister must be very careful not to give the impression that certain selected companies are being preferred. There is a feeling that some people know before others what opportunities there are for development in the less advanced areas and that these people have an advantage over others. I would ask the Minister, if he does decide to allow White entrepreneurs into the Transkei or any other reserve, as agents, that he let it be known so that everybody will have a fair chance of coming into the field and having a chance of entering into a contract with the corporation. That is important in view of the financial assistance which is going to be given to the corporation by the State. Any organization which is appointed an agent will be acting as such agent with the financial assistance and other encouragement from the State. It is only fair that all bodies who are interested in that type of business should be given a fair chance to get into it.

We hope that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be more effectual in developing the reserves than has been the other bodies produced by the Government in the past. With those words, I, on behalf of this side of the House, give it our blessing.

I have made a study of the various points and the law advisers know about them. I shall contact the hon. member before this Bill is introduced in the Other Place. I promise that. As far as the agencies are concerned, I think that the hon. member ought to know that I act very objectively in this connection. I do not think that I am one of those who will allow myself to be influenced. The closest attention is always given to this matter.

We do not as yet have an example.

I think the hon. member himself is an example.

I just want to say further that if it had not been for the work done by the other bodies, this organization would not have been possible. They have done excellent work and I think this organization will do whatever else is required.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move the following amendment—

To add the following proviso at the end of the paragraph (a) of sub-section (1):

At this stage of the proceedings I must, of course, accept that the clause means what it says, namely, that once this Bill becomes an Act, the directors of the Klipfontein Organic Products Corporation, will be empowered to act in terms of this clause and take all necessary steps to initiate the finding of any number of suitable persons capable of forming themselves into a company or consortium.

On a point of order, I contend that this amendment is out of order in as much as it introduces a new principle. The principle in the Bill as it stands places no restriction upon the board of directors in regard to the way in which they may dispose of the shares. It leaves the matter open. The amendment has in mind that the board of directors will be compelled to follow certain methods in regard to the disposal of the shares. In other words, instead of the accepted Second Reading principle that no specific instruction be given to the board of directors, this amendment has a particular instruction in mind.

The hon. member is wrong. The principle is that the organization may be sold. There are no prescriptions in regard to its sale. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. As I was saying, this clause will enable the directors of this Corporation to initiate negotiations and, if possible, come to an agreement with a suitable group or consortium of persons to form a company and to apply for the registration of the Corporation as a company. It is for that reason that I now wish to add this proviso to this paragraph so that the directors of the Corporation can invite tenders for the purpose of the proposed take-over before making such an agreement.

As I have said on a former occasion that would be the businesslike way of proceeding in a matter of this kind and also of exercising the powers which are conferred upon the directors of the Klipfontein Organic Products Corporation in terms of this Clause. I need not again stress the point that we on this side of the House believe in the principle of free private enterprise in commerce and industry. We have no objection to the disposal of this Corporation to free private enterprise. But it is the manner in which it is done which we want to set right. It is for that purpose that the amendment is moved so that it can be done in a method which, the hon. the Minister yesterday said, has substance. The Minister said there was much, substance in the fact that, when State property was disposed of, it should be done on the basis of giving wide publicity to it and of allowing competitive tenders for the property concerned.

I also moved the amendment for the purpose of testing the sincerity of members on the other side of the House who claimed, during the second reading, that Parliament’s prerogative was not being ignored at all. They rather indicated that all the arrangements in regard to the disposal of K.O.P. were still in the hands of Parliament. If they were sincere in that statement let them now demonstrate their sincerity and support this amendment. This amendment will not in any way exclude Federale Volksbeleggings Beperk from tendering. It will merely give an opportunity to other concerns that may be interested in making a take-over bid to make suitable tenders in that direction. It is for that reason that I hope nobody on that side will argue that the amendment is not necessary. To argue that way is to admit that no initiative rests with the directors of K.O.P. and also to admit that they have no initiative in the matter and that the arrangements contemplated in this Clause of the Bill have already been concluded by the hon. the Minister as the appropriate authority to regulate, to negotiate and to make agreements on behalf of the Government. I see nothing wrong in the hon. the Minister being the authority to negotiate and settle take-over deals. In fact, I think that that is perfectly correct. But if that is done in this specific instance, I submit that it does make a sham of the clause as set out in the Bill itself. I hope therefore, that this is not going to be a sham and that the hon. the Minister will accept the amendment because it is a necessary addition to the provisions of the Bill as they stand in law. As I say, I think this is an opportunity of testing the sincerity of hon. members opposite when they say that there is no intention to ignore or slight parliamentary authority in regard to this matter.

When we discussed the principle of this Bill during the second reading, hon. members opposite emphasized that the Government had made it clear for many years that it would be possible for Klipfontein to be converted to private enterprise and that that had been known. We are anxious to help the Minister. The Minister and hon. members opposite said this was the only consortium that had approached the Minister. Others could have approached him had they wished to do so, they said. They say that others had the opportunity but that they did not do so. In order to clinch the matter on behalf of the Minister the formal advertisement that we suggest should appear in the Press. As in every other case, it should be advertised in the Press. That will put the matter, as far as the Minister is concerned, above board. It is true, of course, that other consortiums may not have the opportunity, at this stage, to investigate in detail. But in take-over bids that is not done; it is not always necessary. We know what Klipfontein is like; consortiums know the strength of Klipfontein. All big corporations and all consortiums know the strength of the company they are anxious to take over.

They know of its profitability, they know of its assets. They have all the details. We had an example in the case of a sugar company where people knew it had no special valuation. They knew the strength of the company. This gives the hon. the Minister an excellent opportunity to announce that there has been no deception practised. He can state that an offer has been made by a certain company, but the deal is thrown open to other companies to see if they can make a better offer. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South).

I also support the amendment. The Government of a country should be run on business lines. And if the hon. the Minister wished to deal with this matter on business lines, in the way it would be dealt with by an ordinary business, namely to the best advantage of shareholders—who, in this case, are the taxpayers of South Africa—he would without hesitation accept this amendment.

The hon. member for Kensington has referred to the Hulett case. But there is also the case of Connock’s Motors, a case which is still fresh in the public mind. In each of these cases when it became known that the organizations were for sale, there was keen competition among interested private organizations, with the result that the final prices paid were very, very much to the benefit of the respective shareholders. I feel this point is so simple, Sir, that there is no necessity for me to make a long speech about it. If the Minister wishes businesses in South Africa to believe that the Government is trying to run the government of the country on business lines, then he should follow the examples which have been referred to and accept the amendment. Because then, Sir, even if there is no further tender forthcoming, there will nevertheless be complete satisfaction on the part of the public. But if the hon. the Minister does not accept the amendment then I, for one, will not accept that the Government has done its best in the interests of the taxpayers of this country.

I do not know what spectacle hon. members opposite are trying to create. In any case, it appears to me as though it cannot be a very honourable spectacle.

Order! The hon. member cannot accuse other hon. members of being dishonourable. He must withdraw that word.

I withdraw it. I want to point out that what hon. members of the Opposition are doing amounts in the first place to a motion of no confidence in the present owners of K.O.P., that is to say, the Cabinet, the board of directors. That is what it amounts to—that they are moving a motion of no confidence in the board of directors—in regard to a matter which the directors submit to a shareholders meeting. What has happened here this morning is a parallel case.

In the second place they want us to break our word to people with whom a draft agreement has already been concluded. The hon. the Minister explained during the second-reading debate that the difference between the two valuations is about R200,000—a small amount when one compares it with the total purchase sum. An amount which is somewhere between the two valuations will probably be agreed to. Subject to this the Government has already concluded a draft contract with the potential buyers subject to approval thereof by this Parliament. It must be remembered that these potential buyers have already incurred heavy expense in order to bring these negotiations to the stage which they have already reached. It costs a great deal of money to have valuations made because it is no small matter to examine and value all the activities of K.O.P. To come along now and say that we are no longer going to sell to them is in my opinion unfair to people who have already made a firm offer and with whom a draft agreement has already been concluded, an agreement based on negotiations that have already taken place. It is not fair to come along now and to say that we are going to ask for better offers. Who knows, we may eventually have to accept a lower offer.

I say that to seek to do this is nothing less than to break ones word to these potential buyers. Hon. members must be careful that these potential buyers do not turn around eventually and say that they are no longer interested . . .

That is all right.

. . . because we are playing cat and mouse with them while they have had to incur great expense in connection with this matter. What then? The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) will probably go along and buy it with his “that is all right” ! There have been negotiations from time to time over the past 17 or 18 years for the sale of K.O.P., but no finality could be reached in this regard. Many persons said that they were interested but withdrew at a later stage.

I think, that hon. members are playing a game here which does not redound to the credit of Parliament. If this amendment is accepted it will not redound to the credit of Parliament. The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) spoke about “business lines”. But this is a business transaction which has been run on business lines, on the same basis on which private companies arrange take-overs. Tenders are not called for on that basis but negotiations are entered into and a price is arrived at on the basis of valuations. I have never heard that a private company has reached the stage in negotiations which has been reached in this case and has then turned around and said that it was going to call for tenders in order to find other buyers. If such dishonourable negotiations were to take place in the private sector of our economy, take-overs would never take place because nobody would be able to believe anything any other person said. That is why I say that hon. members are not doing K.O.P. a service by moving this amendment. They are in actual fact suggesting business ethics which are not worthy of this Committee.

I am surprised at the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever). He is a member who usually argues fairly consistently but when he comes forward with this sort of argument, it proves only one thing and that is that he has a weak case. For example, he contended that we were moving a motion of no confidence in the Cabinet. In his next sentence he said that where two companies had reached a tentative agreement, this was not the way in which to act. But two companies are not concerned in this matter. In this case the Government is asking Parliament to dispose certain assets of the State under certain specific conditions to F.V.B. which has made an offer on behalf of a. consortium. When I asked the hon. the Minister yesterday how many points had still to be disposed of, he mentioned a number of them. Therefore, finality has not yet been reached on a number of points.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) went further and said that expense had already been incurred. But is this not the normal procedure? Will any other potential buyer not also have to incur that expense? What then is so strange about this matter? Here we have a body which has made an offer to the Government on behalf of a consortium for the take-over of certain State interests.

The hon. the Minister told us yesterday that K.O.P. needs capital for development. When last did the Government invest capital in this undertaking? If more capital is actually required surely this is not such a dreadful thing? Capital must be found for as necessary and important an undertaking as K.O.P.

But I do not want to argue on the basis of whether K.O.P. should or should not be disposed of. I contend that this amendment of ours will not only protect the bona fides of Parliament and of the Government but also the bona fides of F.V.B. and its partners. Many people sitting here are shareholders thereof and want therefore to ensure that their good name is protected. The country must know that when the Government wants to dispose of State interests, it follows the correct procedure, procedure which will give every interest a chance. The State ought not to dispose of its assets in this way, and members of the consortium, the head of the consortium, ought not to have participated in negotiations of this nature, negotiations which may perhaps sully their reputation.

I want therefore to make a strong appeal to the hon. the Minister, as I did yesterday, to give further thought to this matter. After all, it will not eliminate F.V.B. Even if another buyer comes forward with a higher offer, no damage will have been done.

The hon. member who has just sat down has said that the Government will be proving its good faith, its bona fides, by accepting this amendment. Well, I say that the bad faith, the mala fides of the Opposition has been proved by the moving of this amendment.

Nonsense!

The hon. members for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) and East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) spoke of the possibility of obtaining a higher price. But yesterday that side—and particularly the hon. member for East London (City)—were extremely critical of the transaction because they thought that it did not contain sufficient guarantees that certain articles which were today being manufactured at favourable prices to the farming community would continue to be so manufactured in the future. But this aspect is no longer a consideration now as far as hon. members opposite are concerned. Because, Sir, they want a procedure which will lead to the possibility of obtaining a better selling price, and nothing more. Now they are not concerned about any provisos. [Interjections.] They are concerned now about the fact that a better price may be obtained, a price which can be paid by another company but which may possibly lead to the establishment of a complete monopoly in the chemical industry in South Africa. They are not worried about this fact. As long as a better price can be obtained, they are satisfied. Nor did they ask for a proviso in regard to the sale of K.O.P. to foreign interests. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) made an open appeal yesterday for its sale even to a foreign organization, provided the price was right. They make no provisos at all. This amendment is nothing less than an attempt once again to carry on a debate against F.V.B. What actually is this measure? Mr. Chairman, this measure establishes machinery by means of which K.O.P. can be sold. This Bill has nothing to do with the merits of sale. It has nothing to do with the purpose of the sale. The merits and nature of the transaction were drawn into this debate as a result of the revelations of the hon. the Minister who introduced this Bill. He informed the House in regard to what had preceded and the motives behind this measure. Actually, it was gratuitous, that is to say, voluntary, additional information which the hon. the Minister provided. The information which he gave us here was well-meant, comprehensive information.

In Clause 1 (a)—in respect of which this amendment has been moved—it is simply provided that any group of persons may form a new company together with the board of directors of K.O.P. They can reach agreement with the directors to establish a new company. But now we have a former Auditor-General coming forward with this wise amendment and saying that the agreement to establish a new company can only be given effect to after tenders have been called for for the sale of shares in the Southern Transvaal, that is to say, in the Johannesburg newspapers. What a childish requirement! Because, Sir, the directors of K.O.P. can simply throw the tenders of extremely interested parties in the waste-paper basket! They would then have complied with the requirements set out in the amendment. According to the amendment they need take no notice of the tenders. Their duty has been done once they have called for tenders! They will be private tenders and this House and the public will never have to know what those tenders contain. That is why I say that this amendment is simply a senseless effort at paving the way for discussion. And the aim of to-day’s discussion—just as was the case yesterday—is to pass criticism, to arouse suspicion and to indicate disapproval because the transaction has been concluded with F.V.B. and riot with another organization.

I have no desire to discuss the motives of hon. members opposite, and I do not think it serves a good purpose for them to discuss our motives. I wish to deal with the arguments put forward. As far as the hon. member for Kempton Park is concerned, there is only one point in the argument of this hon. member that I should like to mention, namely his reference to agricultural interests. Well, on this point we agree with the hon. the Minister. When the hon. the Minister introduced the second reading of the Bill he told the House that one of the conditions attached to a take-over was the protection of the interests of the agricultural sector. Because there is no difference of opinion as far as this aspect is concerned, I do not think anything further need be said.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) speaks with some authority in the councils of the party on that side, and I take his arguments more seriously. The hon. member spoke about an agreement between the directors and the shareholders. Well, who are the directors, Sir? They are gentlemen nominated by the hon. the Minister. And who are the shareholders? They are represented by the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister is in effect both the directors and the shareholders. He represents everybody. There is no question about that. But that does not trouble us. Now, suppose a consortium were to come along and satisfy the Minister that they would offer not only R5,600,000 or R7,000,000 but as much as R8,000,000 or even R10,000,000, and they satisfied the conditions imposed by the Minister, what objection could there be against accepting their offer?

They do not like that.

No, I do not say that. But that is the argument put forward by the hon. member. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) said that valuations have been obtained. But surely other organizations can also make valuations? Why, Mr. Chairman, I am sure that all great financial organizations in the country already have valuations. They know the value of any other enterprise in the Republic. It is their business to know.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) also told us that for as long as 20 years we have all known that K.O.P. has been in the market, that it has been the policy of the Government to dispose of it. But the hon. member did not think so six years ago. This is what the hon. member said in this House when we discussed K.O.P. as recently as 1959. I quote from Hansard Vol. 100 Col. 2870—

Order! That is a question on which a decision was taken yesterday when the Bill was read a second time.

I agree, Mr. Chairman, but what I am referring to now, what I wish to illustrate now, is the inconsistency of the argument advanced by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central). If the member is so inconsistent, how then can we rely on his financial arguments? Why, Mr. Chairman, there is no substance whatever in the opposition by that side of the House to this straightforward amendment.

I want to deal with some of the points made by the hon. member for Kempton Park. He referred to the conditions of sale. Now, this quite obviously is a matter for the hon. the Minister. The procedure to be adopted has to be decided on by the hon. the Minister. He is the person who will sanction the sale and if he felt that the procedure to be followed as suggested by this side of the House would result in an unsatisfactory state of affairs, the consequences would not rest on this side of the House but would rest on the hon. the Minister who, of course, has the final say in the matter.

It was quite clear to me that the hon. member realizes that the case put forward by this side is completely unanswerable. The hon. member was not able to advance a single worthwhile argument—nor, for that matter, was the hon. member for Pretoria (Central)— why this tremendous asset should be disposed of in this way instead of being sold to the highest tenderer. One of the hon. members referred to the fact that there have been two valuations made by the auditors. Well, in other take-overs valuations were also made by both the auditors and the directors, and it transpired that the valuations were hopelessly too low when it became common knowledge to the public and a circle of organizations that a particular concern was in the market. Keen competition among various prospective buyers was experienced.

I am convinced, Mr. Chairman, that exactly the same thing would happen in this instance. If, however, competition did not come up to expectations and only one tender was received, no harm whatsoever would have been done. The debate which has taken place up to now has indicated very clearly to my mind what a sound case we have for asking the hon. the Minister to accept the amendment. I can only say that while listening to the speech by the hon. member for Kempton Park I could not help thinking of the old phrase, “My friend, thou doth protesteth too much.”

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. the Minister wants to do the right thing, he will accept this amendment. Because, even if no further offer is received, this House will then be completely satisfied that it has discharged its trust towards the people who sent us here. But if the amendment is not accepted, then, in my view, we are not fulfilling properly the responsibilities which rest upon us.

I move the amendment standing in my name, namely—

Unless there is competition in the purchase, this deal cannot be in the best interests of the State. Surely it is the duty of the hon. the Minister to see that the deal goes through in the best interests of the State? I am afraid I am not liable to accept that in the past other people have been not interested to any great extent. Because, Mr. Chairman, the profits of K.O.P. in past years did not really warrant deep interest. It is only over the past four years that the profits have increased, and if the Minister is determined to do this deal in the best interests of the State, then he must take into account the profits of this organization when dealing with people, and he must secure competition. For, Sir, unless the hon. the Minister invokes competition, he cannot be acting in the best interests of the State. The figures of K.O.P. are self-explanatory. I mentioned them yesterday, but because they are pertinent to this amendment I shall repeat them. In 1959-60 the sales were to the value of R3,963,000, in 1963-4 they were R6,117,000, and yesterday the hon. the Minister told me that the estimates in respect of the current year were in the neighbourhood of R6,000,000, a figure approximately the same as last year’s figure. The profits are estimated to be about R500,000, which is also the same as last year. It simply means, Sir, that this business is experiencing a slowing down for the moment. Any concern interested in purchasing a business such as this regards the figures and profits as being of far more importance than the valuations of which so much great play has been made. The history of this business over the past four or five years is exactly the same as the history of every other successful business in the country. The profits were very low during the years 1959-62, and then the graph rose, and according to expectations it will continue to rise. I repeat that the first consideration of any person interested in the purchase of this business would be the profit graph of the company. The valuations of which so much great play has been made would only be a secondary consideration. Naturally, if the intrinsic value of the assets is worth something in the neighbourhood of the purchase price fixed by the hon. the Minister, that would be a selling point. But it would be no more than a selling point

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion I wish to say that all this talk about not being able to get other people to tender for this business for the reason that too much dislocation would take place in this company’s offices if all the information and data required prior to offers being made had to be unearthed, is just so much eye-wash. The interested parties require nothing more than the information which was given to Federale Volksbeleggings. If the hon. the Minister is not prepared to furnish other interested bodies with the same information as was given to F.V.B., then I say he is not acting in the best interests of the State.

Hon. members opposite are overlooking a very important condition of the negotiations. This condition is one of the most vital importance. The question of a higher price and the question of the marketing of the particular articles to the farming community at a low price are two matters which are complementary to one another. As I understand the agreement, as it was explained here by the hon. the Minister, it amounts to this that before the group taking over K.O.P. can increase the price of any article, an article needed by agriculture, they have first to prove that they are not obtaining a satisfactory return on their investment.

Order! Yes, but there is nothing in this clause in that regard.

Not in the clause, Mr. Chairman, but in the agreement as it has been explained to us.

Order! The agreement is not under discussion now but the clause is.

I just wanted to point out that where prices have to be increased, this will be done because these people want to make their investments profitable. This increase will then be recovered from the farming community. It is this point which hon. members opposite overlook.

There is a cardinal difference between the position as it was in 59 and as it is to-day. The hon. member quoted from what I had said about the matter in 959. Since that time a completely different constellation of chemical industries has come into being, industries on a very large scale or not at all. Here too we have friction with private enterprise which states that the Government must keep out of the matter. This has resulted in the fact that earlier ideas in regard to the matter, the idea of a limited industry supplying limited requirements, is no longer of application. In its stead has come the necessity for an undertaking on a large scale in which one will be able to compete with private enterprise—something which private enterprise does not want. The Opposition do not want it either. The alternative is to transfer the undertaking to private enterprise so that it can carry on the competition.

Mr. Chairman . . .

Order! Before calling upon the hon. member I want to ask hon. members to advance fresh arguments.

The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) alleged that yesterday we were concerned about protecting agriculture and that to-day we are not concerned in this regard. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) also advanced the argument that there would not be the same protection as there was in the existing agreement. But these two hon. members know just as well as I that if the hon. the Minister calls for tenders in the Gazette and other publications for the sale of K.O.P., in terms of this amendment, and says that the conditions connected with this matter can be obtained from his Department, then all the patents and licences will be defined in the tender documents and the same conditions in regard to price protection can also be included. I cannot understand the argument that if one calls for tenders one is adopting a new approach. I repeat . . .

The hon. member must not repeat.

Then let me put it in this way, that whether it is F.V.B. or Volkskas or whoever may be included in the consortium— I wish hon. members would stop insinuating that this side of the House does not want the Government to sell to the consortium. We are simply seeking to indemnify the Government against criticism . . .

Order! That argument has been used repeatedly.

I do not intend to protract the discussion, but I rise to support the amendment of the hon. member for Benoni, because it is a necessary adjunct to the proviso which I myself moved. It rounds off the businesslike way of dealing with a proposition like this. [Interjection.] But it also disposes of the argument of the hon. member for Kempton Park, who said that we are concerned only with a better price and not with a better deal. If he had studied the brief a little further he would have realized that it is part of the arrangement by which you call for tenders and then, having called for tenders, you do not throw them into the wastepaper basket but deal with them and select the one that is to the best advantage of the State. But I just want to deal with the hon. member for Pretoria (Central), who said that it showed no confidence in the directors. That is an absurd argument because in the first place the directors of K.O.P. have done nothing yet.

I said that the Cabinet was the directors.

Then I have nothing further to say. That is what we are here for, to cast light on the activities of the Cabinet. So it is quite obvious that the two amendments are essential.

It will not come as a surprise to the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) if I say that I cannot accept his amendment because it is in conflict with what we intend doing. Apart from the negotiations which have been conducted up to the present there is also the simple fact which I emphasized yesterday— that I do not believe that an undertaking of this nature can be sold by tender. Sales by tender have a certain value when one sells a farm or a piece of machinery but when one sells a large and involved scientific undertaking which is very comprehensive and which involves many ramifications I simply cannot see how one can sell it by tender. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) spoke of the “businesslike way”, but I have never seen a large business of this nature being advertised or being put out for tender. I have seen this in the case of small shops, but not in regard to a business of this kind. I cannot imagine that we should make it known and that anybody should be allowed to analyse the business down to its finest details and obtain secret information which he may perhaps be able to use as a competitor to K.O.P., and then say later that he is not interested in buying the undertaking. The hon. member says that this is a weak argument, but it took our valuators three months to make the valuation. These are not things which one can simply value on sight. It is a great complex in which everything must be valued in relation to its use. Must we give everyone three months in which to investigate it? This will take months and even years and by the time the third person is starting, the first one may perhaps have lost interest. It is impossible to give everyone an opportunity to investigate the undertaking for three months. That is not being businesslike.

Will the hon. the Minister tell us what else K.O.P. has to sell besides its stocks and premises?

There is also very involved technical machinery in this plant. The valuator tells me, for example, that he saw a pot there which he thought cost R7 and then he discovered that it cost R7,000! There are technical formulae, involved processes and formulae, contracts, agreements and a large variety of invisible assets which cannot be valued on sight. The hon. member is quite wrong when he says that one can set out all the assets on a tender document. This is a producing business and not a dead asset which is only being sold for its scrap value. It is out of the question to set out everything on a tender document. If we had had any doubts in regard to the price we would not have followed this procedure. We are the ones who have always been jealous of K.O.P. We did not want to sell it. Do hon. members think that we will give K.O.P. away at any price? We will not sell it at the first price offered for it. We are only going to sell it after having had a proper valuation made by independent valuators. Then we can fix the price. The hon. member for Benoni spoke about the good profits, namely, R500,000. These, of course, are profits before taxation. When the hon. member de ducts the tax and works out what return an investor receives upon his money, plus the risk involved, he will find that the buyer cannot pay a very much higher price for this undertaking. He has also to take the taxation aspect into consideration. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) is always speaking about the prerogative of Parliament. I cannot see what this has to do with the matter. If I accept this amendment and we call for tenders, what then becomes of the prerogative of Parliament? On what basis must we accept tenders? Must we accept the highest tender? We can then accept the same tender as the one we wanted to accept in the first place. How binding is this on us? But we are not content to sell K.O.P. to anyone at the highest price. There are certain qualifications which we prescribe. Hon. members did not tell us whether we should sell this undertaking to the highest tenderer. The hon. member for Benoni said that we should give the same information to everyone, the information which we gave to F.V.B., but F.V.B. investigated the matter and we had valuators there for three months. If we give other people the same right, must they also be permitted to stay there for three months and longer in order to discover everything?

I come now to the proposal of the hon. member for Benoni. I cannot accept this either at this stage. In the first place there is the insinuation that the State will not sell it in the best interests of the State. It is, of course, obvious that the Government will sell such an undertaking in the best interests of the State. I have already said that we are jealous of K.O.P. and we shall not sell it unless we feel that this is in the best interests of the State. But there is another uncertainty in the amendment of the hon. member. What does he mean by “to the greatest advantage” of the State? Does he mean the greatest financial advantage, the greatest social advantage or the greatest political advantage? This has so many meanings that I do not know which one he means. It is so ambiguous as to be valueless. But I am prepared to say this to the hon. member. If I have to give an opinion I shall say no. but I shall go into the matter and consult the law advisers, and, if necessary, I shall effect an amendment at a later stage in the Other Place. But at this stage the amendment moved by the hon. member means nothing to me and therefore I cannot accept it.

The Minister in his reply has shown the strength of the case put up by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South). He has been quite unable to answer the points raised. The Minister appears to over look that the real owners of K.O.P. are the citizens of South Africa, and the Government and this House are their trustees. So I have no hesitation in saying that as far as K.O.P. is concerned subject to the conditions which apply to it because of its history and the fact that it is an organization which is essentially in the interests of the farmers, and therefore of this country—taking all those facts into account, here is the case of the sale of an asset. What the amendment is designed to achieve is that in the sale of that asset the highest price should be obtained.

Order! The hon. member has made that point three times already

In regard to the conditions, those are entirely in the hands of the Minister. Therefore there could be no damage to the public in seeking to obtain the highest price. I am convinced that because of the great potentialities of this industry, this is not the way it should be disposed of and that the amendment should be accepted.

Just a word about what the Minister has said. The Minister can create conditions if he is going to advertise this. It is all in his hands. The other point is this: If others cannot get all the information F.V.B. have, how can they tender? Then the Minister is in a stronger position. If they cannot spend three months making valuations, why not let them tender if they are prepared to take that risk? Why worry about them? The Minister is a seller, not a buyer. The Minister seems to act as the agent for both sides, and that is quite irregular. He must act for one side, as the seller, and as a seller he must get the best conditions and the best buyer.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Plewman put and the Committee divided:

AYES—47: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.: Bennett, C.; Cadman, R. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Hope-well, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.: Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and N. G. Eaton.

NOES—79: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker. M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Jager, P. R.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, J. M.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Faurie, W. H.; Fouché, J. J.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Henning, J. M.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Odell, H. G. O.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.: van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke. J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and H. J. van Wyk.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Ross put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

AYES —80: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Jager, P. R.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, J. M.; Diederichs, N.: Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Faurie, W. H.; Fouché, J. J.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Henning, J. M.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; le Roux. P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Martins. H. E.: Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder. C. P.: Muller. H.: Muller, S. L.: Nel, J. A. F.: Nel, M. D. C. de W.: Odell. H. G. O.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. W.: Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.: Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.: Schoeman. B. J.: Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.: Serfontein, J. J.: Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.: Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.: van den Berg. G. P.: van den Bere. M. J.; van ^u Heever, D. J. G.: van der Ahee, H. H.: van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Rensburg, M: G. Gi J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F;; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter, and H. J. van Wyk.

NOES—46: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Cadman, R. M.: de Kock, H. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.: Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.: Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; Van der Byl, P.; Van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.;

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst, and N. G. Eaton.

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I should like some information from the hon. the Minister about the redemption of these debentures. The debentures are to-day guaranteed by the Government. When this new company that they have in view takes over Klipfontein, what will be the position in regard to the debentures? The company to-day cannot redeem the debentures at par or at any other price, unless it is agreed upon. The present position is that in 1970 they can pay out the debentures as a premium of 24 per cent, in 1971 at 2 per cent, in 1972 at 14 and so on, in 1974 at 4 per cent, and then, of course, in 1975 at par. What is the position now if the company takes over these debentures? Will the Government still guarantee them? If not, what arrangement will be reached between the Government and the consortium when they take over the company? Supposing the 7 per cent or 74 per cent that debenture holders suggest they should receive is not acceptable to the new consortium, what is the position then? I am asking these questions not because I wish to move an amendment or anything of that kind, but to get information from the Minister on the framework of the new company.

I cannot speak for the new company and say how they are going to arrange their affairs. I can only say that with the sale, all the State’s obligations fall away. We shall have to see to it, before the deal goes through, that suitable arrangements are made for the debentures to be taken over by the purchasing company. They will take over the whole of this obligation; they will give the necessary guarantee. The Government cannot give any guarantee. The deal cannot go through until such time as we know that this matter has been settled between the buyers and the debenture holders.

They must be satisfied before the deal goes through?

Yes.

Clause put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a third time.

We on this side of the House give this Bill our blessing at its third reading. During the course of the second-reading debate we put forward various suggestions and also moved various amendments in the Committee Stage. Sir, this Bill deals with the everyday lives of large numbers of people who are affected by the functions of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and by the functions of the National Welfare Board. The Bill also affects many persons who, in terms of the new provisions of this Bill, can become registered social workers. Sir, this Bill has been discussed in a constructive manner and I would like to express our appreciation to the hon. the Minister for having accepted various amendments that we moved in the course of the Committee Stage. We believe that these amendments will have the effect of improving the Bill. We believe that as the Bill now reads, as amended in the Committee Stage, it is an improvement on the Bill as originally introduced at the second reading.

It is obvious that this type of legislation requires the co-operation of all persons who are interested in the welfare of our people and in improving the existing machinery as far as our welfare services are concerned. The National Welfare Board, which has been reconstituted in terms of this Bill, is, we believe an improvement on the previous National Welfare Board. This Board should be able to give the Minister invaluable advice with regard to various aspects and various facets of welfare work. The board has been reduced in size. but at the same time we believe that the delegation of powers from the Minister and the board itself to four commissions which will specialize in certain aspects of welfare work, will result in a better coverage and in more specialized advice being made available to the hon. the Minister in formulating his policy concerning welfare matters. We believe that the establishment of these four commissions is a major step forward in providing more effective means of research and more effective means of co-ordinating our welfare services. In the past it has been found that there are numbers of welfare organizations with similar aims. In terms of this Bill there will now be better co-ordination and they will be able to receive the necessary guidance from the regional board. They will also be able to receive additional guidance now from the various commissions which are to be appointed. It would appear that the proposed functions of these commissions might lead to a certain degree of overlapping. I believe that the Minister and the board could perhaps obviate that overlapping and waste of energy through the delegation of specific powers and functions to the commission. It would appear that overlapping could be eliminated by giving careful consideration to the specific functions of the various commissions, and by using discretion in laying down what their duties will be. Sir, the persons who will serve on these boards and commissions and also on the regional boards will naturally deserve every possible support from this House. They are invariably persons who devote their energies on a voluntary basis to the promotion of the welfare of people of all races in South Africa. I think it is fitting to express the hope here that the Minister will exercise his discretion carefully and that he will realize the immense responsibility that will rest on his shoulders when he considers the large number of names that will be forthcoming in terms of Section 15 of this Bill, the persons who will be nominated by the various welfare organizations for appointment to the regional boards, to the commissions, and to the main National Welfare Board.

Another important forward step that is being taken in this Bill is to give recognition to social workers as a profession. The large majority of the social workers are desirous of having their profession recognized as such, and this Bill takes the first step towards granting recognition to social workers as a profession. They will now be able to attain the professional status that they desire and that they deserve. Sir, there are certain reservations with regard to the method to be adopted in connection with the registration of social workers. It is felt that it is imperative that the correct course should be set in the initial stages so as to enable these people at a later stage to attain full professional status, with a separate act of their own. However, the provisions of the Bill have been approved in the Committee Stage and the social work commission will now have a greater say as far as the registration of social workers is concerned and with regard to the question of disciplinary action that might have to be taken against certain social workers. The fact that the social workers themselves will have a majority on the social work commission should be a guarantee to the social workers that their interests, their destinies and their future will be in the hands of persons who are registered social workers themselves. The regulations which are to be made in terms of Clause 42 of this Bill cover a very wide field indeed. They will cover virtually every aspect of matters pertaining to social workers as well as other matters of importance. It is hoped, Sir, that the establishment of a social work commission will result in the social workers themselves being able to evolve their own code of ethics and to develop to full professional status eventually. There are perhaps certain social workers who felt that the profession was not yet ready to take this step, but I believe that the vast majority of the social workers are very pleased that in terms of this Bill they will be able to gain professional status. This is a profession which is still in its infancy, and we hope that it will develop and attain the full professional status which should be its ultimate destiny.

I want to say just a few words with regard to Clause 34. We on this side doubted the wisdom of incorporating this clause in this Bill. However, perhaps the hon. the Minister, before this Bill goes to the Other Place, will have an opportunity of giving further consideration to the pleas made from this side of the House and to the doubts expressed by us concerning the provisions of Clause 34.

Sir, with these few words we on this side of the House are pleased to give our support to the provisions of this Bill at the third reading. We believe that we should adopt an optimistic outlook with regard to the provisions and the effects of this Bill. We believe that in this Bill we are taking a big stride forward in the field of social work. We believe that this Bill recognizes the developments and advances which have taken place in the field of social science, and we believe that the passing of this Bill will result in a modern approach towards social work and that it will result in the latest methods being utilized by the hon. the Minister in formulating policy as far as welfare matters are concerned. We believe that the National Welfare Board will be in a position to advise the Minister comprehensively on almost every aspect of social welfare work. We therefore support the third reading; we wish this Bill well and we hope that the hon. the Minister will receive the co-operation of everybody to ensure the successful implementation of this Bill; in other words, the cooperation of the universities, the social workers themselves and the many thousands of voluntary workers who are interested in social welfare work in South Africa and who wish to see South Africa maintain its lead in the field of welfare work.

I regret that I am unable to share the optimism of the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield). My attitude at the third reading of this Bill is unchanged and I shall have to vote against it, just as I found it necessary to move an amendment and to vote against this Bill at the second reading. Some improvements have been introduced during the Committee Stage but to my way of thinking they are not of such importance as to justify any change in my attitude. Sir, this Bill is the first major legislative change in the organization of social welfare matters since the original Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1947. One would have thought, therefore, that the Government would have taken the opportunity, since it was embarking on amendments of a far-reaching nature, to have framed those amendments in such a way as to have been in keeping with modern practice throughout the Western world in the field of social welfare. That has not been the case. Furthermore, the hon. the Minister has assured the House that the Bill is generally welcomed. We do know, however, that he has received objections and appeals from organizations, universities and groups of social workers throughout South Africa. The executive committee, for instance, of the Social Workers’ Association was by no means unanimous in its acceptance of this Bill. There are major weaknesses in the Bill which, as far as I am concerned, give rise to valid misgivings about the effects that this Bill is going to have in the field of social welfare in future.

Firstly, I want to mention that the Bill is a clumsy attempt to try to legislate for the entire field of social welfare services as well as the profession of social work under the umbrella of Government-appointed bodies. I maintain now as I maintained originally that the attempt should never have been made to incorporate these two specific fields of work under one umbrella, under one legislative measure. There should have been two separate Bills introduced by the Government, one a national social welfare Bill, which could have dealt with the registration of welfare organizations, the setting up of committees to carry on specific research projects and these of experts as specialists in their fields to advise the Minister in all fields of social welfare and all fields requiring specialized study; and then there should have been a Social Work Bill, which would have regulated the conditions for the professional social workers which would have assisted them in developing towards proper professional status. I maintain that registration in any case should have been delayed until the professional social workers themselves have worked out a proper code of ethics, which is not an easy thing to do at the best of times.

The first part of this Bill which deals with social welfare at regional and national levels, is framed in such a way that it sets up a system of regional welfare boards acting in fact as branches of a national welfare board, with four separate commissions in the place of the traditional executive committee and sub-committees. I maintain that this structure is linked by only the frailest of links, that is to say, a member of each of the regional boards to serve on the national board, and that in turn is linked with the four separate commissions only via the chairmen of these commissions who are members of the national board. I maintain, furthermore, that the composition of these boards is open to strong criticism in view of the lack of statutory provisions for elected representation by the basic pillars of the traditional social welfare structure. I proposed of course in amendments which were rejected, that the boards should be largely elected. That was turned down. One would have thought therefore that at least some provision would have been made for some of the representatives to be elected but, no, the Minister goes the whole hog; all the appointments have to be made by the Minister. No happy compromise could be reached in this regard except, of course, as far as the appointment of the social work commission is concerned where members are also appointed but where the registered professional social workers have a majority of four to three. No statutory provision has been made for elected representation from the basic pillars of our traditional social welfare structure, which is, of course, the Department of Social Welfare together with the national welfare organizations, the huge organizations which have been responsible for carrying out welfare work in all the major fields in South Africa, together with the people responsible for the teaching of sociology and social work, i.e. our large universities with their big departments of sociology and social work and, fourthly, the professional people concerned, that is to say, the professional social workers. As I say, no statutory provision has been made for elected representation from these pillars of social welfare.

Furthermore, if one examines the actual functions which these bodies are to perform, one sees th^t there is great over-lapping with the functions of existing bodies and once again an undermining of the work which has been done in the past by the Department itself and the national welfare organizations, the professional social workers and the universities’ teaching profession. Sir, that is as far as the first part of this Bill is concerned. Clauses 1 to 32. The second part of the Bill from Clause 33 onwards, I say, should have been embodied in a separate Bill. I maintain that the second part of the Bill will make social work in South Africa by professional social workers an object of scorn throughout the social work profession in the rest of the world. Here I want to quote from a document issued by the National Association of Social workers of America. which has the most advanced professional body of people engaged in social work training and practice. This American Association says—

In this Bill the hon. the Minister seeks to achieve exactly the opposite; he seeks to control the profession and to direct them in their professional practice. The rush with which this legislation has been pushed has resulted, I maintain in glaring defects in the provisions as they stand. There is no clear definition of “social worker”; there are no qualifications for registration that are properly defined; there is no existing code of ethics; there is no clarity as to what will constitute misconduct and there is a five-year delay in the implementation of certain provisions in view of the chaos which I believe will be infused into the profession by any earlier implementation. In itself this is surely proof that this is all being introduced far too soon; we are not ready for it. Let us first have a code of ethics and let us then introduce registration. By leaving all these issues unresolved the Minister has created a complicated situation for those who have to implement the provisions of this Bill, and I do not believe that this legislation will accelerate professional development at all. I believe that the traditional social welfare structure as it stood was functioning well. It certainly could have been improved upon. It needed more assistance from the Government and the Minister’s Department. The social workers themselves as a profession needed assistance in organizing themselves. They have been asking for a professional paid secretary to be provided by the Department for a long time. All sorts of improvements could have been introduced in this measure under the traditional system. Sir, I am not one who always holds with tradition. I have often said that this is a much abused word. “Tradition” in South Africa is very often used simply to excuse the fact that the country does not keep up with the necessary changes that should be introduced to measure up to a modern system, be it changes in society generally or changes in specific attitudes. We always fall back on this old word “tradition”. But there are times when the well-worn practices have shown themselves to be adequate and where it is not necessary to change the basic structure.

You mean to suit you.

No, not to suit me. The basic framework of social welfare work in this country has been good; it has needed bolstering up; it has needed improvement; it has needed more money spent on it.

Order! I would prefer the hon. member to deal with the Bill as it stands.

What I am saying is that I do not believe that such radical changes from the existing structure of the basic pillars of the framework were necessary. The basic pillars of the framework should be the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions itself together with any other State Department charged with social care—and in this country, of course, we have it on racial divisions. The Department of Coloured Affairs, the Department of Indian Affairs and the Department of Bantu Administration and Development are charged with social care for their specific racial communities. The other pillar, of course, was organized private initiative, represented by voluntary welfare organization which has always been organized on provincial and national levels. Then, Sir, we have had the training centres at the universities in particular which have provided this country with graduates with professional qualifications to staff both the State and the voluntary services, and finally we have had the Association of Social Workers, a body of persons concerned with the ethics of the profession, with the standards of training, and the practice and improvement of services generally. These are all solid pillars, and I see no reason why they should be completely destroyed and a new complicated and not necessarily efficient structure set up. I believe that the hon. the Minister has weakened the structure; he has delivered a blow at all four of these pillars, including his own Department, because he has transferred some of the legitimate functions of the Department of Social Welfare to the commission. By refusing statutory representation to any of the welfare organizations, the large national welfare organizations, on the national board, he has delivered a blow to those organizations.

He has interfered with the principle of academic freedom by the introduction of Clause 34. There is no question about it, he has delivered a blow at the teaching centres of social workers by the introduction of a clause which tells the universities who they may or may not employ in the teaching of social workers who hope to be placed on the professional register. And, finally, the Minister has deprived the social work profession of all autonomy which, I believe, is the right of every recognized profession. He has done so knowing full well that, because of the subsidies paid by the Government to organizations employing social workers, social workers have, in many cases, not been free to voice their protest against the Bill as it has been introduced.

For all these reasons I believe that the hon. the Minister or his successor is going to inherit, with this Bill, a packet of trouble in social welfare and social welfare work in South Africa. I don’t believe that the way has been laid open to this wonderful rosy future for social work as optimistically envisaged by the hon. member for Umbilo.

It is better than your pessimism.

You do not share my pessimism, and only time will show which of us is right, so we shall have to wait for that.

When you are dealing with people is it not better to have an optimistic approach?

It depends on which people you are dealing with, Sir. I am afraid that hon. member seldom raises me to optimistic levels.

In the Government’s desire for control, I think, they have made a mess of legislation which was no doubt intended for the good of the people. Here again, of course, one might very well be at variance with the Government in what it believes to be for the good of the people and what I believe to be for the good of the people. I see, in this Bill, considerable danger that in future social work in South Africa—this is perhaps the crux of my objection—will be carried out increasingly on the basis of apartheid. I do not mean in the racial field please. The hon. member for Turffontein need not look so puzzled; I am going to explain it very carefully, syllable by syllable, in the simplest language, so that even he will understand it. I do not mean apartheid as between the racial groups only but even as among the White group. I see in this Bill considerable danger that there will be increasing separation within the White group itself on the basis of religious denominations and language in the practise of social welfare work in South frica. I consider that that is not for the good of the people. I consider it would be far better if the old structure of running social work generally had been carried out on the basis of the original four pillars. For that reason I shall oppose the third reading of this Bill.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) has said that she cannot share our optimism in connection with this Bill and that she is completely pessimistic in regard to what this Bill will eventually mean to social welfare in South Africa. During the Committee Stage and the Third Reading Stare we have been able to form an opinion of the attitude adopted by the hon. member. We have not been able to convince her and if we want to do so at this stage, Mr. Speaker, we shall have to set aside at least a week for this purpose and even then I wonder whether we shall be able to make the hon. member change her mind.

I think that the basic mistake made by the hon. member for Houghton is that she thinks that we are destroying the whole structure of social work in South Africa by means of this Bill and are coming forward with something entirely new. That attitude is quite wrong. The traditional basis of social work in South Africa remains as it is, except that on that basis, as experience has taught us, as shortcomings have arisen over the course of time, as changed circumstances have required, changes have had to be effected. And those improvements we have in this Bill. This Bill does not destroy the existing structure; it improves more strongly upon the existing structure. We are engaged in doing this and the hon. member for Houghton cannot appreciate this fact. For example, the hon. member made the statement that by means of this Bill we shall not only bring about apartheid in respect of our social services among the various races but also within the White group on a language and religious basis. The hon. member has still to tell me how she arrived at that conclusion because I have not been able to deduce it from her reasoning thus far. It is nowhere in the Bill. If there is one sphere where the various language and religious groups among the Whites do co-operate with one another it is in the sphere of social work. I believe that this Bill will bring the various groups even closer together in respect of this vitally important field in which we can cooperate, but she now contends that here too we are going to be forced further apart. As I proceed, I may perhaps discuss a few further matters raised by the hon. member.

I contend that this Bill opens a number of new spheres for us within the existing framework, as I have just said, spheres which were not previously left fallow but spheres to which we can give very much more attention. As I have said, the shortcomings are being overcome and we are better able to adjust ourselves to the changed times and conditions. The changes which we are effecting here will be of great advantage to us in various respects. Take the board with its new composition. It is a board which has to advise the Minister. How much better off will the hon. the Minister not be with this new board because it will now be constituted of experts who will be able to advise him? He will be better served by the new board than by the old board—the old board which did very good work but which was perhaps unwieldy as far as its composition was concerned and which did not perhaps have the necessary balance. This is a smaller body with excellent expert members, people who are going to bring about a balance between regional boards, the Department, training institutions, the National Board and the organizations doing voluntary welfare work. Then there is the great assistance which the hon. the Minister will give the Department as such.

What is more, the board is now being relieved of a great volume of work in connection with the registration of welfare organizations. The people who previously had to wade through the applications for registration by about 2,000 welfare organizations will now be able to do their planning together with the commissions which are to be appointed. We are now putting this purely administrative work in the hands of a commission and the board itself can now act as the advisory body to the hon. the Minister and, through him, to the Department.

I do not want to mention once again the activities of the board as set out in the Bill but what we are striving to achieve by this means is praiseworthy indeed. We would not have been able to achieve one of those aims and purposes if we had not drawn up this Bill in the form in which it has been drawn up.

The commissions are, I think, a fundamental part of this Bill. The fear has been expressed that there may possibly be overlapping, but I believe that as the commissions proceed with their work, they will be able to sort out their own fields of operation. Each one will make its own way forward. The necessary liaison will be there because these are not matters which one can separate into watertight compartments. But I do not think that we need be afraid that they will overlap one another and do each other’s work. As they learn by experience, each one will begin to follow its own course and direction and find out where the necessary liaison should take place.

Besides this there are also the welfare workers as such. We are now establishing a registration body for these people. The hon. member for Houghton has said that we are making a great mistake in this Bill in wanting to bring social work and the professional group under one umbrella. It seems to me that the hon. member is content that nothing should be done and that should we not get these people to do something for themselves. I believe that if at this stage they are not prepared or able to organize themselves and to establish a registration body for themselves, it is our task to establish it for them or, at least, to establish the nucleus of such an organization for them. If it becomes necessary later, as the hon. the Minister himself has admitted, we will be able to leave this matter in their hands if this is what they want generally. But a start has to be made somewhere. They cannot make that start at this stage and we are making that start for them by means of this legislation.

The hon. member also said that no code of ethics has as yet been laid down. I do not think that one can draw up a code of ethics on paper in advance and say that people have to act according to that code of ethics. The code of ethics will actually develop in practice as these people get under way in their various spheres. They will then start drawing up their code of ethics piece by piece. The code of ethics will be laid down as they learn by experience. I do not share the pessimism of the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member actually acted the prophet by predicting that we were going to break down everything that we have brought into being in South Africa up to the present in respect of welfare work. If I may also be allowed to act the prophet too I should like to predict just the opposite—that we are going to adhere to the same structure, that we are simply making this structure stronger, that we are eliminating the shortcomings and that by means of this Bill we are taking a great stride forward in respect of social work in South Africa. We are taking a great step forward in respect of the professional status of the people who are doing this work for us, and because of this fact this group of people will also have an elevated status in the eyes of the public. This Bill has my every blessing and I want to wish the hon. the Minister and the Department every success with it.

I cannot share the gloomy outlook of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). I do not think that this Bill will necessarily lead to the deterioration of social welfare work in this country, nor will it ruin the growing group of professional social welfare workers. But it does contain within it the germs of catastrophe. It is an elaborate structure built on theory, largely. It contains portions in which the Minister is working in, what is to him a new field, I think, i.e. the control of professional workers. It does not altogether appreciate the changing face of the world. It is a Bill which has been built up within the four walls of a room after certain investigations but, unfortunately, much of the advice which I am sure has been tendered by the various organizations and, I hope, also by the universities, has not been given the credit nor the value, in the weighing of what is to be done, which it should have received. To me the Bill seems to be essentially one which has been created in the thoughts of the officials and the Minister themselves. No doubt great consideration has been given to it but it does strike me as being a Bill which works within very narrow limits, a Bill which perpetuates bad practices which run rather throughout most of the work of this Government in that it keeps within the hands of the Department much too much and leaves too little to the citizens who will, I hope, benefit and to the citizens who will attempt to carry out the wishes of the Minister. It contains two grave faults. The first fault is that the Minister has not provided for the rank and file—-for the file rather than the rank. He has failed to appreciate that the voluntary welfare worker is a disappearing creature. Throughout the world generally more and more has to be done by paid workers. In the old days when Marlborough went on his campaigns on the Continent of Europe his troops lived on those countries. They got their food and whatever else they needed from the conquered countries as they went along. The modern army has to march with an enormous baggage train behind it in order to keep it supplied. The conquered countries are no longer able or willing to support it. That is what I fear the hon. Minister is going to find when he comes to carry out this Bill in practice. He will have to come back to the House for power and finance to create an army of small workers who will carry out that which is now being done by the voluntary welfare workers. That group is disappearing. There will always be some good-hearted, hard-working, dedicated people who try to help. But you have only to look at modern youth and the way in which it treats its parents to realize that the social life of the world is changing too rapidly to be dealt with by what is now already an outdated concept.

There is a movement in health to recreate a community service, a service which will take place in the homes of the people, a community service which will not be tied by regulations but a community of workers paid by the State, by the province or by the municipality, but essentially paid from public funds, in order to provide, in the homes of the people, a service to care for the maimed, the sick and the mentally ill. There is an effort throughout the world to maintain family life. I know the hon. the Minister is very interested in family life and I do hope that he will make it his business to co-operate with the Department of Health and try to associate his department more and more closely with the group of paid officials who are developing the service, slowly but surely, in this country. In my own mind, Sir, I have felt for a long time that the true place of social welfare is not with Pensions but with Health. Because it is the doctors and nurses . . .

Order! The hon. member cannot argue that point.

I merely wanted to say, Sir, that it is the doctors and the nurses who meet the people who need welfare work. After all, most of the welfare work has to be searched for. It is here where I think another danger arises in this Bill. The Minister will lose a great deal of this voluntary work and we must remember that the beneficiaries of the Social Welfare Department are largely people who are silent and unable to complain. There are those, of course, who can still write letters or pay their tram fare in order to go to the Social Welfare office. But in general the really needy—by “needy” I mean those needy of social welfare work—are people who are hidden away, people who, because of illness or other disability, are unable to seek assistance. That is the group of which we will not hear: that is the group which will die silently and suffer quietly. This Bill will not find them. That is why I feel, while I do not share the gloom of the hon. member for Houghton, that this is a Bill which could be a ghastly failure.

Bravo!

I do not say that it will be a ghastly failure nor do I hope that it will be a ghastly failure. On the other hand, Sir, I hope the hon. the Minister will listen to what we have tried to tell him from this side of the House and that he will give thought to the constructive efforts we have made to help him to do good to the country and to the people who need it.

One of its other grave defects is in the hon. Minister’s attempt—I would almost say trespass—-to enter the field of education. He manifests, particularly in Clause 34, a grave distrust of the universities. The universities, like the rest of us and like the rest of the world, are changing. In the old days universities were for the privileged few and were essentially places where the humanities were taught, places where people went to learn to be cultured in the old meaning of the word “culture”. But, like everything else, they are changing. They have become largely vocational training centres. One of the latest, if not the latest, departments they are taking up is the department of sociology. This is a new science. If it can be called a science; after all, it calls itself social science, but I will not argue that point. However, it is nevertheless a field in which new ground is being broken. I have no doubt that the hon. Minister’s Department could give a great deal of information, guidance and help to the universities in this field. The Minister has the experienced people but they are experienced within very narrow limits. The universities can be expected to see a much broader field. I think it is in the interests of the Minister’s work, which is, after all, what matters, that he reconsider the attitude which is adopted in Clause 34. This clause does not interfere with the autonomy of the universities, as stated by the hon. member for Houghton, because they are at liberty to teach what they like whether the Minister accepts that teaching or not. But this clause does work against the development and training of a group of people with which the Minister is intimately concerned and into whose hands he is placing himself. By this Bill he is making himself dependent on these workers and I am sure if he met the universities and discussed the matter with them the problem would easily be settled, to the benefit of the needy and of his Department. I hope that he will do this before he goes to the Other Place. I hope he will go to the Other Place with a ready-prepared change to allow the standards to be set by his Department but the fulfilment of those standards, up to what he needs, to be done through the medium of the universities. They are the only people who can do it for him. They are anxious to do it but they cannot be forced to do it in any way of which they disapprove.

Lastly I want to say that I cannot agree either with the hon. member for Houghton on this question that this hon. Minister’s Department should not register the social workers. I think that the group at the moment can only register with the Department because the social workers’ association itself is not prepared to undertake the task. They feel that they do not want to run before they can walk. There again I want to ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider the motion we put before him yesterday. Let him make it ten years, instead of five, if he likes, I do not mind, as long as he provides an end point at which his Department will cease to register these people. If he does not do that the social workers will struggle and battle to obtain a charter, whereas if he says he will stop registering within five or ten years’ time he can meet them. Over the years they will know that they must build up their own organization, an organization which will set standards of education, of organization, of ethics and an organization which will deal with the work which is to be done. Of all the organized organizations that exist in this country and which I hope will continue to exist this is one of the most delicate. This is an organization which takes the man or woman worker into the homes of the people as a trusted agent. No group of people should be asked to have a higher standard of ethics. It is only they who can organize themselves; it is only they who can set the standards; and it is only they who can see to it that those standards are maintained. The sooner the hon. Minister makes up his mind on those points, the point of trusting the universities and the point of trusting the organization, the better chance he will have of doing the work which I know he wishes to do.

We have been debating this Bill for some hours now. One asks oneself whether the present conditions will be improved by this Bill; is there any possibility that, because of this Bill, there will be a better future for welfare work? We have listened to Job’s comforters and also to people who are very enthusiastic about the future planning in regard to this matter. As far as I myself am concerned, generally speaking, I think one must accept the fact that these amendments which are now being effected will result in far better co-operation on the part of all concerned. I do not mean by this that there was no co-operation in the past; on the contrary. But I feel that a far deeper study will be made of the problems. I think that we shall render better service generally to the country. Let me say that this is based on the fact, in the first place, that the National Welfare Board is being constituted on a completely different basis.

While in the past it was a rather unwieldy body which represented various bodies and authorities, it will now become a smaller body of experts in this sphere, a smaller body which will be able to act far more swiftly and efficiently; it will not be a representative body as such but an advisory body to the Minister. I think that this is a very great step forward because this is actually what is required—an expert board which can do research, which can investigate matters and which can come forward with the correct advice. It may be argued that by constituting the board in this way we are detracting from its representative character. I want to point out that although this board will now be mainly advisory, it remains a fact that it will still remain representative to a very large extent. The Bill provides that nine of these board members will come from nine different regional boards, one from each, and this means that these regional boards which are widely scattered over the length and breadth of the country will have representation on the board, and the members will be representative of this whole area.

Another result will be that conferences, for which this Bill makes provision, will certainly be held. Various bodies and authorities will be represented at these conferences and they will air the opinions and the views of the masses. Various matters will be discussed and considered and decisions will be taken. In this way the views of the masses will be conveyed to the National Welfare Board. Those views and desires of the masses will also very definitely become the views and desires of the National Board. A very strongly representative element will come into the picture in this way. More-ever, the Bill makes provision whereby the board will maintain contact with the Department and it will, in this way, remain continually in contact with the policy which will be determined by the hon. the Minister. At the same time close contact will be retained with the universities. That is why I do not share the fear expressed by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford)—that there will be intrusion upon the sphere of education. I do not think that there is any need to be afraid in this regard because there will be continued contact with the universities, and the new developments and trains of thought in that sphere will always be considered.

Furthermore, the prospects for the future look very bright indeed in that provision is being made whereby the board must do research in connection with social work. I think that everyone will agree that research is a very important factor. We are sometimes very much inclined simply to accept what happens and to jump to conclusions and then to seek solutions according to our conclusions. But it is absolutely necessary, if one wants to do something properly, to have research so that one is able to determine the cause, the origin of the problem, and only when this has been ascertained can one start trying to find solutions. Even in the sphere of solutions, research will have to be done in order to make sure that we are working on the correct solution. That is why I say that as a result of this particular clause in the Bill in which the board is compelled to do research, great services will be rendered to the public of South Africa. The board may also delegate its powers, and this will have a particularly good effect in this respect that it will relieve the board of unnecessary routine jobs, minor duties which it has to perform to-day, and it will, therefore, have far more time to study the really important matters, to study policy and in this way to advise the hon. the Minister.

This new step which is being taken in regard to the appointment of commissions is certainly a step in the right direction. It ought to have a particularly benign influence in the sphere of welfare work. To start with, four commissions will be appointed, each with its own specific task. I do not want to go into this matter. These will be commissions which will concentrate upon the study of certain aspects of their spheres of operation and which will do research in this connection, and by means of their reports to the board the hon. the Minister will be given the correct advice. It is undoubtedly true that when we deal with these smaller commissions we find that they can be very much more efficient and can dispose of the work far more swiftly and arrive at certain decisions and conclusions in a very short space of time. In this respect particularly I think that the commission for the registration of welfare workers will play an important role. For the first time our welfare workers will be registered and I think that this is a very good thing because the registration of these people will bring about a feeling of unity—we will have better co-operation, the workers will enjoy a higher status and there will be a better service code. I am sure that it will not be long before all these workers will make use of this opportunity to contribute towards the eventual framing of a proper code of ethics for themselves. Generally speaking, then, I believe that we can be very satisfied with the Bill which the hon. the Minister has introduced into this House. I am convinced that if we will not be so pessimistic but will have a little faith and courage we will find that South Africa will derive great benefit indeed from this legislation.

It is perhaps platitudinous to remark that in dealing with a matter of this nature, a civilized democratic society can be assessed by the degree to which its citizens are prepared to help the one the other, and I think what is set out in this Bill, as it now emerges in its final stage, the structure to deal with our social problems and social work in our country, is in a sense the measure of our society here in South Africa. There may be imperfections in this Bill. I am prepared to grant that. The hon. Minister has met us on certain issues during the Committee Stage, but I agree with the hon. member for Odendaalsrus (Dr. Meyer) and I disagree very much with the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). To take a pessimistic view about a measure of this nature is in a sense ignoring your responsibility to your fellow-citizens in regard to such a wide field of activity, because I think the point that the hon. member for Houghton misses in considering a Bill of this nature is that there is in fact no level of our South African society that this Bill in one way or another does not affect. If that is true, then it should be recognized that what this Bill does in its administrative structure, from the National Welfare Council down, to the regional officers and the appointment of commissions, is that this Bill sets up the machinery which co-ordinates the social work in South Africa which is largely done at the voluntray level, on a voluntary basis. I would not like to hazard a guess, but I think the Minister will agree with me when I say that at least 70 per cent of the social work in South Africa is carried out by the 2,100 odd registered welfare bodies, and this Bill in that sense sets up the machinery to co-ordinate this large degree of voluntary work. If that is so, I cannot understand how any member in this House, and in particular the hon. member for Houghton, can at this final stage of a measure of this nature actually vote against a Bill of this kind, because whatever may be said, this Bill has as its prime objective the control and alleviation in the first instance of suffering, of alleviation of those persons who in our society suffer under some disadvantage, and in the second place also has as its objective the constructive aspect of planning social activities in our South African society for the future. If you look at the Bill in that light, I say again that I do not understand how any member in this House can bring himself or herself to vote actually against this measure.

I want to deal with one or two specific points in the Bill as it is now before us. First of all, the hon. member for Houghton has criticized the structure of the board itself, and she says it is a frail structure, this National Welfare Board, because it is an appointed board, that it operates on the unsure foundation of the regional boards and the commissions that are set up. If I recall correctly, the hon. member said that many of the functions of the National Welfare Board are in fact overlapping functions in the structure that has been set up. I cannot understand how the hon. member can make criticism of that nature, because surely she must be aware of the provisions of the Bill in which the Minister makes his appointees out of nominees of the various welfare societies. The hon. member for Houghton says that she wants an elected body, a body nominated and elected by the welfare societies and bodies that do exist. Surely the hon. member must realize that out of the 2,100 registered welfare bodies there are some very large ones and some very small bodies, all doing very good work in their particular field, and if the elected principle has to apply in the election of regional boards and of the National Welfare Board, it is obvious that many of the smaller societies will receive no representation whatsoever in these regional boards or the National Board, and obviously, under the system and structure that is set up under this Bill, where they are able to present their nominees to the Minister, the Minister will attempt to get the widest possible coverage and will like into consideration surely the interests of the smaller welfare societies in order that they may receive their fair degree of representation on the board. That to me is self-evident. But apart from that, I think we should also realize that our welfare bodies that have existed before, have always been on an elected basis, on the principle of nominees of the Minister to the board.

And she said that the old system was a great success.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

Before the suspension of business, I had made the point that the system of electing the welfare board and regional boards and commissions is supported by us on these benches. We believe that it will give the widest possible representation to the various welfare organizations that exist and that if any system of elected representation was embarked upon as has been suggested by the hon. member for Houghton, it would have the effect of in fact not giving the smaller welfare organizations any form of representation on the board, whereas under the Bill as it now is they will have the right to nominate their members, place these nominees before the Minister and the Minister can exercise his discretion in the appointments to the various boards. We believe that in the interest of achieving the ends of this Bill, the Minister will exercise that discretion in order to give the widest possible representation to the various welfare interests.

I want to deal with one other point and that is the question of the registration of social workers. The hon. member for Houghton has stated her objections to these provisions contained in the Bill as one of the main reasons for opposing this Bill at the third reading. Mr. Speaker, we recognize that this is the first attempt made to achieve registration of social workers in our country, but, Sir, the hon. member for Houghton must surely realize, if she has any knowledge of these matters at all, that the question of the registration of social welfare workers is a question which has agitated the minds of every Government in all the Western group countries and that with very few exceptions in fact the registration of social workers has taken effect by way of legislative action. I am sure the hon. member for Houghton must have a copy of the very report that we have ourselves, and if she would make a fair appraisal of that report, she would see that in a number of Western countries in fact no registration takes place at all, in other instances consideration is given to the type of legislation to give effect to registration and in one or two exceptions legislation does exist for the registration of social workers as such. I am not going to cite the various examples of countries such as Canada. Germany. France, Australia. Great Britain and the United States and others. I think the hon. member for Houghton did refer to the example of the United States, but it is not a federal law that applies there in respect of the registration of social workers; I think it is a state law that applies only in respect of certain of the states that make up the Federation of the United States of America, but it is certainly no general concept to federal laws, the total registration of social workers as such. The question I ask myself in the House approving a measure of this nature is why should not South Africa in certain instances also take the lead, and this is obviously a forward marching step we are taking in this legislation. The hon. member for Houghton has argued that we cannot register a social worker or a social workers’ organization without first establishing the ethics that will apply in the conduct of social workers as such. We believe on these benches that the registration of social workers under the methods that are proposed in this legislation, will in fact be a spurt or assist in the social workers of South Africa establishing the necessary association, which will be an incentive to establish the code of ethics that will apply in the work of social workers.

One other aspect to which the hon. member for Houghton, as the only member in this House, was opposed, are Clauses 7, 8 and 9 which deal with the establishment of the commissions. I think it should be recognized that this Bill is not a Bill merely to deal with people who by misfortune or otherwise need assistance, or who must be uplifted or reinstated in society. That is not the beginning or the end of welfare work. This Bill sets up in these commissions for the first time, I believe in a legislative manner, bodies where constructive thinking can be given by independent bodies in regard to how the society of our nation should be developed in the future. Sir, modern society is such that children are subject to all sorts of stresses and strains. Our family life is being eroded through the evolvement of modern conditions of living: The influence applicable to children in the home, mass media, means of communication, the radio and other factors, these are all factors that tend to the erosion of family life as being the basic unit of the nation, and it is clear therefore, Mr. Speaker, if one still recognizes in our form of society that the family is the basic unit of the nation, that some constructive thinking should be given to the question of how to maintain those standards which we know as the South African way of life in a family unit, how these trends that are there to disrupt the basic unit structure, the family in our modern society, can be counteracted, what steps can be taken to counteract the effects of modern society and other conditions that affect the stability of the family as a unit in the national structure. Obviously the difference between the hon. member for Houghton and any other member in this House, to whatever party he may belong, is the fact that I believe that the general support given to this Bill is because the majority of members in this House recognize the importance of the family, recognize that the State does not rule every aspect of the life of the individual, that you cannot lay down patterns where the State will take care of entertainment, of education, of welfare and other aspects that are the prime responsibility of the family unit. But we do know that there are other “isms”, other viewpoints in the world to-day, in other classes of society where the importance of the family unit is no longer recognized, and that there is the viewpoint that the family is no longer important in a democratic society. And, Mr. Chairman, knowing the views of the hon. member for Houghton in this regard and the party which she represents . . .

Speak for yourself.

That is the basic difference between the thinking of the hon. member in respect of these matters, between her way of thinking and even if you like to call it the old-fashioned way of thinking. That is the fundamental difference. And if the importance of the family unit is recognized, there is no other alternative for hon. members but to support a measure of this nature in the interests of our South African society.

The third reading debate on this extremely important legislation revealed two main trends of thought, the one being the attitude of all those hon. members who gave their wholehearted support to this measure for reasons which were clearly set out on both sides of the House by hon. members who realise that here we have an opportunity to stand together in this particular sphere. Whether we like it or not, and to whichever party we belong, if we can stand together on this question of caring for those who have been entrusted to our care and who are dependent upon us, we will be making a tremendous contribution to the future development of our country. The last speaker and other hon. members talked about the value of retaining the family structure in the future development of any nation. The effect of this legislation will be that everything possible will be done on a planned basis, on a basis of scientific research, to care for those who are in need of care. Sir. I have often said in this House that if we save the family we save the child and that if we save the child we safeguard the future of the nation. There is no nation in the world that can neglect its family structure without going under, but any nation which looks after its family structure, where family life has been disrupted, safeguards its own future. As far as this matter is concerned, we are sharply divided in this House. Hon. members may have misgivings here and there with regard to minor points, but I have always said that social work is not static; it must be adapted to the requirements of the times. But there is one fundamental requirement that we can never overlook and that is the necessity to concentrate our attention on the family structure, because unless we do so the battle is lost. On the one hand we have the attitude of the governing party and of the Official Opposition, and on the other we have the attitude of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). On the one hand the whole of the House subscribed to this measure with faith and confidence and undertakes to do everything possible to make a success of it. We are going to exert all our energies and encourage our people to support this measure and we are going to try to shape public opinion; that is the attitude that we adopt, but the hon. member for Houghton adopts a different attitude, and what astonishes me is that the hon. member for Houghton thinks that she is in the majority. I do not deny her the right to state her attitude here but she should ask herself whether she will ever be able to sway public opinion in South Africa in her direction. What hope has she of doing so? Sir, hope springs eternal in the human breast. That is the mistake that the hon. member makes. She opposes a measure of this kind and in doing so she thinks she is doing it on behalf of the public, but she cannot even succeed in persuading a single member of this House to accept her attitude. What hope has she of persuading the public? The hon. member condemned this measure. She is full of misgivings. She condemns it in to to. Sir, I extended an invitation to the whole of the country to co-operate to see whether we cannot make a success of this measure and I asked for the support of everybody who has the future of South Africa at heart. The only person who rejected that invitation was the hon. member for Houghton. She says that the whole of this measure is wrong; there should have been Government-appointed bodies and the different measures should have been separated. And if we had separated them she would have said that they should have been kept together. She says that registration should have been delayed. She is in favour of the registration of welfare workers and she wants them to be placed on a sound footing, but in spite of that she says that registration should have been delayed. On the one hand she says that this measure does not go far enough. Sir, that is typical of the hon. member’s attitude. She says that this measure should have been more modern. She quoted the example of America; we must not frame this measure to fit in with the pattern of South Africa; we must follow the pattern of America. On the other hand she asks “Why cannot we carry on with the system as it exists today; it has worked well throughout the years; what urgency is there in bringing about these changes?” She seems to have the idea that she enjoys tremendous support outside of this House, but she adduced no evidence to prove it. Sir, of the ten universities in this country there are three which had certain misgivings with regard to certain provisions but seven out of the ten are in favour of the Bill. In the whole of the two years during which this matter was before the public we received no such representations from the public.

Order! Should the hon. the Minister not rather confine himself to the Bill?

I am talking about the effects of this measure. I think it will have excellent effects, but if the attitude of the hon. member for Houghton is to prevail this measure will have harmful effects.

Yes, but the hon. the Minister must not allow himself to be misled by the hon. member for Houghton.

Sir, I ask the hon. member to give her support to this measure. The basis of this measure is this: We feel that the system of welfare work that we have had in the past has worked well for years, but we are living in times when it is necessary to have better co-ordination, better planning and proper scientific investigation, and that is our object in establishing these commissions. As a result of the passing of this measure there will be scientific planning and research and there will be better co-ordination. This measure will rest on sound foundations of coordinated action. Sir, we must move forward; we cannot remain stationary. My request is that we should all move forward together. Here we have an excellent plan under which we can all move forward together and take everybody along with us. Do not let us leave any section of the population behind. The success of this measure will depend on the service we render to our fellowmen. Sir, I made bold to ask for the support of the whole House for this measure and I want to express my appreciation of the fact that that support has been forthcoming. Any nation that is prepared to give loving care to those in need of care is bound to go ahead. I want to say again that if in this new planning things happen which do not seem to be right, we can always come back to Parliament to rectify things. I thank the House once again and I commend this measure to South Africa. I also want to express my thanks to my Department and the present Welfare Board, with whose approval these changes are being brought about, and to all the other organisations.

Motion put and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, motion declared agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I would have preferred it if the Minister could have given us a short explanation of this clause. It appears that the clause now empowers the Postmaster-General to enter into any contract for the conveyance of postal articles by air. The operative words are “by air”. Previously the Post Office was not convinced that it had the full right of conveying such articles by air. This seems to me rather an amazing discovery after all these years. However, if it is a sign that at long last the Minister admits the existence of the air age, we can only welcome it. I should like to know why there has been this long delay in introducing an amendment of this nature. This Act was consolidated in 1958 and it was amended on previous occasions, and if it had been so important surely the Minister would have come with an amendment like this before.

I wonder whether there have not been instances during the past year or two in which the Post Office experienced difficulty through contracts it had with private instances for the conveyance of postal articles in which those private bodies might have threatened to sue or to take other steps against the Post Office. We should remember that postal conveyancing costs the post office R3,500,000 a year. There are contracts with S.A. Airways and with private air freight firms, and there is a contract, I believe, with Commercial Air Services Limited for the conveyance of postal articles between Phalaborwa and the Rand Airport. Does it mean that these contracts were entered into illegally? Were they entered into by the Minister without making sure that he had a legal right to do it? Have there been any losses sustained as the result of his failure to introduce these amendments earlier?

Naturally we shall support an amendment of this nature and I would like to suggest to the Minister that it might now be possible for him with this legal backing to inaugurate a postal air service between major platteland towns and the cities, where he now has the right to enter into agreements with private air companies, so that these postal articles can be conveyed faster. He might even go so far as to enter into a contract with a private helicopter company for the conveyance of postal articles between our major towns which are close together, like Johannesburg and Pretoria and Pietermaritzburg and Durban, and so inaugurate a super express postal freight service. We support the clause and congratulate the Minister that he has moved from the age of the ox-wagon through the automotive age to the air age, and we hope that he will soon enter the age of television and the space age.

It is a pity that the hon. member can never speak without doing so in a sneering way. I want to point out to the hon. member that if he reads this section he will see that it says “from or to the Union by land or air or coastwise by sea or for any other public service performed for or by the Department”. Even though it does not contain the words “or air” the Post Office is perfectly entitled to enter into agreements for the conveyance of postal articles by air. But this eliminates any possibility of misunderstanding. This alteration is not essential; it is just an additional small change. The hon. member’s proposal that contracts should be entered into with airlines or airways companies to convey post by air between the different cities in South Africa is far-fetched.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

The intention underlying this clause is to make it possible for magazines and newspapers in the future to put their name and the date of publication in a position other than right at the top of the page. In the past the law provided for the name and date to appear at the top of every page of every periodical or newspaper. Sir, one wonders why this provision is being submitted to the House at this particular moment. I have gone through many periodicals to find out which of them have sinned in this respect in the past and have acted unlawfully by failing to put their name and the date of publication at the top of the page, and I find that in nearly all cases the guilty periodicals are publications issued by the Government, publications such as the S.A. Digest. Is that one of the reasons why it has now suddenly become necessary to amend the Act? But it is not only the Information Department that sins in this connection. Commando, which is the magazine for the Navy, the Air Force and the Army, does not contain the name and the date at the top of every page either; but, what is even worse, the Department of Justice is also an offender in this respect because the official departmental periodical, Justitia, does not contain the name and the date at the top of the page either, whereas in the case of Sarp, the official periodical of the South African Police, the name and the date appear at the bottom of the page. Is the position that the Minister suddenly discovered that the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, the Department of Justice, the Police and the Department of Information were contravening the Act? Is that why he comes along with this amendment?

Sir, I support this provision because I believe that it is customary and that good, modern journalism demands that one should not detract from the headlines by printing the name and the date of publication at the top of every page. As a matter of fact, if I may go into the history of this practice, I can mention to the hon. the Minister an interesting example of 20 years ago when I myself followed this practice. However, I do not want to go into this at greater length except to say that we support this clause.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

One wonders why there is such complete silence on the other side, but I leave it at that. As far as this clause is concerned, I should like to ask any hon. member who has not yet read the Bill what is meant by a “oproepkantoorspreeksel”, which is translated in the Bill as “call-office cabinet”? I object to the use of the word “oproepkantoorspreeksel” for what we, in our simplicity, have always called a “telefoonhokkie” (call-box). Sir, what the Minister is doing here is to do harm to the Afrikaans language. Has any member here ever told anybody that he is going to go to the “oproepkantoorspreeksel” to make a call? It is not an office and it is not a cell. Why give it this name? Why burden us with a further 1,300 “selle” (cells) even though they are “spreekselle”? I hope that the hon. the Minister will find a different word to describe call-boxes. I have gone into the translation of the term “call-box” and I find that in no Afrikaans dictionary is it translated as “oproepkantoorspreeksel”. I then went to the best and the highest authority, the Minister himself. Here I have the Post Office dictionary compiled by the Language Committee of the Post Office in co-operation with the Language Service Bureau of the Department of Education, Arts and Science. Here too I looked in vain for the word “oproepkantoorspreeksel”. I found that the term “call-office” which is used in the Bill appears as “telefoonhokkie” in the Post Office’s own dictionary. I want to ask the Minister to consider the question of not loading us with 13,000 or more “oproepkantoorspreekselle”.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

In this particular clause provision is specifically made for damage done to call-boxes to be regarded as an offence. I do not know why the hon. the Minister is remaining silent or whether I am speaking too softly perhaps. Sir, I have raised a few matters so far but the hon. the Minister has been as silent as the grave. It is strange indeed to find that the hon. the Minister, who is quite loquacious on other occasions, is so silent on this occasion.

We agree with the inclusion of call-boxes in the list of items in respect of which penalties can be imposed if they are damaged. We welcome the inclusion of this item. Damage caused to call-boxes is a big problem to the Post Office and has always been a big problem in the past. There are approximately 13,400 call-boxes in South Africa and last year no fewer 2,700 were damaged as a result of theft alone. It is clear therefore that the penalty in the past was not heavy enough and that it was necessary to include call-boxes in the list of items in respect of which heavy penalties should be imposed. I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to give us the assurance that steps will be taken to see that the new call-boxes will lend themselves less to theft and that there will not be such great losses as a result of theft. It might then not be necessary perhaps to proceed with the raising of telephone rates for calls from public call-boxes. I again want to ask under this Clause whether it is not possible to bring about a change in the particularly distasteful and lengthy description of an ordinary call-box as an “oproepkantoorspreeksel.”

Order! That has already been approved in a previous Clause.

My hon. colleague here has posed certain questions for the third time now to the hon. the Minister on certain clauses. The Minister has remained silent in his seat, making extensive notes. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister is even participating in this debate.

Order! To which clause is the hon. member talking?

I am dealing with the clause which has been put to the Committee and in connection with which my colleague here has put certain questions to the hon. the Minister but the Minister seeks to ignore them and I want to know why. Surely the Minister can extend the normal courtesy to us of replying to points made by members on this side. The attitude of the Minister is tantamount to treating this House with contempt.

The hon. member is now discussing the behaviour of the Minister and not the Clause.

I am asking the hon. the Minister whether he will reply to the points raised by my colleague here.

Order! The hon. member has already made his request.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

In pursuance of the full explanation that we have just had from the hon. the Minister I want to say that we approve of this particular Clause as well. I notice here that the fine for damage caused to a call-box is now being increased from R20 to R50: We would naturally like to see that public property is not damaged as a result of negligence. Where reference is made to damage caused to call-office cabinets I should like to know whether it also includes damage to adjuncts such as telephone directories. The hon. the Minister will agree with me that the telephone directories in many call boxes are in a terrible state and I should like to know whether this particular provision will also apply to telephone directories.

I want to raise with the hon. the Minister the question of the provisions of the proposed new Section 108. It seems to me that the Minister is seeking here to introduce quite a new principle into South African law. The clause provides—

Sir, it appears to attach to ownership of an animal a claim for damages as against the owner of the animal.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the insertion of the words “or call office cabinet.” The rest already appears in the existing law.

It is quite clear that the hon. the Minister would not have come forward with a provision of this nature if he did not consider the damage that is being done to call-boxes to be of such a nature that action is required in the shape of increased penalties which will serve as a deterrent to those persons who wilfully embark on these activities. I wonder, Sir, whether that is the only solution or if the solution does not lie in the erection of a different type of call-box which would ensure that less damage is done to them. Sir, we do not know whether the Minister is going to tell us anything on this occasion because he has told us nothing so far about the other clauses, but I wonder whether the deterrent which is provided for here in the shape of a penalty of R50 is sufficient; whether we should not consider the question of providing for a higher penalty. I do not know how the Minister arrived at R50. I do not know whether this is an arbitrary decision on the part of the Minister, but in our view, in the light of the severe damage which is presently being done to call-boxes and because of the defective nature of the call-boxes which are being erected at the present time and the poor quality of the material used in the making of call-boxes. I am going to suggest that the Minister should increase the penalty. I therefore want to move—

Apart from the notes which the Minister has been making in extenso, it will be very interesting to find out whether the Minister has anything to say about the amendment I have moved.

I will have to consider whether I can accept the hon. member’s amendment.

It will not result in increased expenditure.

I realize that, but I will consider the amendment for a moment.

On a point of order. Sir, I believe that there is a host of precedents where this House has regarded the penalties prescribed by the executive as being insufficient and has in fact accepted amendments providing for increased penalties. Moreover I would point out that the acceptance of this amendment would not involve additional expenditure.

Question put: That the word “fifty” in line 51, stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—67: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker. M. J. H.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; De Jager, P. R.; De Villiers, J. D.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Knobel, G. J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.: Nel. J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Odell, H. G. O.; Potgieter, J. E.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van den Berg, G. P.: Van den Berg, M. J.: Van den Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Ahee. H. H.; Van der Spuy, J. P.; Van der Walt, B. J.: Van Eeden, F. J.; Van Niekerk, G. L. H.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.: Venter. W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd. H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Vorster, B. J.; Waring. F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and M. J. de la R. Venter.

NOES—46: Basson. J. D. du P.; Bennet, C.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan. J. M.; De Kock, H. C.; Durrant. R. B.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.: Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel. A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.: Hickman, T.; Higgerty. J. W.; Hope-well. A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.: Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell. D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.: Moore. P. A.: Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.: Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.: Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Taylor. C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker,

H.; Van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and N. G. Eaton.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

Will the hon. the Minister forgive me if I explain this clause since he is apparently not able to do so? This clause provides that legal steps cannot be taken against any organization conveying postal articles where that private organization has a contract with the post office. The clause provides, however, that payment may be made in good faith by the Postmaster-General, and one wants to express the hope that when such payments are made as a result of complaints lodged with the post office, that compensation will be reasonable. Large numbers of contracts have been entered into in past years between the post office and other bodies—if I may speak on behalf of the Minister. I am not referring here to the ordinary contracts entered into with the Railways or B.O.A.C., nor am I referring to the contracts entered into for the conveyance of gold by Union Castle Lines. I am referring more particularly to contracts entered into with private airlines for the conveyance of postal articles between specific centres. I have in mind a company, for example, like Commercial Air Services, which conveys postal articles between Phalaborwa and the Germiston Airport. Here we have a case where, if a postal article was lost or damaged by the company, the company could be sued; the amount of the damage in a case of that kind could not be recovered against the Post Office. This proposal in terms of which private companies are exempted from liability is a better one and we can therefore support this clause.

We want to point out, however, that here again we have one of the ever-increasing number of cases where the State’s liability to the public and to private bodies is being reduced. I think the hon. the Minister owes it to us to tell us what precisely gave rise to this particular amendment. One does not suddenly come along at this late stage of the Session with a Bill such as this in which special exemption from liability is asked for for the Post Office. I hope and trust that there is no case pending against the Post Office at this stage because then, of course, it would be highly improper in my opinion to pass a Bill of this kind. I hope that the hon. the Minister, as in the case of the previous clauses, will give us a full explanation. Perhaps we cannot understand each other very well; I know that he does not believe in television but possibly he does believe in telepathy. I am apparently not properly tuned in to the hon. the Minister’s telepathic wavelength, but if he will extend the courtesy to us of replying to a few of our questions he will be furnishing information to which the country is entitled, even if he thinks that this Parliament is not entitled to it.

I want to thank the hon. member very heartily for the explanation which he has given, which is a repetition of the explanation which I myself gave in detail in the course of my second-reading speech. The hon. member will recall that in my second-reading speech I gave the reasons for which he has again asked here. The reasons are the following: Pan American World Airways lost a packet of diamonds which was being conveyed on behalf of the Post Office. We had always assumed that because it was an agent of the Post Office, it had the same rights and exemptions as the Post Office; in other words, that it was not liable to pay compensation. Unfortunately, the court decided differently and it is because of the judgment of the court that this amendment is being brought about. This is a case which arose a few years ago.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister for some information in respect of the operation of this Clause in regard to certain types of mail carriers. Clause 9 provides that the Postmaster may in certain cases pay compensation in respect of the loss of mail. If the Minister will look at sub-paragraph (b) he will find that the Postmaster-General may at his discretion pay compensation for the loss of any postal article, whether that article has been carried by the Department’s own services or by any mail carrier on a contract, and then under (3) (a) the mail carrier is made liable to pay compensation if the Postmaster-General in terms of (b) has decided to pay compensation. The question I would like to ask the Minister is this: To what extent does this cover agreements made by the Postmaster-General in respect of mail carriers who are carrying mail beyond the borders of the Republic. I am not referring particularly to aircraft, but as far as oversea mail is concerned. I understand the position is that the Department enters into contracts with certain mail carriers. How will this clause affect the position if there are losses of valuable registered articles conveyed by mail carrier in terms of a contract entered into with the Postmaster-General. Will the carrier be compelled to pay this compensation, or is the same permissive power being granted to the contractor as is obiviously envisaged in this clause? It seems an anomaly to me that the Postmaster-General will have a discretion as to whether or not he will pay compensation, but as far as the carrier is concerned there is no permissive right at all; he has to pay compensation if a postal article is lost en route. If the Postmaster-General decides to pay the carrier has no option. The carrier’s obligations are determined entirely at the discretion of the Postmaster-General. I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will clarify the position for us.

If the hon member looks at this Clause carefully he will see what the problem is. The problem arises particularly when a Savings Bank book is lost. Let us assume that a Savings Bank book is lost or that a person gets hold of it in a fraudulent way; this person then goes along to the Post Office and withdraws money from the account. The position in the past was that the owner of the book could then go to the Post Office and say, “You allowed my money to be stolen.” In those circumstances it was the practice of the Post Office to refund the amount concerned to the lawful owner of the savings book. The Post Office did so not because it was obliged to do it but ex gratia. The Post Office was not obliged in terms of the Act to pay compensation. When the thief is eventually caught—he may still have the money in his possession—we ask the court for an order upon the accused to hand over the money to the Post Office. The position in the past was that the court found in such cases that no damage had been suffered by the Post Office because the compensation paid to the owner was paid ex gratia and the Post Office was not obliged to refund the money. This provision is designed in the first place to solve that problem. Let us assume, for example, that such a Post Office Savings Bank book has fallen into the hands of a mail carrier. This Clause provides that the mail carrier, if requested to do so, must pay the Post Office an amount equal to the amount paid out by the Postmaster-General. It is. of course within the discretion of the Post Office. In most cases provision will be made for it in the agreement between the Post Office and the mail carrier, but even if it is not provided for in the agreement, the obligation will now be a legal one.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) did not ask a question in connection with sub-clause (a) but in connection with (b). We would all like to know what the position is of international mail carriers. What is the position when postal articles are lost while they are in the possession of international carriers such as shipping lines which convey mail to foreign countries? Is a new obligation to be placed upon them in terms of this legislation, an obligation which does not exist in the contract entered into with them by the Post Office? Will they also be obliged to make a repayment if the Postmaster-General requires them to do so? I am thinking, for example, of diamonds which are lost in transit.

Yes, I have not dealt with that point yet. There is an international agreement to the effect that when a mail carrier loses a package, it has to pay a certain amount—I have forgotten the maximum amount—in gold francs by way of compensation. We are simply making provision here that in such cases the Post Office may demand compensation from the mail carrier or that it need not demand compensation. According to the International Code a small amount has to be paid in gold francs.

Clause 9 (a) reads—

That means that an ex gratia payment may be made by the Post Office in this connection. Sir, there are many circumstances under which people may lose money which they have deposited in Savings Bank accounts. I have in mind the case of a widow who loses her book, which then falls into the hands of some other person who draws the money. There are many ways in which money can be drawn out of a Post Office Savings Bank account in an unlawful and dishonest way and where the Postmaster-General is not obliged to compensate the person who has lost the money. If a widow somehow loses money which she has drawn out of her Savings Bank account—perhaps through her own negligence—there is no obligation on the Post Office to pay compensation. Only ex gratia payments can be made in terms of this provision. Sir, I wonder whether consideration should not perhaps be given to the question of extending the scope of this provision. I do not want to suggest how it should be done, and I believe that in most cases the Postmaster-General will be reasonable when it comes to ex gratia payments where money has been lost. But one would have liked an obligation to be imposed on the Post Office to compensate persons where they lose money which they have deposited in a Post Office savings account. If a person invests money in an ordinary bank, for example, and some other person draws money out of his account, the bank is obliged to compensate the depositor. After all, the Post Office Savings bank should not be in a weaker position than an ordinary bank. Moneys deposited by an investor in a banking account and in a Post Office Savings Bank account ought to be equally safe.

Order! The hon. member’s argument is in conflict with the clause which has already been accepted, i.e. Clause 8, the marginal note of which reads, “non-liability of Department.”

May I point out that this particular portion has been taken out of Clause 8 and inserted in Clause 9. The portion which has been removed from Clause 8, from lines 15 to 20, is practically the same as the portion which has been inserted in Clause 9. I was not discussing the deletion of these words from Clause 8, but only their insertion in Clause 9.

That is precisely the point. These words have been deleted from Clause 8. The exemption is absolute and discretionary powers are granted in Clause 9. The hon. member is now arguing in favour of breaking down Clause 8, which has already been accepted.

I understand what you mean, Mr. Chairman, and I abide by your ruling. We will support this particular clause and we are all pleased to see that the hon. the Minister has regained control over his vocal organs.

Clause put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, we in the Republic are rightfully proud of our extremely efficient and detailed system of land registration which enables any interested person to ascertain without any trouble what rights the owner of land enjoys, what restrictions exist in regard to his property rights, and whether the property is subject to any encumberances such as mortgages and servitudes. It is true that our claim to have a faultless system of registration has been challenged on occasion, but in general it is very satisfactory, and amendments which were made to it from time to time were simply aimed at remedying irregularities and ambiguities.

Some critics consider that our system of land registration is too cumbersome and that it should be simplified and streamlined in accordance with modern requirements. Sir, steps are in fact being taken to determine whether simplification is possible and desirable, without of course derogating from the effectiveness of the system, and any suggestions received in this regard will be investigated very carefully.

The latest important amendment, not to the system as such but for ensuring its uniform application right throughout the four provinces, was made by the Deeds Registries Act, 1937, which consolidated and amended the various Acts which previously applied to the registration of Acts.

Since 1937, i.e. for almost 30 years, it was found necessary only now and again to make slight changes in order to deal with specific problems. The remarkable economic and industrial progress which has been made in the Republic during the past 20 years, and particularly the increasing tempo as regards mineral development, have, however, brought in their wake certain registration problems and registration requirements which can only be solved by a thorough revision of the Deeds Registries Act and accompanying amendments.

Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments do not result in any change in the principles of land registration. They are simply intended to fit in with modern development and to remove existing uncertainties and ambiguities and to eliminate further cumbersome registration methods in cases where it is safe to do so.

In February 1964 a committee consisting of the members of the Deeds Regulation Board was appointed to consider proposals in connection with the amendment of the Deeds Registries Act which had been submitted to my Department of Lands. This board consists of the five senior Registrars of Acts in the Republic, the Registrar of Rand townships, the Government Attorney, the Director-General of Surveys and six experienced practising conveyancers and it is therefore a representative body which is well acquainted with the various aspect of the registration of deeds.

Hon. members will note that the Bill provides for the conversion of the Regulation Board into an advisory body. After, however, having heard certain representations, I have decided to leave the position unchanged. I refer in this regard to the amendments standing in the name of the Minister on the Order Paper at pages 409, 425 and 426. There are also other amendments printed in the name of the Minister which I will explain further in the Committee Stage. This committee has carefully considered every proposal and has thoroughly discussed the matter, and its recommendations have been circulated to all interested bodies and State Departments for their comment and criticism. This action has borne good fruit and many of the proposals which emanated from it have been included in the present Bill.

I wish, however to draw hon. members’ attention to the acute staff shortage which is also being experienced in the Deeds Offices, whilst the scope of the work will steadily increase as the result of our flourishing economy and the increased population and the expected flow of participation bonds in terms of Act 48 of 1964 and the registration of flats in terms of the proposed Sectional Titles Act. Hon. members will recollect that we have recently passed two expropriation Acts in which provision is made that any encumbrances, such as mortgages, should be registered if it is to be taken into consideration for expropriation purposes. This is a new factor which will increase the work in the Deeds Office and make the staff shortage even more acute. An untenable situation will therefore arise unless relief can be granted by means of simplified methods and procedures. Most of the necessary amendments can be made by regulation, while others are embodied in this Bill, e.g. those in Clause 2 (1) (d) and Clause 8. All the amendments are, however, dealt with in the explanatory memorandum which has already been tabled. I take it that all hon. members have already studied it.

This measure is, as I have already indicated, proposed by persons who are daily concerned with the drawing up of deeds and I can therefore assure hon. members that the amendments being made are essential to make the work of the Deeds Offices run more smoothly.

This is an important Bill affecting all our citizens, not only present property owners but potential property owners as well, as it affects the registration of their title deeds. The law profession welcomes this Bill except one clause with which I shall deal. The hon. the Deputy Minister has said that our system is an old one and that is has been brought up to date from time to time. It is only natural that this should be so because of the development which has taken place in the country such as the establishment of new townships, industrial areas and State undertakings.

It has often been stated in this House—and it is accepted—that our system of registration of title, if it is not the best in the world, is as good as any other system. It is an old system which started in 1958 in Holland with the imposition of transfer duty laws. The system was introduced in the Cape in 1828. A Deeds Office was then established. It is a very simple system of conveying ownership over immovable property and it has very effectively withstood the test of time. In considering any proposals we must therefore be very careful that they do not interfere with our system of registration of title. The method of transfer in ownership or other rights in immovable property is done by means of registering documents in the Deeds Office and specialists are employed in seeing that proper transfer is given. The people who do the transferring are conveyancers who are specialist lawyers. The people employed in the Deeds Office, the people who have to do the actual registering of the title, are also specially trained.

The Law Societies are naturally very interested in any change in the system and for that reason they are represented on the Rules Board to which the Minister has referred. The Bill as we have it before us is a proposal to change the Rules Board into an advisory board. I am very grateful to see that the Deputy Minister has now agreed to delete that clause and that he will leave the Rules Board in its present form without making it merely an advisory board. The Law Societies are naturally grateful to him for this concession.

There is one other clause which is of importance and that is Clause 8. We on this side of the House do not agree with Clause 8 nor does it have the approval of the law societies. I do not think it has the approval of the Rules Board either. The clause in itself is all right until you come to the proviso. The proviso is to the effect that the State can acquire land held under any title deed by merely getting an endorsement on the title deed. The Minister may say that a title held in that way is just as effective as our present system. But our difficulty is this, that once you start tampering with our system of registration, which has stood the test for over a century, the whole system may be altered and this fine system which we have built up may disappear.

What also worries us is what is meant by the “State”. Is it envisaged that statutory bodies, such as the Bantu Trust and the Group Areas Board, will be able to take transfer in this way?

Those are not the State.

I am asking the Minister to give us that assurance because the law societies are worried about this point. That is why I am asking.

But you must first get a permit from the member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman).

It looks like it. I told the Minister I was going to raise this point. I should also like an assurance from the hon. the Minister that the preliminary work which is done to-day, the drawing up of powers of attorney, obtaining group clearance certificates and so forth, will still form part of the duties of the country practitioner or even the town practitioner and that it is merely the endorsement in the Deeds Office that will take the place of the issue of a fresh title deed.

I am sorry to see that the hon. the Deputy Minister has not seen his way clear to accede to the request of the law societies to delete this proviso in the same manner as he has acceded to their requests in regard to other representations but despite that the societies have expressed their agreement with the measure and we on this side of the House will accept it.

I think the improvements contained in this Bill are welcomed by everybody. There is evidently only the one small hindrance mentioned by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). In that connection I want to say that when the State takes transfer of property it does not pay stamp duties or transfer duties. The only thing which really happens is that a conveyancer draws up a deed of transfer for which he is of course paid his fees. I do not believe the real reason is, as the hon. member has said, that we are tampering with the old system. The real reason is that it means a reduced income to conveyancers throughout the country. We must state the matter baldly as it is. The argument advanced by the hon. member that the registration of deeds will now no longer give a picture of who all are the owners of land in South Africa is not correct because there is, for example, much State land in respect of which the State does not hold a deed of transfer. It has not been surveyed yet, nor has it been registered as State land; but nevertheless it is State land. For that land there does not exist any particular Act or title. If land now goes back to the State, why cannot it be done in this way? It eliminates a lot of expense to the State. I cannot view this objection as seriously as the hon. member does.

Whilst we are dealing with this whole matter, I want the Minister to consider something. Our system of registration of deeds is in order to give a picture of the rights which exist in respect of land. It should give a picture of who the owner is, of who the person is who holds certain servitude rights on the land; it must, as it were, give a picture of what rights are held by whom and where in respect of that particular piece of land. Over the years it has happened that land has been trespassed upon, e.g. by the provincial administration. The provincial administration just comes along and proclaims a road. The road goes over the land and there is no indication in the deed of transfer in respect of that land to the effect that the provincial administration or the State or whoever it may be has a right to cross over that property. So we find various bodies like municipalities who simply by decree limit the rights of the owner of a piece of land. None of these decrees is registered against the deed of transfer. The purchaser of the land does not know of half the decrees or by-laws by which the right of ownership he is buying will be limited. It really is not very relevant to this Bill, but I want to suggest to the Minister that at some time or other he should appoint a committee to go into this matter, viz. in how far restrictions are imposed by decrees or bylaws due to town planning, etc. If one wants to buy, one should be entitled to ascertain from the present deed of transfer what the exact position is, what rights one is purchasing and how they are restricted. That document ought to tell one the whole story. Because of all these by-laws—nobody knows they exist; one must link them up in Government notices, etc.— one in fact does not know how one’s property rights are restricted when one buys a property.

I also want to express my pleasure because Clause 4 has been withdrawn. I think that would have gone a little too far. The Regulation Board we have had has proved over the years to be a good and effective body. I was convinced that this change would not be an improvement. But I am glad that all the other changes will result in streamlining our Deeds Registries Act. I want to congratulate the Minister on this legislation. I am also glad that the Minister, as the previous speaker has said, has treated the old system which was built up over so many years with so much respect and that he only wants to streamline it without tampering with the principle.

The hon. member who has just sat down made an excellent speech of appreciation of the Bill. But it was illuminated by contradictions and conflicting views from beginning to end. In one breath he expresses his satisfaction with the retention of an old, well-proven and well-established system and in the other breath he says he would like to see the whole system simplified, modernized and streamlined; that we must forget about these old complicated and archaic systems which have existed over the years. He thinks there should be a complete simplification.

What are you talking about? You did not understand one word I said.

I am very surprised at what the hon. member has said. He opened his address by reducing the whole level of discussion—it is important that I tell him this— merely to a question of conveyancers’ fees. No objection was raised by this side of the House to that; that is a private thing. These are consequences that flow from legislation which can affect any citizen professionally or domestically in many ways. What we are concerned with are certain principles. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) went out of his way to illustrate to the hon. Deputy Minister the position by giving him the history of registration of transfer of land. The hon. member also said that certain land was held by the State in respect of which no title deeds had been registered. We know that a lot of Crown land is held under Statutes: a tremendous amount of land in the country which is reserved to the State as of right; we know that.

You did not follow the hon. member.

I followed him, Sir; I made notes of what he said. He also said that when a Provincial Council required land for a road they did not have to pass transfer. But all that is entrenched in certain ordinances.

I never said that. . . .

You dealt with the fact that land required by a Provincial Council for a road or road-widening purposes did not require a special act of transfer.

I did not say transfer; I said it was a “beperking”; it is a burden (las).

I read into what he said exactly what I have now repeated; that is my interpretation of what the hon. member said. I must say he plays a role of many parts in this House, and I can’t quite understand it, because this hon. member has so many contradictory points of view that one must really discount everything that he has said in support of this Bill.

As the hon. Deputy Minister knows, we support this Bill in principle for the reasons that have been given. There are quite a number of changes, many of which have been brought about as a result of discussions with experts of the Deeds Registries Office, and the department and so on, the Regulations Board, and many sound and useful changes have been made. Our principal objection, as has been pointed out, is to the proviso to Clause 8 in this Bill, and this we must strenuously oppose. Sir, the State is constantly busy, as all public authorities are constantly busy, acquiring land for public purposes. For instance Parliament requires land just in the immediate vicinity with the object of increasing its office-space. It may want to improve the amenities and the beauty of the surroundings. It either acquires by private purchase, or it acquires by expropriation. City councils acquire land by expropriation. Provincial bodies acquire land in cities by expropriation and there is a certain sequence of transactions that takes place which will convey the title of such land to the authority concerned. We know that certain taxation, such as stamp duties, and so on, and transfer duties, are avoided, but certain transactions, have all the same, to take place, with the object not of ensuring that the conveyancer earns fees, but with the object of ensuring that proper legislation takes place according to the well entrenched traditional legal system which exists in this country.

What about Section 52?

I am dealing with the proviso to Clause 8 of this Bill, but I am prepared to have a discussion with the hon. member at a more convenient time on the other provisions that he is concerned about. I know the provisions of 52 with regard to endorsements and so on, but there are special reasons for it, and he will find some even contained here. But the point is this that if the State requires land for an extensive project—and we understand that that is the objective here, that the State intends to acquire a considerable amount of land for a specific vast project—why cannot a clause be satisfactorily worded which will provide that where the State has to acquire vast tracts of land, contiguous land in any specific area for an extended state project, that the State should receive a certain consideration with regard to the method in which it acquires ownership of that land. For instance it might have been very easy for the purpose for which this land is required—and I understand that this has arisen out of the Orange River Scheme —it would have been quite easy to have specifically amended that statute to provide that in respect of the vast lands that have to be acquired for that purpose, (a) for the damming scheme itself, which will mean that a great deal of the land will be under cover of water, and (b) for the development of townships and other ancillaries to such a large project, surely in the very Act itself there could have been a provision specifically inserted for this purpose. I think actually it was an oversight at the time, but what is being done now is that the Deeds Registries Act is going to have a permanent provision inserted in it which will enable the State, as I have said, to acquire even the smallest piece of urban land and have it transferred purely by an endorsement. We believe that this is a serious incision into well-established practice in this country. I don’t think. Sir, that this is a modernization in regard to this particular clause. In other respects one does not find with the Bill, but this is an important feature, because it involves a principle in so far as the Deeds Registries Act is concerned. I would appeal to the hon. Deputy Minister not to take into account the rather inane reasons given by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman), but rather to take into account that the hon. the Deputy Minister sincerely wishes to do something here which is of value, and if he wishes to do something which is of value let him do it in a manner which is in accordance with the spirit of the administration of this particular statute, and let him then if he must acquire something for a specific purpose, specify the purpose or try and avoid something becoming a permanent feature of law which has an effect right throughout the whole gamut of transaction in which the State is involved, when in fact it is only for a specific purpose.

I am also very pleased to see the other amendments, particularly the one in regard to the Regulations Board which is allowed to remain. I am sure the hon. the Minister has decided to amend this because, on considering the effects of the Bill, people, who are concerned with this kind of work have expressed the view that it would be best in the interests of the administration of this Act to leave it as it is. And if that is the case, surely that in itself must satisfy the hon. Deputy Minister that, in other respects, one would like to deviate as little as possible also from the system which has proved itself over the years to be satisfactory, which has given confidence in the mind of the citizen, and far from suggesting that the average owner does not know what his rights are or what his title deed reflects, I say that he does know and is appreciative of that; and it is the confidence in the transfer of land and the security of ownership, not only for oneself, but for generations to come that has been one of the outstanding features of this legislation. If I were in charge of this type of legislation, I would be very wary indeed before I would make inroads of such a severe nature. The State should be the last in fact to take this type of step and to deviate from something that is well established and well entrenched. But I do not gain say that if something is required for a specific purpose, and it has this vast concept which this scheme to which I have been referring has, then I do not gainsay that it would be right for the State ’to make some provision to assist it, but it should be done in a more specified manner and in a more restricted manner than placing permanent legislation on the Statute Book. For these reasons, whilst we support the second reading and commend the hon. Deputy Minister for the interest that his new post has given him in this type of work, we hope that he will reconsider this clause I have referred to, and I appeal to him that when it comes to the Committee Stage to reconsider his view with regard to this clause.

We have now sufficiently expressed our appreciation of the fact that the Minister has seen his way clear to retain the Regulation Board. We felt very concerned about that, and we are very grateful that the Minister has seen his way clear to do so. It is not necessary to discuss that any further.

I also want to express my misgivings about Clause 8 as it appears in the proposed legislation, and in that regard I cannot agree with the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). I think the hon. member for Heilbron contradicted himself to a certain extent when he spoke in favour of this clause and, immediately thereafter, said to the Minister: When we pick up a deed of transfer, we must see a picture, we must see a picture in which certain particulars must be shown; amongst other things we want to see in that picture who the owner is and what the servitudes are. And the hon. member went on to say, and there I agree with him 100 per cent, that land rights are from time to time interfered with by statutory provision by public bodies, but that such interference with the land is never shown on the deeds. I think it is desirable that that should also be indicated on the title deeds, particularly where it concerns implied rights which are not noticeable at first glance, such as in respect of cables running under the ground, and so forth. But that is really a different matter.

I feel that we had an effective system, although it was, shall we say, rather cumbersome in many respects. It is possible that we may be able to facilitate and simplify the procedure in deeds registries, but then we must also accept that if we are going to do that, we shall have less certainty about our registration rights to our land. There is probably no South African who would not like to own a piece of South Africa, but such a person not only wants to own a piece of the land—he also wants to know that when he owns a piece of land there is not the slightest possibility of it being transferred or taken away from him without his knowing about it. That is why we are so keen on having such a sound system, and in raising certain considerations in connection with the proposed Clause 8, I do so simply and solely because we take a very great interest in our registration system. We take a very great interest in it indeed, and consequently we do not want it to be detrimentally affected in any way. Sir, in this explanatory memorandum a reason is furnished for Clause 8, and I want to say with very great respect that I do think a better reason could have been found, if there is a better one, for the insertion of Clause 8. The following is stated in the memorandum—

I accept the last sentence. It will result in a saving. It will also entail less work. But. Sir, it does not mean to say that because something else has been done, it must necessarily be a good thing if we do something similar now. I think it was a great mistake that we made provision in the Housing Act, and I almost feel constrained to say that I do not know how this House could have agreed to our accepting the principle in that Act that an endorsement was all that was required for the transfer of land. I think that was wrong and I should like to see it changed. Surely two wrongs do not make a right? I therefore want to point out to the hon. the Minister that although he said at the beginning of his speech that the Bill contained no changes in principle, it is a tremendous change in principle as far as we are concerned, we who have been proud to collaborate with the Deeds Office for years and years. As far as we are concerned it is a tremendous change in principle that the transfer of land will no longer be effected in the old way. In order that we may understand each other better, Sir, I just want to tell you how registration is effected in our Deeds Office, and why I think that in view of that we have an unsound principle here. I am not doing that because I want to make out that other hon. gentlemen do not know how it is done, but I am only doing it for the purposes of my argument. To-day I asked a correspondent of mine, a firm of attorneys in Cape Town, please to send me an example of an old deed of transfer, and I now want to show you what it looks like. The position is that when a transfer is registered in favour of a person or a body or any other party, there are various preliminary documents, such as the procuration in which power of attorney is granted to the conveyancers to appear before the Registrar of Deeds and then to transfer that land and to draw up a new deed of transfer. A new document is drawn up in duplicate; the owner gets one copy and the other is filed away in the Deeds Office. If everything is found to be in order, the conveyancer then appears before the Registrar of Deeds and signs that newly prepared deed of transfer. Along with that deed of transfer all the other documents are submitted—by this time there is a large number of them—inter alia, the procuration, the group areas declarations, birth declarations, transfer duty receipts and the like, all depending upon the complexity of the particular deed of transfer. Some of them are much more complicated than others. Then that land is registered and a fine new document is issued by the Deeds Office, not a document which looks like the one I have here, which has been handled a great deal and is badly worn, but a fine new document which is the pride of the owner of the land. Subsequent to that, certain things happen from time to time. If it should happen that a servitude is registered for or against that land, an endorsement is made on the deed of transfer; when a portion of the land is ceded, an endorsement is made on the deed of transfer by placing a stamp with an inscription in it on the deed of transfer (we usually call this “cross-writing”, because these endorsements are stamped cross-wise on the typed form of the deed of transfer). Here in my hand I have a fine example of an old deed of transfer. Look at all the endorsements, large numbers of them; every page is full of endorsements, servitude endorsements, endorsements of transfers of pieces of land, several of them, and then there is still the possibility of endorsements in connection with the registration of mortagages, which does not apply in the case of this particular deed. This particular deed of transfer is perhaps not a typical example, because in the normal course of events deeds oi transfer do not carry as many endorsements as this one does. In the case of this bulky document with all the notarial deeds in connection therewith and all the endorsements on it is extremely difficult for us to find out what the position is, because such a complicated state of affairs has been caused by all the endorsements in the Deeds Office. But when this land is transferred one day, everything contained in this deed is deciphered, and when the new deed is drawn up, it no longer bears all these endorsements—all of them are included in the deed itself in neatly typed from. When the transfer of a piece of land such as this is registered a new deed is issued. All these inscriptions in red do not appear on the deed, and we have a fine new document, which is thoroughly examined by the Deeds Office to see whether everything that was contained in the old deed is included in the new one, and it is registered and handed to the owner, and a copy thereof goes to the Deeds Office.

Now I say, even if it is the State—I am not only talking about the man in the street, but even if it is the State, I feel that it is in the interests of the State that it should get a proper document which is legible and clear. I honestly think that is in the interests of the State as much as it is in the interests of the individual.

But there are other considerations. One example is the case where a servitude is registered against a piece of land. Suppose a servitude is registered against my land in favour of adjoining land, and at some future date I come along and buy the adjoining piece of land as well. Then it is self-evident that that servitude must fall away, because I cannot be the principal as well as the subsidiary owner. If the servitude is in favour of my land and is against the other land and I become the owner of both pieces of land, then that servitude falls away, and when a new deed is registered, we say in the deed of transfer, “Such and such a servitude falls away as a result of amalgamation.”

Every deed of transfer includes certain conditions, and most of those conditions are contained in the deed of transfer itself, but originally all transfers were granted subject to certain conditions in favour of the State, even though they are not stated in the deed of transfer. All land was allotted subject to certain conditions. Now, in the deed of transfer which I have before me there are servitudes in respect of minerals and the like in favour of the State, and when this land is sold to the State or passes to or is registered in the name of the State, then, by rights, in terms of our system of registration—and that should be the position—there should not merely be a new deed of transfer, but it should also be stated that those conditions now fall away as a result of amalgamation, because they are conditions in favour of the State, and the State is now becoming the owner of that land.

These things can no longer be done now, because all that we are doing now is that when this piece of land is transferred to the State, a mere endorsement is made, and everything for which we otherwise made provision for the purposes of effective registration, such as the amalgamation of conditions which I have mentioned, now falls away, because we simply cannot do it by way of a mere endorsement.

There are many more examples that we can mention, and I want to say to this House and to the hon. the Minister that we are really concerned about this matter, and we feel that if we have to keep our system of registration an effective one, not only in the interests of the farmer or the plot-holder, but also in the interests of the State, we must proceed in the same way as we did before, and give every man his title-deed when he has paid for his land. The title deed is something which is sacred to us. It must be a man’s own, it must not be some or other endorsed document, it must be his own. For that reason we do not feel too happy about this matter. I do not want to enlarge on it any further. We have had our say. We who have dealings with the Deeds Office all the time feel concerned about this matter, and I feel that the purpose for which this procedure has been introduced—let me put it this way: The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) also spoke more or less along these lines, and I feel that this procedure has really been introduced for transfers of land to the State, where the assumption is that that land will remain the property of the State and will never again become the property of someone else. If that is the intention and we adhere to that, then I do not feel so concerned about the matter. Take the case of the land which will be submerged as a result of the building of the Van der Kloof Dam or the Verwoerd Dam. Suppose the land falling within the area of the dam is bought out. We realize that that land is bought out so that it may become the property of the State, not for to-day and to-morrow, but forever, as far as we can see into the future. If the object of registration in respect of that land is, in other words, transfer of land to the State so that it will never again revert to the public, then I do not see so great a danger in that. But I do see a danger in it if the principle is accepted of transferring to the State land which may possibly revert to the public at a later stage. Then I see a serious problem and a great deal of mischief in it as far as our system of registration is concerned.

I do not want to elaborate on that aspect any further. I think I have probably said more than enough already. I just want to refer briefly to a few other points in the proposed legislation. I am referring to Clause 2 now. The existing Section 3 of Act 47 of 1937 provides for the work to be performed by the Registrar of Deeds, and now an additional power is being conferred upon him, in the following terms—

I know it is not practicable to keep all the old documents, huge piles of them, permanently, but I do want to ask that we should be careful not to destroy some of our old documents in the Deeds Office too lightly. Even though it is a mortgage deed which has been cancelled, or whatever it may be, we can never say to-day that we shall never again refer back to the documents in the Deeds Office. To-morrow or the day after I might want to refer back to a mortgage deed which has been cancelled and no longer exists, which has been destroyed; I want to go and look at it for some reason or another, to see what the conditions were or whatever, and then I find that it has been destroyed and no longer exists. We realize that n good deal of space is required to store those documents, but we are nevertheless keen on the old system.

Further on in Clause 2 we find a provision that the deed need not be examined in its -entirety—

Sir, what usually happens in the Deeds Office is that documents are submitted to that office, that a deed is submitted along with the documents in connection therewith, and in terms of the regulations of the Deeds Office it has to appear on the counter four days after that, and if it is in order, it is then registered. The hon. the Minister referred to this matter under his vote and said that the Deeds Office had to do the work of the bad attorneys. I want to submit that when a deed is rejected, or when a deed is not approved, it is not necessarily always as a result of negligence or incompetence. I agree that one finds incompetent persons in all walks of life, but I do not want to accept that as being the rule. Sir, I shall mention a simple example to you: Suppose a man comes to an attorney and says, “Here is my deed of transfer; I have sold the land to that man and I want you to undertake the transfer for me”. You carry out the transfer, and in doing so you do not ask the man all sorts of impossible questions. The deed is submitted to the Deeds Office a day or two later, and the Deeds Office refers to what we call the “Black Book” and finds that the man is insolvent. Although no one was aware of that fact, a rejection slip is the immediate result. That is the type of thing that happens. Mistakes are found in the deed, such as an insolvency note, or a so-called “Master’s Return Note”, a note that the land is no longer negotiable, as the man’s wife has died and they were married in community of property There are other cases too. Even if there is some little mistake in the transfer duties’ receipt, the result is a rejection slip. All those things have to be checked, and it happens all the time that the type of error occurs which it is almost impossible to detect beforehand. But, although I have no objection to this clause, it has always been the practice in the Deeds Office that when such a note is found or one finds out that a statement has been made in the deed of transfer which in the light of the circumstances is not correct, the examiner endorses it with the leters “N.F.E.”. That has always been the practice. I know that there has been an inquiry in this connection and that it appeared that the deeds were being rejected in that way, and then the idea was expressed that the deeds should not be examined in their entirety on the first occasion. I should like to put it to the Minister that if we are going to try to introduce the position that a deed will be rejected when the very first mistake is found, so that the deed has to be re-submitted, we are going to cause the Deeds Office, in respect of which the Minister has said there is a great shortage of staff, much more work and difficulty and trouble than it had before, because then it might have to examine the deed four or five times in cases where it might only have had to examine it twice, and that would entail more work for the staff of the Deeds Office than would otherwise have been the position.

At the end of Clause 2 provision is also made for cases in which documents have be come dilapidated. Sir, we have very valuable documents in the Deeds Offices, particularly here in Cape Town. We have a large number of old title deeds here which were issued in the time of Simon van der Stel and during the very first days of the settlement here at the Cape. Those are very valuable documents and we must preserve them. I accept the principle that where a document in the Deeds Office is beginning to become dilapidated and is a valuable document which we should like to preserve, it should not be kept in the Deeds Office any longer, but should be removed to a safe place. That is why we are providing here that it is to be sent to the Director of Archives, and then photographic copies of that document can be made there and the photographic copy will be used in the Deeds Office. I think that is a very good idea, especially as some of these fine old documents are so valuable, but I should like to ask whether it is not desirable that we should provide that the copy must be a certified one. Even though it is a photographic copy, one cannot infer from that that the original of the copy is the real one. When we obtain copies of documents from the Master’s Office, even if they are copies of letters of administration and are photographic copies, they still bear endorsements on the back by means of which they are certified. I cannot find anything about certified copies here. I am just drawing attention to the fact that in my opinion it would be desirable that the photographic copies should also be certified copies.

I want to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. member for Ceres and other hon. members in regard to this measure. I support the point of view which has been put forward. We are all proud of our registration system. We have been extremely fortunate in having a number of public servants through the years who have acted as Registrars, and who have built on an old system which was already good, but each of them has made his contribution and we are tremendously grateful to them because our system is, of course, a model for the world. I would like to express my concern about this growing practice in relation to property passing into the hands of the State without registration of transfer and I want to point out to the Minister how dangerous this is. I had an example quite recently, where certain property was taken over, and there were registered mortgage bonds. The cheque was handed to the bondholder and he was told that he must now cancel the bonds, but they refused. Registered mortgage bonds which no longer secure a debt are something which should not exist. When the debt is liquidated the bond should be cancelled. In this case some 16 mortgage bonds could have been floating around. We know of an example not long ago where it was necessary to legislate in respect of mortgage bonds where a number of people had an interest because of difficulties which had arisen and defalcations which had taken place. In this particular instance I mentioned the mortgagee was a building society, but it might equally easily have been a private person, and it might have been very easy for a person with a forged cession of those bonds, which the Minister knows is very often an unregistered cession, to have got facilities from a bank. I think it is very important that when we have the soundest system in the world that we should be very chary of interfering with the soundness of that system, either directly or indirectly, and a very great responsibility in that regard rests upon the shoulders of the Minister. I feel that it is most desirable that not only should our registration system be perfect in the office of the Registrar of Deeds, but certainly we should not have floating about documents which on the face of them appear to be valid title deeds, when in fact they no longer represent anything, or mortgage bonds for that matter. I would tell the Minister that it was many years ago not the practice in certain areas, including Natal and the Rand, in the very early days, to place an endorsement on an old title deed noting the fact that the property held under it had been transferred by virtue of a subsequent deed of transfer. In my own experience I have had two examples brought to me, one in respect of a property in the centre of Johannesburg and one in respect of a number of properties in Louwsberg, in Northern Natal. In both instances descendants of the persons concerned found these old title deeds and thought they had come across a fortune which they did not know belonged to them. In one case this matter troubled the person so much that it affected his reason. Title deeds and mortgage bonds which are no longer valid should have an endorsement by the Registrar concerned to that effect, in the interests of the public.

Under what clause must I provide for that?

The Minister can easily provide that where there are mortgage bonds they must be surrendered in such cases, or something of that sort. All I am pleading for is that the Minister will have regard to the responsibility which rests upon him not only to improve the system—and this Bill does improve it in many respects—but not to allow practices to creep in which could have the effect of undermining the system of which we are all proud. There are certain other matters which I wish to raise, but I think they can better be dealt with in the Committee Stage.

I think first I must bring it to the notice of the House that any delay in the registration of deeds may amount to thousands of rand, an expense which is sometimes unnecessary if we can make these registrations flow faster and make the work run more smoothly. The whole object of this Bill is to have a more streamlined method of registering deeds in order to eliminate, as far as possible, those delays which unnecessarily cast the buyer, the seller and the State thousands of rand.

Secondly, I must draw attention to the fact that not only the law societies but also the Regulation Board has had full opportunity and that, except for the fact that we wanted to change the Regulation Board into an advisory board, they were quite satisfied with this Bill and had no doubts about it then.

Having listened to the doubts expressed by hon. members, I first want to thank the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) for the interesting background he sketched in regard to the methods of registration, but I want to tell him that he should realize a few things. Whereas our explanatory memorandum referred to the fact that there was no objection last year when the Housing Act was amended to allow the transfer of land from Community Development to the Housing Commission to take place by endorsement, that was merely mentioned as an example to bring it to ‘the notice of the House that this is no principle in registration. The principle was already adopted last year. If the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) says he made a mistake in voting for it last year . . .

I am very sorry about it.

All I can do is to tell the House that this principle has already been accepted that registration can be done by way of endorsement, and it is, therefore, not a new principle in this Bill. You, as responsible Members of Parliament, approved it last year already.

Now there is the objection of the hon. member for Florida and the hon. member for Ceres in regard to the State in so far as Clause 4 is concerned. Let us first ask ourselves what the State is. The State is not local authorities. The State is the Government itself, the Railways, and the Provincial Administrations, and not other bodies. In this case the land is registered in the name of the Government of the Republic of South Africa. I now come to the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker), who says that if it only takes place by way of endorsement, what about the mortgages registered against that land? This amendment will not only save valuable time—and I said a moment ago that time is an important element to us, particularly towards the end of a financial year—that the owner will receive his money sooner. In view of the fact that the State gives transfer against the title deed, there is no reason why we should incur the cost of acquiring the land by the usual deed of transfer.

Hon. members used the purchases under the Orange River Scheme as an example that they only told half the story. In the first place they should remember that we only pay when we have taken transfer, and not before that. If we have to go through this lengthy method of inspection, and there are delays, it may happen that we go past the end of the financial year and the funds fall away. Secondly, the sellers whose land we have expropriated have in the meantime bought other land, and now they must pay a high rate of interest while they are waiting for the State to pay them their money. Thirdly, the State is responsible from the date of expropriation for interest on the money which it has to pay to those people, and we want to avoid that.

Will the preliminary work not have to be done in any case, and is the only delay not in the Deeds Office itself?

That is one of the main reasons. Where the State buys the State Attorney may, without appointing attorneys again to re-draft the deeds, see to the land being transferred to the State by way of endorsement. Now hon. members are afraid that in that transfer the deed of transfer and the diagram would not be correct. But that transfer is only to the State. When the State again alienates that land or portion of it, after Water Affairs has told it what portion of it it needs—I take the Orange River Scheme as an example—and it has cut up the remaining portion into economic units which it wants to alienate, when that man receives his deed of transfer and diagram he gets a proper deed and diagram and not only an endorsement. It is only in cases of transfer to the State that this happens. That is stated very clearly in the clause. The principal Act contains a proviso that where the State obtains all the land owned in terms of a deed of transfer, the Registrar must make the changes and entries in his registers and make the necessary endorsements on the deed of transfer which are necessary to register, without cost, the transfer to the State of the property thus acquired. In other words, that is where the State acquires the property.

What about an existing mortgage over that land?

I will come to it. First I want to say this: There are no transfer duty receipts. There are no group areas certificates or birth certificates or other loose documents attached to the State’s deed of transfer as is the case of private persons. In other words, when the State buys, it buys according to the conditions of title on that deed and, if there are mortgages registered against the property, the State must first repay those mortgages to the holders thereof. Then one has a document without mortgages which the State registers in its own name by way of endorsement.

Will a plan also be made so that even the mortgages will be endorsed, so that mortgages do not lie about which look as if they are valid?

I am prepared to investigate that, but it does not affect Clause 8. and the hon. member’s objection is to Clause 8. I think I have replied fully to the objections to Clause 8. We can discuss the matter further in the Committee Stage. I want to tell hon. members that this is the reason and they need not be concerned that the reason was to escape paying the little extra money which the attorneys can earn. The main reason is to have these matters speedily disposed of.

The hon. member for Ceres was also concerned about the destruction of the documents. Let me say immediately that we will not destroy a document which may possibly have any value. Those doubts are therefore unfounded, also in regard to the rejection of deeds. The Regulation Board thoroughly considered this amendment, and it is as drafted by them. We know how many problems we have in regard to buildings and how many unnecessary old documents have accumulated. We do not know what to do with them. It costs the State a lot of money to provide the storage for them. We should try to clear up these things which have no value. We shall certainly use our discretion and not penalize a conveyancer for a mistake over which he has no control. Hon. members also object to the re-examination. The time spent on reexamination will be doubly compensated for by the fact that attorneys will in future not hand in so much faulty work. We often find that our Deeds Office is the training centre for attorneys, and they take our best men. Those who do not get their trained men from us are those who make the most mistakes. I think that as the clause now stands it can only result in attorneys doing their work more carefully, which will save our personnel a lot of trouble.

In order to meet the hon. member for Ceres, I may say immediately that I have no objection to his suggestion that the word “certified” should be inserted in line 63 on page 9, and we will remedy it in the Committee Stage.

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) has said that if one looks at a deed of transfer one wants to see the correct picture. One wants to see who is the owner and what encumbrances there are against the property, but we should be practical to some extent. At the moment we provide that one knows who the owner is. In regard to the encumbrances, one must realize that one cannot state on every deed of transfer that here the provincial administration has the right one day to expropriate land for a road. That is already contained in other Acts and every man who buys land should know what the possible encumbrances are. We cannot insert this in the Act and put it on the deeds, because it will create an impossible position.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, I believe that, after having satisfied the House so much in the other Bill we have just dealt with, and because I am so conciliatory, hon. members will assist me in allowing this Bill to pass through the House speedily also. This Bill is intended to amend the Marketing Act, 1937, the Wool Act, 1946, and the Wool Commission and Wool Amendment Act, 1960. In this Bill provision is first made for the insurance of members of the Control Board under the Marketing Act, 1937, members of the Wool Board and members of the Wool Commission, and secondly, to extend the existing provisions in the Wool Commission and Wool Amendment Act, 1960, concerning the possible exemption and/or repayment of levies on wool.

Insurance of members (Clauses 1 to 13): During the investigation by the Select Committee on Public Accounts into the report of the Controller and Auditor-General on the accounts of the S.A. Wool Board for the year ended 30 June 1962, the question of the insurance of members of the Wool Board was raised. It appeared that the Wool Board had insured its members and had paid premiums in respect of an accident policy. Claims for compensation arising from accidents in which members of the board were concerned while performing the duties of the board and while travelling to and from board meetings were covered by the policy. The Select Committee doubted the power of the Wool Board to take out such insurance on behalf of its members, and suggested that the board investigate the matter and, if it so desired, make recommendations for the necessary legal amendments.

The Wool Act does not specifically provide for the insurance of its members by the Wool Board. The view has, however, always been held that the board would be responsible in the case of a claim for damages when one of its members was injured or killed in an accident in circumstances where a relationship of principal and agent existed between the board and such a member, and that the board had the power to insure itself against such possible claims. Similarly, the board is entitled to insure itself against claims where the accident is caused through the negligence of the board or its servants and the member is injured or killed while performing his official duties. There does not exist an employer/ employee relationship between the board and its members, and when a member is, therefore, busy carrying out his official duties, the board will evidently not be responsible for a claim for compensation for injury or death except under the circumstances set out above.

According to legal opinion, the Wool Board is, strictly speaking, not responsible either in respect of claims which may arise from accidents which take place while members are travelling to attend an ordinary board meeting or a meeting of a committee of the board. In practice, it amounts to the fact that the members should at their own expense make provision if they want insurance coverage in respect of such travels.

Mr. Speaker, in order to put the question of insurance of members on a sound basis, it is now intended to make provision in the Wool Act that the Wool Board, with the approval of the Minister, can insure its members in respect of physical injury, incapacitation or death which is exclusively and directly the result of an accident which takes place while such member is performing his duties.

In view of the fact that the Marketing Act and the Wool Amendment and Wool Commission Act do not make specific provision for insurance either, a similar provision is being inserted in those Acts, so that control boards established in terms of the Marketing Act, and also the Wool Commission, may insure their members. The same considerations which apply in the case of the Wool Board also apply to the marketing boards and the Wool Commission. A similar provision has already been made in terms of Act No. 38 of 1963 in regard to the Land Bank. Members of the boards concerned and the various group interests they represent on those boards have already for some time made strong representations that legal provision should be made for insurance

Remission of levies on wool (Clause 4): Section 11 (1) (b) of the Wool Commission and Wool Amendment, 1960, provides that the Wool Commission, with the approval of the Minister, may grant exemption, wholly or partly, from a levy imposed by the Wool Commission and owing in respect of wool imported in the Republic, or repaid where the levy has already been paid. In terms of Section 11 (5) of the aforementioned Act, this provision also applies to a levy imposed by the Wool Board and payable (on behalf of the Wool Board) to the Wool Commission.

In this Bill the existing provision is extended also to apply to wool purchased or sold or processed in the Republic or exported from it. In terms of the amended provision it will also be possible to approve such exemption or repayment in respect of only a specified category or group of persons, e.g. the exporters of wool skins, and also for any period, if it is desirable to do so under the circumstances.

The circumstances which gave rise to the introduction of this amendment arose in 1963, when the Wool Board, with my approval, repaid to exporters of wool skins the difference between the levy on wool which had applied up to 30 June 1963 and the increased levy which became applicable from 1 July 1963, in respect of the wool on skins which were exported during the two months of July and August 1963. The levy on wool was increased as from 1 July 1963. As the result of unavoidable circumstances, the increase took place at short notice. This short notice resulted in exporters of wool skins, who generally arrange contracts beforehand and have to pay the levy only on export, were detrimentally affected, because they, as the result of the short time granted to them, could not adapt their price to the new levy. Similar circumstances prevailed when the Wool Board’s levy on karakul wool was increased at short notice as from 1 August 1963. The exporters of karakul wool had entered into certain contracts before notice of the increased levy was given, and they were, therefore, not able either to make provision in their purchase prices for the increased part of the levy. In South West Africa there are no recognized wool auction sales and karakul wool dealers therefore buy direct from the producers and pay the levy only when they process or export the wool. In this case, on the recommendation of the Wool Board, approval was granted for the increased part of the levy on karakul wool exported from South West Africa during August and September 1963 to be repaid to the karakul wool exporters.

In the case of wool as such, nobody was unfairly harmed as the result of the coming into operation of the higher levy as from 1 July 1963, and there were no complaints in that regard. In view of this, and in view of the fact that it was essential for the Wool Board immediately to obtain the higher income accompanying the increased levy on wool, it was in any case desirable to collect the increased levy on wool as from the earliest possible date.

The Controller and Auditor-General in his report for the year 1963-4 indicated that, in his opinion, the necessary legal authorization did not exist for the repayment of the levies approved in 1963. The Select Committee on Public Accounts on 5 April 1965 dealt with this report of the Controller and Auditor-General, and expressed the opinion that it appeared to them that it was necessary during this Session still to remedy the matter by way of a legal amendment.

My Department, although it realized that the Wool Act, 1946, did not specifically provide for this approval, set out from the standpoint that the Minister in -fact had the power to authorize payments of this nature flowing from the judicious and proper administration of the Wool Act, 1946. With a view, however, to the opinion of the Select Committee on Public Accounts and the Controller and Auditor-General in regard to the matter, and the fact that in future circumstances might arise again to justify such remissions or repayments, the amendment in Clause 4 of the Bill is proposed. It will put the matter beyond all doubt and will be of retrospective force from 1 July 1963. This amendment contains no new principle and has the support of both the Wool Board and the Wool Commission.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has now explained to us the two principles contained in this Bill. I want to tell him immediately that we are prepared to support the second reading of this Bill because the principle was already adopted a year or two ago when this House decided that we should give that right to the Land Bank to insure its members. I think we can agree with the Deputy Minister that the large number of control boards and the various advisory committees they may appoint in terms of the Marketing Act do exceptionally important work for us in the agricultural industry. The members of these boards often expose themselves to accidents while they are performing their duties as members of these control boards. I agree that it is a good principle which is embodied in this Bill. The hon. the Minister has already explained that this matter was also the subject of discussion by the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and the Wool Board has already in the past decided to insure its members. But I just wonder whether Clauses 1, 2 and 3 go far enough to protect the members of such boards who are to be insured. I want to refer here to page 149 of the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. Hon. members will find there that it was proposed that the words “or while he travels from his place of residence to a meeting of a board or such committee, or from any such meeting to his place of residence” should be inserted. I understand that the Land Bank also wanted this provision, but the Minister of Finance, who keeps the reins tight, was evidently not prepared to approve of it. The Select Committee on Public Accounts naturally did not discuss the matter further. It is clear that a member of a board can in fact be insured in terms of Clauses 1, 2 and 3 when he is performing his duties in the interests of a control board, but what happens when such a man is on his way to a meeting or on his way home after a meeting? He is then dependent on his own insurance. When a member of a board is requested to attend a specific meeting of a board, it is surely clear that he is on duty from the moment he leaves his house to go to that meeting. Why can he be insured only while he is at the meeting or while he is busy doing an inspection on behalf of the Control Board or one of the committees? I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain to us whether it is not possible in this case to grant further insurance to members of control boards.

Then I come to Clause 4, which deals with the remission of the levy, wholly or in part, in respect of wool which is exported. We know that Section 11 of the Wool Commission and Wool Amendment Act of 1960 provides that with the approval of the Minister the levy may be completely or partly remitted in respect of wool which is imported. This matter was of course also discussed by the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and I want to tell the Deputy Minister that we support him here also. We think it was essential to take this step. It is essential, as the Chairman of the Wool Board also stated when he gave evidence, to protect the interests of people who buy skins. The clause as it stands here is undoubtedly very wide and the Deputy Minister ought to give us the assurance that the intention of this clause is to make use of this provision only in certain cases, as has in fact happened and which may perhaps happen again in the transition stage, in exceptional cases. We therefore have no objection to the provisions of sub-section (2) being made retrospective to 1 July 1963.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth-West (Mr. Streicher) has already indicated that we support the principles of this Bill. I do not want to talk about Clauses 1, 2 and 3 but about Clause 4, and I want to draw the attention of the Deputy Minister specifically to the provisions of this Clause and express the hope that he will be prepared in the Committee Stage to bring about an amendment. The original intention underlying the remission and/or repayment of the levy was that the board, and later the commission, adopted the attitude that all wool produced in the Republic of South Africa should be subject to the levy, and the problem then arose a few years ago that the importers of wool also had to pay the levy on imported wool, which at the time was obviously not the intention of the board, which at that stage had not yet been converted into a commission, and it was for that reason that provision was made in the Act in connection with the remission of the levy, but up to that stage no remission of the levy had ever been granted under any circumstances on wool produced within the Republic. The hon. the Minister has said that it is the intention to make provision here for the exporters of merino skins who, when they bought the skins, did not know that the levy would be increased the following year, as well as for the exporters of karakul wool who bought karakul wool under similar circumstances without knowing that the levy would be increased the following year. I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to the fact that the wool levy is determined every year, with the approval of the Minister, after the close of the season. It can only be determined from May to September and I cannot see that the position will ever be different. But if the levy is to be refunded in these particular cases I want to ask the Deputy Minister what the position is of the ordinary farmer who buys merino sheep with the object of shearing them the following season, who labours under the impression that he is going to be subject to the same levy and then finds that he has to pay a higher levy? After all, he is in the same position as the person who bought skins, for example. There is no difference between the person who buys sheep or wool and the person who buys skins. The Deputy Minister says that this Bill contains no new principle. Sir, we are dealing here with an entirely new principle. Hitherto all wool produced in the Republic has been subject to the levy and the levy is determined from year to year, with the approval of the Minister, before the season commences. We are now bringing about amendments in terms of which certain exceptions can be made. I predict that if the Bill is accepted in this form, without providing specifically under what circumstances there will be a remission of the levy, it is going to lead to problems. The Deputy Minister has admitted that this particular clause could have been drafted more specifically and I want to ask him to give his very serious attention to the question of drafting this clause in clearer terms. We on this side of the House have no real objection in these circumstances to relief being granted as far as the levy is concerned, but we cannot get away from the fact that there are many similar cases. This does not apply only to the buyers of skins and the buyers of karakul wool. It applies to everybody who buys wool or who buys merino sheep or merino skins, before the new levy is determined, with a view to shearing off the wool and selling it the following year. I also want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the wool season closes at the end of May and does not commence again before the beginning of September. The exporter may still be able to negotiate for a certain price by way of contract but the producer has no control over the price he is going to receive; he may get a lower price than he hoped to get. He can buy sheep with long wool and then shear them but he cannot sell the wool between the end of May and the beginning of September because the market is closed during that period. In other words, he is dependent on what the market is going to offer him. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that this clause has been framed far too widely. I would be the last person to plead that exceptions should be made in connection with the payment of the levy, because as soon as exceptions are made the amount thus remitted has to be made up in some other way, and if it cannot be made up in some other way then the levy has to be increased. The Minister does not know and nobody knows to what extent this sort of thing may again happen in the future. He may find that there are many cases in which buyers of large quantities of skins make representations to the commission for a remission of the levy. Sir, for these reasons I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to bring about an amendment in the Committee stage with a view to greater clarity in connection with the two specific cases which I have mentioned here.

I want to deal very briefly with just two matters. One cannot compare a man who buys a quantity of skins, knowing full well what levy is payable on them and who then finds subsequently that the levy is changed, with the farmer who buys sheep under normal farming conditions. Here we have a case where somebody has a certain quantity of skins on which a special levy was payable and he now finds that the levy is changed. The position of such a person is not comparable with that of the farmer who buys sheep. The man who buys 5,000 wethers, for example, in May, knows precisely how he is going to conduct his farming and he takes the ordinary risks that every farmer takes.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth-West (Mr. Streicher) has raised the question of the period during which members of the Wool Board and the Marketing Board are covered by insurance. He expressed concern over the fact that members of the Board had no insurance cover while travelling from their homes to a meeting and on their way back home from the meeting. Sir, this is a principle which applies to all Board members and there are certain good reasons for it. In the first instance it is difficult to determine, if a person is involved in an accident, whether he was on his way to a meeting, or whether on his way to Pretoria, for example, to attend to other matters there. I may go to the National Party Congress, for example, but at the same time I may also be going to Pretoria to attend a meeting of the Wool Board. I mention that just as an example.

How can a person lose his life in an accident at a meeting?

I mention this example just to show that we are dealing here with a matter of principle.

That is a weak argument.

No, it is not a weak argument; it is a matter of principle. The same principle applies to members of the Land Bank.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill amends the Transfer Duty Act, 1949, the Estate Duty Act, 1955, and the Stamp Duty Act, 1962.

From the Bill itself and from the explanatory memorandum thereon, hon. members will have seen that for the most part this measure gives effect to the taxation proposals and the concessions announced by me in my Budget speech. Those items in the Bill which have not previously been referred to are largely in the nature of concessions or are aimed at removing anomalies and, therefore, call for no comment or explanatory statements from me.

Hon. members will no doubt be pleased to note that the references in the Estate Duty Act to sterling are now being replaced by references to the decimal currency.

I will be just as brief as the hon. Minister and say that we have no objection to the second reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendments.

I move—

With the dissolution of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland on 31 December 1963 the Governments of the Republic and of Rhodesia agreed that the Trade Agreement of 16 May 1960, as amended, between the Governments of the Republic of South Africa and the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland should continue to apply as between Southern Rhodesia and the Republic of South Africa until such time as the two Governments could agree upon the terms of their future trading relations. Notes to this effect were exchanged between the Governments of the Republic and Rhodesia on 23 December 1963, and were duly approved by Parliament during its 1964 session.

Negotiations for a new trade agreement between South Africa and Rhodesia were conducted during the second half of last year. The 1960 agreement with the former Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland was taken as the basis for these negotiations, but additional concessions were offered by both parties. The negotiations finally resulted in the conclusion of a far more extensive trade agreement than the agreement with the Federation.

As adjacent countries, South Africa and Rhodesia constitute natural and traditional markets for each other’s export products. The two Governments accordingly consider it desirable that trade between their respective countries should be as free and uninterrupted as possible and that the traditional trading relations between them should continue and be improved. The negotiations for a new trade agreement were, therefore, aimed at the conclusion of arrangements providing for the duty-free admission into their respective territories of the largest possible portion of the goods traded between them.

In the case of those commodities which could not be accommodated in the arrangements for duty-free admission, an effort was made to formulate other arrangements which would provide favourable conditions for increasing the trade in these goods between the two countries to a high level.

My Department received the co-operation of organized commerce and industry, and continually consulted them on a confidential basis during the negotiations so as to ensure that full consideration would be given to their particular interests. Regular consultation with the other Government Departments similarly ensured that other interests affected by the negotiations were also adequately taken into account.

As regards the concessions granted by Rhodesia to South Africa under the Agreement, it should be noted that the Rhodesian customs tariff is divided into four columns, namely, columns A, B, C and D. Column D of the Rhodesian tariff embodies the lowest rates of duty which apply to goods from the United Kingdom and the British colonies. The column C rates, which in many instances are higher than the column D rates, apply to goods from the fully self-governing countries of the British Commonwealth, other than the United Kingdom. Column B rates, which in turn are generally higher than the column C rates, apply to goods from countries entitled to m.f.n. treatment, while column A rates, which are generally higher again than column B rates, apply to goods of which the country of origin cannot be established, or goods originating from specified list of countries.

In terms of the agreement, all goods produced in South Africa, other than those for which lower rates of duty are expressly provided, are admitted into Rhodesia at the column C rates of duty; in other words, the rates of duty which apply to goods from the fully self-governing countries of the .British Commonwealth other than the United Kingdom.

Certain South African products, specified in the annexures to the agreement, are admitted into Rhodesia at the column D rates of duty; in other words, the rates which apply to goods from the United Kingdom and the British colonies, while in respect of a further range of South African products also specified in the agreement special rates of duty at levels falling somewhere between the column C rates and the column D rates have been provided.

To a large extent South African products now receive better tariff treatment in Rhodesia than was previously the case, and should, therefore, be in a better position to compete successfully in the Rhodesian market against goods imported from other countries.

Under the agreement South Africa, on the other hand, undertakes to grant to specified goods of Rhodesian origin either unrestricted duty-free entry, or duty-free entry for specified quantities or values of such goods, or unrestricted entry at specified rebates from our m.f.n. rates of duty or, or duty-free entry, but subject to the procurement of import permits.

These concessions should enable Rhodesian exporters to compete more successfully with other external suppliers in the South African market.

Provision has also been made in the agreement for the importation from Rhodesia at concessionary rates of limited quantities of specified goods which are produced also in the Republic and which, for one reason or another, are regarded as sensitive to competition from Rhodesia.

The agreement further provides that either party may approach the other at any time for consultations with a view to finding ways and means of solving any difficulty experienced as a result of the operation of the agreement. Any disruption caused in the market of either party as a result of the operation of the agreement can, therefore, be eliminated immediately by means of such consultations, and it is not necessary for the party concerned to wait until the expiry of the agreement before the position can be rectified.

The agreement came into operation on 1 December 1964 and shall remain in force until 31 December 1969. Unless notice of termination is given by one party to the other party 12 months before the expiry of that period, the agreement shall thereafter remain in force until the expiry of 12 months from the date on which notice of termination is given by either of the two parties.

The new agreement represents an important step in the commercial relations between South Africa and Rhodesia. It will, I feel sure, serve to contribute not only towards the growth of the two-way trade between them but also towards a strengthening of their relations in other fields of common interest.

I agree with the hon. Minister that this agreement represents an important step in regard to our trade relations with Rhodesia. It is a new approach in what has been a somewhat checkered history of trade relations with Rhodesia. One can only hope that the Government will make a better job of administering this agreement than they did of the Customs Union Agreement which they took over from us in 1948. That agreement, of course, went much further than this one although this one is undoubtedly a move in the same direction. In that agreement both parties agreed to the principle of establishing a Customs Union—which meant complete free trade—but both parties agreed that it could not be done at once, just as it is now realised that there are limits to what one can do, but it agreed that over a period of years it would be endeavoured to iron out those differences.

Whereas the arrangement is made in this agreement that either side or any interest on either side which feel that they are suffering under this agreement may put in a complaint which can be dealt with and the agreement adjusted if the complaint is found to be justified the original agreement of 1948 actually provided for the setting up of a body consisting of one representative from each government and a chairman mutually agreed upon whose job it was to act as arbiter, on the one hand, and on the other, to see that both governments really lived up to the agreement and made it effective. He also acted as a buffer for each government between it and the pressure which inevitably each government has found and will find from interested parties in its respective countries the moment they find that there is any competition under this agreement from the other country. It is only natural that people look at their own direct interests first. It is necessary in the wider interests of economic relations that their interests have to be reconciled, or in some cases even subordinated, to the general interest of trade between the two countries. That is why I think it is perhaps a pity that it is not possible to establish something on the same lines as we had in the Customs Union Agreement of 1947, I think, namely, a little body with one representative from each government and a mutually appointed chairman; people who would be experts on this subject and who would be watching the position the whole time so as to act, as I have said, as a buffer between the governments and the pressure which will no doubt be brought to bear on them by interested parties to get the agreement altered in the interests of one particular section or another. Indeed. I would go further and express the hope that, if this agreement is administered properly and if our government trade organization promotes trade properly and has the backing of our industrialists, it may yet be possible to get back to the point where we may be able to consider re-establishing that customs union. The hon. the Minister said that this agreement was not only important from the purely trading point of view but because it would have a strengthening effect in other directions as well. Of course, he is perfectly right. It is our desire to have the closest possible relations with our neighbours in the north, not only in respect of trade, but in every respect. Not only are they our geographical relations but they are our blood relations with a very great degree of community of interests. The closer we can be connected with them the better. The very basis for close relations is good economic trade relations. I would hope that with this agreement which is now coming into force the Government would have at the back of its mind the hope that the agreement will work so well and that over all the benefits to both countries will be so obvious in the course of the next few years, that it will be possible for them to take the initiative in due course and say: “Can’t we get back to where we were in 1948 and really get down to a customs union where most of these things can be eliminated”. After all, Sir, if a highly complicated economic area like Europe can get somewhere near a Common Market, it is not beyond the wit of man for two small countries like ourselves and Southern Rhodesia, if we really wanted to do so, to work out a similar scheme with equally mutual benefits which you see in the European Common Market.

We on this side of the House also want to express our pleasure, after the announcement made by the Minister in regard to the fact that the two countries, Rhodesia and ourselves, have again shown the goodwill which exists between us, and ought to exist between us, by way of this agreement. We in South Africa also see it as a stressing of our goodwill towards Rhodesia, which has existed all these years, and our willingness to show goodwill in the commercial sphere to that country and to make the necessary concessions for the fruitful and successful trading between the two countries. There was an occasion in the past when we on this side showed this goodwill further, when we not only had regard to stabilising the good commercial relations, but when we were also prepared to finance a further link between Rhodesia and South Africa, namely when we helped to establish a route between Beit Bridge and West Nicholson. On this occasion I also want to express the hope that the trade which is developing between us so splendidly will make it necessary for us to create this link in future. I am sure that South Africa, on its part, will also make a material contribution to make it possible. I believe that the further development referred to by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, viz. the possibility of a further close link by means of a customs agreement, will make it possible in future. I am convinced that the necessary foundation for it is being laid now. We in South Africa can only rejoice at this link because it not only holds a material advantage for us but is also confirmation of the fact that Rhodesia and South Africa feel inter-dependent and that we have also cast our lot with that of Rhodesia in future also in the economic sphere, as we shall have to do in many spheres.

I wish to be a bit more specific in my remarks in regard to the provisions of the agreement. Before doing so I do want to say that there was some considerable speculation at the time the agreement was published as to whether or not it constituted part and parcel of the Prime Minister’s thinking in regard to the development of a common market in Southern Africa. I can’t express any opinion as to what the views of the Rhodesian Government are in regard to such proposals but I think it is clear that the signing of this agreement indicates the recognition by the Rhodesian Government of the importance of the South African market and the importance of economic ties with the Republic just as much as we recognize the importance of having those ties with the countries to the north of us.

Having said that to indicate the general attitude of this side of the House I want to ask the hon. the Minister one or two questions in regard to Article 4. This is a long standing arrangement and it reads—

I think similar arrangements existed in the past. The inclusion of this as an article in the agreement is a following on on the precedent which existed in the past. I do not know whether the conditions have changed that much; as a matter of precedent as far as the interests of the tobacco producers of our country are concerned whether that provision has any worth in fact to the actual situation. The hon. member for Brits made a very strong plea the other day to the hon. the Minister as to whether or not this article at some future date should not be reconsidered in consultation with the Rhodesian Government, and I would join with the hon. member for Brits in that plea that he made to the Minister. In doing so, I want to put the facts of the situation, based on the last report of the Department of Agricultural Economics for the year ending 1963. It indicated that the Republic imported 5.2 million lbs. of Rhodesian flue-cured tobacco at an average price of 41.5 cents a lb. My information is that the total volume of imports for the current year has not changed very much and is not likely to change. The point is that where the agreement provides for 2,000,000 in weight duty-free, there was still an excess importation by manufacturers upon which they had to pay duty of some 3,000,000 additional lbs. in weight of flue-cured tobacco.

What are the actual facts of the production of flue-cured tobacco in this country? The producer in the first instance in South Africa gets nothing like an average of 41.5 cents a lb. for his flue-cured tobacco. The average price paid to the South African producer, according to the departmental report for the latest year was only 39.6 cents per lb. on the average. An additional fact is that the total production of flue-cured tobacco for the year 1963-4 was something like 30.7 million lbs in weight. Our total consumption of tobacco according to the latest figures which I have available for the year 1964 was only 19.1 million lbs weight— that is flue-cured, I am not dealing with other varieties. The local sales to manufacturers was 19.1 million lbs weight. In other words, the figure of importation is not included in this 19.1 million lbs, but is in excess. So it shows that the internal consumption of flue-cured tobacco is in actual fact something like 24,000,000 lbs in weight. Now apart from the volume that we have exported, not at 41.5 cents a lb., but which we have exported abroad at an average price of something like 27 cents a lb. (South African flue-cured tobacco), the position is that we sit at present according to the estimates of the coops and the Tobacco Board for the current year with unsold flue-cured tobacco in South Africa on an average year’s production of something like 10.3 million lbs in weight. That is the estimate for the current year.

I realize why the manufacturers want this tobacco. They want it because we are not producing qualities in South Africa which are necessary for the blending of cigarettes to get them up to the required quality standard. Now I do not believe the blending issue is so important in the light of the research that is being carried out in our tobacco industry to-day, but the clear fact of the matter is that the stocks presently held, which are estimated to be sufficient for the next 22 months—that is unsold flue-cured tobacco—are available, and that, without this advantage, the South African producer would be able to have a quicker turnover of his sales, and I would assess at a better price than he receives at the present time. I merely state the facts of this issue. The hon. member for Brits is well aware of these facts, and he is well aware of the importance of the issue to the South African tobacco producer, and I would join him in the plea that he made the other day to the Minister. The provisions in the agreement under Article 12 come up for reconsideration at 15-month intervals, and I would plead with the Minister that when the opportunity does offer itself, the Minister should bear these issues in mind as far as the tobacco producers of South Africa are concerned. There is a feeling amongst the tobacco producers, and I think the hon. member for Brits will confirm this, that in the negotiations that took place not sufficient consideration was given to our producers, and that more consideration was given to the manufacturers’ interests as far as the inclusion of this Article 12 in the agreement is concerned. That is the feeling, rightly or wrongly, and I put it to the hon. Minister for what it is worth. I would suggest that when consultations with Rhodesia come up again, I understand in March next year, that the hon. Minister should consult with his colleague, the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, in order to see if this situation cannot be resolved, because I see personally no justification for a preference of this nature being granted to the tobacco manufacturer when in our own country we sit with these millions of pounds of unsold flue-cured tobacco.

Then I want to direct the Minister’s attention to Article 11 of the agreement, which reads—

This is a new article, and it has never been included in former agreements that we have had under the old customs union’s arrangement with the Southern Rhodesian Government. The issue is of considerable importance, when it is realized, Mr. Speaker, that 50 per cent of the entire tourist industry of South Africa rests upon Rhodesian tourists. I think the latest figures are 101,000 Rhodesian tourists out of a total of 217,000 who entered the Republic in the last calendar year of 1964. It is even of more importance if it is realized that of the 101,000 Rhodesian tourists who came to the Republic, approximately 65 per cent entered the Republic by road. In other words, they entered through one or other of the immigration check-points. I would like to ask the hon. Minister whether the Minister of Tourism has actually taken steps in terms of this agreement to facilitate the arrangements made for tourists on our borders. If there is anything that can destroy a tourist trade, it is the silly pin-pricks that one hears from numbers of Rhodesians who enter our country as tourists they have to undergo at these various immigration check-points—the filling in of forms, the endless examination of baggage and so on. I am sure that South African tourists, and I have taken the trouble to check this, that South African tourists going into Southern Rhodesia do not have to undergo half the formalities. . . .

Many more.

Half, may be an exaggeration, but I think it is beyond question that South African tourists do not have to undergo as many formalities as the Rhodesian tourists have when entering the Republic.

In fact more.

Order! I do not think that point can be argued now.

Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention again to /the fact that the article reads that the parties agreed to adopt, as far as possible, similar customs measures to encourage “tourism”? That is the joint agreement. We want Rhodesians to come here and, therefore, I would make this appeal to the hon. Minister to encourage his colleague, _ the Minister of Tourism, and perhaps the Minister of the Interior, to see if all these procedures cannot be simplified, so that we can have the desired result of this paragraph, and not have the 101,000 tourists from Rhodesia, but many times the number, and also to achieve other aims: Closer association with Southern Rhodesia. I hope that the hon. the Minister will lend his weight to see that this article is really carried out, as far as tourism is concerned, in the interest of South Africa and Rhodesia.

I want to follow the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) in a very brief reference to Article 11. Sir, one hopes that this is not merely an afterthought in an agreement which has very important economic implications, and that it was not just included because somebody remembered that there was tourism between Southern Rhodesia and South Africa, but that it was included because it was recognized thait this is a matter of great economic and other importance. I am not in a position to know to what extent the hon. Minister has discussed .this matter with his colleague, the hon. Minister of Tourism, because, in the report of the South African Tourist Corporation, which, as we know, is under the aegis of the Department of Tourism, we find a number of statements which, I .think, highlight the importance of tourism . . .

Order! The House is not discussing tourism as such. We are discussing the agreement.

Well, Mr. Speaker . . .

I cannot allow a discussion of tourism as such now.

Mr. Speaker, in view of

Order! I have given my ruling, and the hon. member must abide by my ruling.

Sir, may I ask for a ruling on the point . . .

No, I have given my ruling, and the hon. member can refer to tourism in passing.

Sir, Article 11 deals with tourism.

Order! The hon. member must obey my ruling, or otherwise he must sit down.

While we welcome this agreement, the one aspect that is most important is the proviso for periodic consultations between the two governments on the operation of the agreement so as to ensure that the objectives of the agreement are not frustrative, and the suggestions made by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), I am sure, will be taken into consideration by the hon. the Minister. One sees the importance of this proviso, Mr. Speaker, in the conditions which have developed since this agreement was entered into not a very long while ago. Now I understand, that in terms of the agreement, the Rhodesian manufacturer is entitled to export to South Africa, at a fairly low rate of duty, 1,000,000 shirts per annum, which would constitute about 2,500,000 yards of material. As the House knows, there have been certain problems in the Republic lately in regard to this question of poplin. We, to-day, have a situation therefore that where the Republic has a complete embargo on poplin, we have an agreement with Rhodesia whereby they can import poplin freely from overseas (they are not obliged to purchase it from us), convert this into manufactured goods and export it to the Republic at low duties. Therefore it is of great importance, and I am sure the hon. Minister is mindful of that fact, that there will have to be adjustments from time to time and that machinery apart from that already provided in the agreement, and more efficient than that provided for in the agreement, might have to be introduced to take care of the situations that arise from time to time.

In the first place I want to refer the hon. member to the speech of the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson). The attitude of the hon. member for Constantia is well known to me in regard to the relations between South Africa and Rhodesia. When this same object was dealt with five years ago, in regard to the agreement we made then, the hon. member for Constantia also expressed the idea that as two neighbouring countries we should get nearer to each other in the commercial and the economic spheres. Perhaps the hon. member will recollect that on that occasion, and also on a later occasion, I expressed the same opinion, that it was also my desire and ideal that we should bring these two countries closer to each other. In regard to the previous agreement we had certain actual problems. At that time we had problems because the Federation felt that it should become more economically independent and that it should try to protect its own industry, and it felt that it could only or mainly protect its own industries when it protected those industries against South Africa, because it regarded South Africa as its greatest competitor. In the negotiations we had at that time, five years ago, we found it very difficult to get nearer to Rhodesia, although at that time already it was our object to forge closer links with the Federation. Fortunately circumstances have changed in the meantime, and the Federation has also broken up now and we only had to deal with Rhodesia, so that we could negotiate in a different atmosphere. I am very glad that this agreement we arrived at last year goes much further towards linking the two countries more closely. We are much more of an economic unit now than the position was in 1959 and thereafter. It is my hope and desire that when one day we again negotiate an agreement we shall be able to take another step further to bring us nearer together in the economic sphere. There is of course always a lot of difficulty in this regard when areas do not develop equally. When one area regards itself as being on a lower level of industrial development, it is not so easy to abolish tariffs and the margins between each other. Those areas mostly feel that they must first get on to a more or less equal level of economic development before they can be combined into a larger unit. But I can give the hon. member the assurance that as far as I and the Government are concerned we will do everything possible to get nearer to each other.

The hon. member referred to a body which existed in terms of the former agreement and which sat permanently to discuss our problems. That body disappeared in 1959 already. The hon. member asked whether we would not establish it again. I doubt whether that body functioned well. I do not think it is necessary now. I think that under the system of consultation with each other which we now have we can perhaps solve our difficulties just as well or even better.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) raised two points in regard to tobacco and tourism. I know that the question of tobacco is a sore point with our tobacco growers. It has been so all these years, even under the previous agreements, that such a large quantity of Rhodesian tobacco is allowed to enter the country. It is not a large percentage of our total tobacco production in South Africa. Our manufacturers also want that tobacco for mixing purposes in order to make a type of cigarette which the public wants. Bet the hon. member should remember that here and there we had to make concessions in order to get certain concessions from Rhodesia, and where the economy of Rhodesia is not very diversified, where Rhodesia could not offer us many things, we had to make concessions to her in the very spheres in which she had something to offer. The hon. member will agree that tobacco is one of the important items in the economy of Rhodesia. In other spheres there is not much Rhodesia can give us, and this is the most important respect in which we could make a concession to her. And to a large extent the concluding of this agreement depended on whether we could accommodate Rhodesia in respect of tobacco and cigarettes. There we made a big concession. It affects a portion of our population, but other concessions again affect other sections of our population. But we would never have been able to make the favourable agreement we have now entered into if we had not made those concessions. That is one of the prices we had to pay for this agreement. And we will watch the position. At the time we consulted the Agricultural Departments in regard to the matter and we shall always do so, and if we can bring relief in this respect we shall of course not hesitate to do so.

The hon. member also asked about tourism. I cannot express an opinion in this regard. I can only talk about what we formally agreed with each other. My task is only to establish the formal structure, that we want to promote tourism, and it is the duty of the Minister of Tourism further to promote tourism within that framework. He is aware of the agreement and I am sure that he can give a good account of his activities.

Will you please say something about the Common Market proposals?

This agreement stands quite apart as an agreement between us and Rhodesia and as an attempt to get closer co-operation in the economic sphere and consequently in other spheres between Rhodesia and ourselves. It should not be seen as part of a Common Market agreement. That is not the object, although it may have that tendency.

Then the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) spoke about poplin and shirts. I can only say that the matter is already receiving our attention and that we will ensure that South Africa’s interests are not harmed. If there is any danger of our interests being harmed, we have the power to take steps in that regard.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

That the Bill be now read for the second time. Although this Bill provides for the establishment of a National Metallurgical Institute, the measure in practice really comprises the conversion of the Government Metallurgical Laboratory into an Institute which is a corporate body under which the objects, powers, constitution and function are properly prescribed by law.

The existing laboratory, which is situated near the University of the Witwatersrand, was established in 1934 mainly on the initiative of Prof. Stanley, who was at that time the Head of the Department of Metallurgy of the aforementioned university, and Dr. Hans Pirow, the then Government Mining Engineer, and has been maintained since that date in terms of an agreement between the Department of Mines and the University of the Witwatersrand.

The work and achievements of the laboratory are perhaps not so well known locally among those who are not concerned with the mining industry or the mineral or the metallurgical industries. The laboratory has, however, achieved international repute, mainly because of the outstanding work it has done since the 1940’s in regard to the extraction of uranium, and it has also made many important contributions in other spheres of our mining industry.

Many industries which are to-day flourishing in the Republic owe their origin to the pioneering work done by the Government Metallurgical Laboratory. The production of Vermiculite takes place according to a process which was originally developed by the Laboratory. The flotation of apatite (rock phosphates) coming from the Phalaborwa was proved to be technically practicable by the laboratory before Foscor was established. Also the processes according to which a large variety of other minerals are produced, such as, e.g., andalusite, sillimanite and chromite, were evolved and developed by the Laboratory many years ago already and are to-day accepted as standard processes by mineral industries in our country without their always being aware that the pioneering work was done by this Laboratory.

Among the more recent research projects of the Laboratory may be mentioned the development of techniques or the production of very pure uranium metal suitable for nuclear use, and also the extraction, ennobling or processing of other metals or minerals like asbestos, copper, nickel, cobalt, chromium and manganese ore.

In view of the important role the mining industry plays in our country we should like to see our metallurgists provided with the best possible facilities so that they can also, as is already the case in regard to our mining engineers in their sphere, play a leading role in the world in regard to the development of new methods of processing and ennobling minerals.

The Republic is in fact a large provider of raw materials to the world. In spite of the large measure of local ennobling, a large amount of raw materials is still being exported in the crude form. Through local processing we enhance the value of it, and with the same amount of raw materials a higher income can be earned for the country. It can therefore earn more foreign currency and can serve as a further source of employment for our large population. It is in the national interest for us to give this direction the full attention it deserves.

In general it has been the practice in the past to export our raw materials and to buy the know-how for the processing of minerals from overseas countries. Apart from the fact that this knowledge is becoming more difficult to obtain, it is very important to have research institutions of our own where new processes may be developed. So, for example, there is a great possibility that South Africa may become the greatest producer in the world of ferrous alloys. We have very large deposits of chrome for the production of ferro-chrome, and deposits of manganese for ferro-manganese and of venadium for ferro-venadium. It is known that deposits of niobium and tantalum exist, for the production of these ferrous alloys, but the scope of these deposits still has to be determined. All these ferrous alloys will be of great value to the technology of the Western world. The development of a suitable process which will be competitive with those in other parts of the world can, however, not be obtained from abroad and it will consequently have to be developed locally.

In so far as State-supported organizations are concerned, it is expected that their function will be of fundamental nature and on a longterm basis. The mining industry in this country already has research laboratories which are able to undertake applied, commercially-orientated development work. There is, however, still a great shortage of organizations which can undertake basic and fundamental work; in the long run this is the only foundation for the development of new and improved processes. Mineral development comprises many basic sciences such as, e.g., chemistry and physics, and it is important that the research of an organization like the proposed National Metallurgical Institute should be co-ordinated with other research organizations like the Universities, the C.S.I.R. and the Geological Survey Department. The co-operation between the Government Metallurgical Laboratory and the Atomic Board has already shown how fruitful such a co-ordination of projects can be. With the establishment of the National Metallurgical Institute it is expected that one of its greatest objectives will be to ensure closer co-operation with other institutions and to support research in the sphere of mineral development. It is also envisaged that essential facilities for consultations and research services will be provided for smaller organizations, and to provide facilities for the undertaking of strategic projects and projects of national importance.

The status of the existing laboratory is, however, such that it does not give its personnel the necessary security. As I have already said, the laboratory is maintained in terms of an agreement between the Department of Mines and the University of the Witwatersrand. This agreement may, however, at any time be terminated by the two parties, and the laboratory will come to an end, without its staff having any rights.

Although the staff of the laboratory are remunerated from funds provided by the State, they are appointed by the University of the Witwatersrand in order, inter alia, into make it possible for them to belong to the relevant pension and provident funds. The laboratory was not established in terms of an Act and can, therefore, not be declared to be an associated institution falling within the terms of the Pension Funds for Associated Institutions Act, 1963.

The Bill at present before the House, and the principles contained in it, which are fully supported by the University of the Witwatersrand, therefore, fully envisage the substitution of the laboratory by an autonomous statutory body which will be known as the National Metallurgical Institute. The provisions of the Bill are largely self-explanatory and require no explanation. I, therefore, limit myself to making a few remarks in regard to certain of the clauses.

Clause 4: The affairs of the institute will be managed by a control board consisting of at least seven and not more than nine members. Two of the members must be officials of the Department of Mines and, in the case of four of the other members, they must each be appointed because of their knowledge of certain prescribed matters. The Atomic Board is specially mentioned because a large proportion of the work of the institute will be done for the benefit of the Atomic Board, and will be financed by that board, as is also the case at present in regard to the laboratory. Apart from the six members mentioned in the subsection, I shall be able to appoint one to three members in respect of whom no qualifications are prescribed. That will leave the necessary margin for further appointments in case circumstances should demand it; for example, if the activities of the institute perhaps expand in directions which cannot be foreseen at present.

Clause 7: In sub-section (1) provision is made for the appointment of a director and one or more deputy directors of the institute. Dr. R. E. Robinson, Chief of the Metallurgical Extraction Division of the Atomic Board, is at present also a director of the laboratory. This double appointment is desirable because of the fact that the major portion of the laboratory’s work has, for a considerable time, already consisted of work undertaken for the benefit of the Atomic Board and, as long as that is the position, it will, in my opinion, also be desirable that the post of Director of the National Metallurgical Institute and .that of Chief of the Metallurgical Extraction Division of the Atomic Board should be held by the same person. Sub-sections (3) and (4) provide for the automatic transfer of the employees of the existing laboratory to the envisaged institute, without any change in their remuneration, conditions of service or membership of pension funds. The University of the Witwatersrand has declared that it is satisfied that the University privileges enjoyed by members of the staff of the laboratory will not be harmed or reduced by the proposed change in status of the laboratory.

Clause 8: While the existing laboratory is financed from funds voted by Parliament and also from funds made available by .the Atomic Board, provision is now also made in Clause 8 (1) (d) for donations or contributions which the institute may receive from any person or which the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa may make available to the institute.

Clause 9 provides for the transfer to the institute of certain assets and liabilities which at present rest with the State in respect of the laboratory, while Clauses 10 and 11, which have reference to discoveries and inventions, follow similar legislation concerning the C.S.I.R. and also agree with similar provisions in the Atomic Power Act, 1948, as inserted in that Act earlier .this year. The remaining provisions of the Bill do not require any explanation. I therefore move.

We, on this side of the House, will support this Bill, and we welcome it. It seems that much water has flowed under the bridge since the old School of Mines and Technology was established on the Witwatersrand, from which the Witwatersrand University has built its present institution. I am pleased that the association between the present laboratory and the University of the Witwatersrand will continue, and we hope at the same time that there will be sufficient association with the other universities in South Africa; that all the universities will do their very best to make this new institution which is being brought into being to-day a great success. To me it is a further milestone in the progress of our country, and we, on this side of the House, wish this institution every possible success. I feel that, by bringing into being this institute, we are providing something not only to alleviate the shortage of personnel in the scientific field, but at the same time we shall be starting to develop an institute which, in turn, will provide the necessary teachers for the forthcoming generations. Our great problem in South Africa to-day is that there are not sufficient teachers in the scientific world, and I think this institution will begin to alleviate that very tragic position that is facing this country to-day. Sir, I say “tragic” because we in this country are blessed more than any other country in the world with the good things of life. We have undreamt of riches under our soil. This generation and the next generation will probably never know the full extent of those riches. This country has already done a great deal to alleviate the shortages, but the establishment of this institution shows that we did not rest on our laurels when the C.S.I.R. was brought into being, when the Atomic Energy Board was brought into being and when the Planning Board was brought into being. We are making progress, and it is good to know that those people who have the interests of the country at heart are not content with the present rate of progress. In South Africa, I think more than in any other country, secondary industry and the mining industry must work hand in hand; one cannot succeed without the other. It has been pointed out here on more than one occasion by people who are interested in our economy how essential it is for us to persevere with the present mining activities we have. We have heard of the dangers connected with the closing of marginal mines on the Reef; we know how much concern is shown by members on both sides of the House as to what may happen to certain towns on the Reef when mining operations cease. If we can find new ways and means of bringing down the production costs and of keeping the marginal gold mines going, we will have enough time to save those towns and to make sure that they are industrially sound, so that in those towns where mining operations cease, we would at least have secondary industries to take the place of mining. Sir, I have said that industry and the mining industry must work hand in hand. I want to make an appeal to both industry and the mining industry to support this new institution. I would like to see that world-famous industrial and mining houses help, by means of endowments, to establish scholarships and chairs of learning, and that they do everything they can to stimulate the activities that should take place in this institution. I think one of the troubles in this country is that not enough is given back to these institutions from which so much is taken, and I hope that from now onwards we will find that people outside of Government Departments and outside of the universities will come forward with financial support and see that solid foundations are laid for this very important institution which is being brought into being to-day. I do not think it is enough for us in South Africa .to keep pace with the rest of the world in scientific discoveries and advancement; I think with all the facilities we have here and with the brains that we have available, we in .this country should lead the rest of the world and not just keep pace with other countries. In contrast to what has been happening in this country over the past few years where we have had a drain from this country of the best brains available here, we must reverse the position and see if we cannot attract the best brains from other countries to come and work here, and that can only be done if this institution is properly endowed. Not only should the salary scales be attractive enough to attract outside scientists, but the facilities in this institution should be of such a high calibre that that fact itself will attract scientists from outside. Instead of a drain on brains, we should drive for a gain of brains.

We have seen what can be done in this country. We have seen what has taken place in Sasol and in that very large complex at Phalaborwa. I think these are examples to the rest of the world. I think we can look upon these activities with great pride. I want to say that at Phalaborwa particularly a start can be made by showing the world that we can take the lead in developing the copper mines there. Sir. I was reading just recently of the advances which are being made in the hard rock boring and cutting machinery which is being developed in America; this is terribly important for us. If we can have a continuous process of development underground in our mines instead of a periodic, interrupted development, where we have to stop mining activities because of drilling, blasting and clearing. if we could develop machines that will cut the hard rock continuously and if we can develop our transport underground so as to remove without delay what has been taken out of the earth, we will go a long way towards fulfilling the miners’ wish to develop at least 100 feet a day. If we can do that, we will be putting the whole of the mining industry on such a sound basis that there will be a rush towards the mining industry by workers instead of a drain away from the industry. The hon. the Minister knows that, unfortunately for us in this country, the number of applicants for work on the mines is not growing. There is a fairly constant drain, but more and more jobs are available. I hope we will always have work for a miner, but if we can devise ways and means whereby development underground can take place more rapidly, we will solve great problems in this country and we will not have to depend so much then on a rise in the price of gold.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Before the adjournment I had said a word or two about the machines one should aim at in hardrock boring and development. I want to go further and say a word or two about what Phalaborwa could offer us. I think that Phalaborwa, which is the new giant copper complex, is an example where this country can lead the rest of the world in low-cost mining. Bearing that in mind I would like to remind the Minister of a machine which is at present being developed in America which, on the face of it, seems quite fantastic. I am sure the hon. the Minister must have heard about it. It is aimed at moving 250,000 tons of material a day. One scoop of this machine is aimed at lifting 250 tons to a height of 400 feet for a distance of 450 feet from the site of the digging. One can imagine a machine like that being in operation at a mine like the one at Phalaborwa. One then realises how quickly the costs at such a mine can be lowered. I think that is something that could be investigated by this Institute.

It is not my intention to go into the details of each of the clauses in the Bill. I have noted what the hon. the Minister has said, but I would just like to return to Clause 4 for one moment and ask him, in his reply, to tell us whether it is his intention to make provision for the Chamber of Mines to be represented on the board; also whether he is taking into consideration the metallurgical industry. I want to know whether Sasol, for instance, or Iscor, will be represented on this board. I know one would be opening the door to many other groups that would like to be represented on the board but I think these are two groups which ought to have representation. I see that the universities will probably have their representation and the Department will be represented. So will the Atomic Energy Board. Surely the Transvaal Chamber of Mines, which is virtually the centre of mining activity, not only in this country, but throughout the world, ought to be represented on this board. Perhaps the Minister could tell us later, when he replies, whether he intends making provision for them. I don’t even know whether or not the Chamber of Mines has been in consultation with the Minister concerning the whole Institution. Will the Minister please let us know later in his reply whether the Chamber has been in Consultation with him.

I am pleased that he is making provision for the personnel to be looked after properly. I note with pleasure that the pension schemes, salary scales and so on will all be taken into consideration. With these few words, Mr. Speaker, I again congratulate the Department on the work they have done and we on this side of the House wish the Institute that will come into being every success.

The establishment of this National Institute for Metallurgy is a very important event when it is seen in the light of the complex of our planning and economic development as envisaged to-day. One only wonders why such a broad approach was not adopted at an earlier stage already. The hon. member who has just sat down made an observation which I should like to support. He said that we had many concerns in South Africa which could grant support to this type of undertaking out of their own resources but that it was a pity that we in South Africa were not getting the necessary support from the private sector for the maintenance of this type of institute, support which we think it deserves. I agree with the hon. member. In actual fact a larger measure of this support ought to be forthcoming from the private sector. Where this National Institute is now being established, one therefore hopes that this Institute will be able to rely upon a larger measure of co-operation from the private sector than similar institutions were able to rely upon in the past.

I am saying that this is an important development in the framework of our economic development as envisaged by us at the moment. In the first place we in South Africa are strategically situated for the development of our metal industry. It is simply not good enough that the Republic of South Africa has to manage with a small laboratory which is too small in scope for the task we are faced with. The fact that a National Institute is now being established by the Government itself is an indication that it is being conceived on a much larger scale, and we hope that it will be expected to play a much larger part as far as the future is concerned. We are a fortunate country and a very strategically situated country in many respects. In the first place, as far as our mineral resources are concerned, we have a diversity and a quantity which we are envied by most countries of the world. Two things must be done to promote the proper development of those resources. In the first instance basic research must be carried out, and in the second instance that research must be related to the practical side of things; in other words, it must be possible for knowledge to be applied. The application of basic research can sometimes entail the expenditure of very large amounts. The Minister observed that, in the case of three elements, namely, manganese, vanadium and chromium, we were in a position to become a world supplier, and that, if we were able to carry out the necessary research, we could also take up a leading position in the case of at least two other elements for which there is a heavy demand in the world. In all probability there are more elements in respect of which basic research is a primary requirement. As the hon. the Minister pointed out, we have already taken the lead in the world in many respects by creating opportunities for greater development by means of our applied science. For that reason I say that it is very important that, as far as future development is concerned, we should plan on a much broader basis than was done in the past and that the task imposed should also be a greater one. The fact that the Minister is now proceeding to lay the foundation for being able to do what is required as far as both basic research and applied research are concerned, points to great future development for us. One only hopes that in South Africa, which can play a major part, particularly in the field of the refining of minerals, this institute will make a great contribution to that development. Accordingly, and also in the light of greater planning for the future, I say that this is a memorable day in that we have now got so far as to lay the foundation for proper research in the form of this National Institute for Metallurgy.

The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) has indicated that we, too, support and welcome, the establishment of this institute. I think it will be conceded that what has been done up to now by the metallurgical department under the control of the Director of Geological Survey has been exceptionally good and has produced excellent results. When we remember that up to now, our present laboratory has been responsible to a great extent for the development and progress that has been made by Sasol, that tests were carried out in the use of various minerals, and in the establishment of Phalaborwa as has already been indicated by both the hon. member for Rosettenville and the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha). In recent years the laboratory has devoted itself in a very beneficial way to the establishment of Foskor. It carried out some outstanding investigations which enabled Foskor to get on to its feet in such a rapid manner.

The days of sealing-wax and string in scientific research are completely something of the past. Although one wonders whether the high cost of establishing the /type of apparatus one has to-day with our nuclear development and electronics, is justified, one has, to accept that position and realize that it is a fait accompli. South Africa has .to keep well in the forefront in that regard. When one remembers that a certain type of accelerator costs R500,000,000, one realizes what is really at stake in trying to compete with the outside world in this particular field.

The one thing that concerns us very much indeed is whether we are going to be able to staff the institute with sufficiently capable, and a sufficient number of, engineers and scientists. I think this is definitely one of the aspects on which we would like to get some more information from the Minister. I would like to suggest to him that, if we are going to encourage the right type and a sufficient number of scientists to assist in the development of this institute, then we must possibly pay heed to what the Administrator of Natal said recently. He suggested that—

I agree with that 100 per cent. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the time has not arrived—it is already getting late— that, both in this institute and in our Atomic Energy Laboratory, our scientists and technologists be taken out of the Public Service, and operate on their own? What is needed is certainly greater flexibility, greater opportunity of reward for the imaginative and brilliant scientist.

When one remembers that, in spite of the limited facilities at our disposal, .the first ingot of uranium metal ever produced in .this country was cast in 1961 at the pilot uranium refining plant which was erected and operated by the present laboratory, I think it will be conceded that all of us in this country owe a great debt of gratitude to those scientists who pioneered the experiment under novel conditions; conditions which were unknown to other countries in the world. In a very short time, they were able to evolve techniques peculiar to South Africa and which enabled us to develop our uranium industry to the benefit of South Africa. I think I am reinforced in this plea to the hon. the Minister in suggesting that our scientists be taken out from the pay-orbit of the Public Service, when we stop to consider the expansion which lies ahead of this country in this particular field, i.e., engineering, metallic and chemical. One recollects that Iscor is stepping up its steel production by 92 per cent. It intends reaching that target by the year 1972 at a capital cost of R560,000,000. One also realizes that 75 per cent of this capital cost will be incurred locally and will also assist in the production of locally used and export material. This can undoubtedly become one of the most dynamic factors in South Africa’s industrial growth. It must also be remembered that Escom will be spending roughly R400,000,000 in the next ten years; Sasol possibly R86,000,000 in the next seven years and Phalaborwa is also busy on a big extension programme, as has been stated by the hon. member for Rosettenville. All this is allied with the need, to develop our uranium industry to a still greater extent than to-day to provide for the anticipated need in 1970 of still further uranium .throughout the world. It is obvious, therefore, that the establishment of this independent institute comes at an opportune moment. It is also most gratifying to realize that four papers by members of the laboratory staff were accepted at International Symposiums in the United States in 1962, and South Africa enjoyed great credit and merit at those symposiums. It has been suggested that insufficient time is being devoted to the preparation of papers for general information of the public by the laboratory, and it is hoped that more attention will be possible to this aspect in the future. It is a well-known fact that, in its need to devote itself to short-term projects, this laboratory, unfortunately, has not had the time and the personnel available to consider many long-term projects. I do hope, Sir, that with the establishment of this institute, independent of the universities, and functioning on its own, long-term projects will become a permanent feature of its work.

The question of scholarships is one that, I think, should enjoy the immediate consideration of the hon. the Minister. I would like to know from him whether it would be possible to make money available from the R20,000,000 that was voted last year for research into precious and strategic minerals for this particular project. It is known that university students are keen to go into the scientific world and to apply themselves as a future career. It has been suggested—this possibly merits the consideration of the hon. the Minister—that .those students who fail their first year in the B.Sc. course, should be able to attend this institute during the day and attend lectures at the university in the evening. If they do qualify, .they should be given preference as members of the institute. I feel that, by making this course attractive in this particular manner, we may get a larger number of recruits than we have at /the moment. I feel the requirements can be summarized as follows: We need better scientists and engineers, we need more scientists and engineers, we need scientists and engineers who can see beyond their own engineering responsibility, and engineers and scientists who can cover a more comprehensive range of engineering. These, I think, are the urgent fundamentals that face this country today. If we can overcome that problem, I feel that the field that is available to our young students by the establishment of this Metallurgical Institute and the establishment of our nuclear reactor, is a tremendous .one. I think that will offer a bright horizon to anybody who wishes to go into the scientific world. We welcome this Bill and support the Minister in his efforts into see this institute well established and properly founded.

This is one of those occasions which are all too rare in this House, an occasion when we can combine together in the national interest. We all feel the same way and we all feel very strongly. Modern research is also an occasion when we can all feel together, as we do about this Bill. This is an occasion for co-operation. Modern scientific research is to-day not what it was 50 years ago or in the 19th century, namely, a matter for the individual scientist. It is a matter for team work where there has to be co-operation as we have seen in atomic research in the countries overseas. We have produced one great scientist in atomic research, Sir Basil Schönland, a name to conjure with in this country. We will produce more men of that calibre provided they have the opportunity. This co-operation to which I have referred is the co-operation which has been referred to by the Minister in his second reading speech this evening. He spoke of the co-operation that existed between the Government and the University of the Witwatersrand in metallurgical research. We of the Witwatersrand are very proud indeed of the part our university has played in the development to date. I think it is our privilege to thank the Minister this evening—it is very unusual for me to thank the Minister—for the tribute he paid to the University of the Witwatersrand because this step which is being taken this evening is one of which the University of the Witwatersrand wholeheartedly approves. They have worked together for many years with valuable results for the future of scientific development in South Africa.

I also want to thank the Minister for paying tribute to two great names in the development of this scientific association of the metallurgical society, Professor Stanley of the Witwatersrand University and Dr. Hans Pirow. Those are two names to conjure with in the development of scientific research in South Africa. We shall never forget the encouragement Dr. Hans Pirow gave to the pioneers who developed the Far West Witwatersrand with the greatest gold mine the world has ever known, the West Driefontein. Another great one like it is probably developing to-day. He has assisted in the development of a whole chain of mines on which South Africa has developed. We are told that the greatest man in this world is the man who makes two blades of grass grow where one grew before. But what shall we say of a man in South Africa who makes a second Witwatersrand where there was only one before? That is the great achievement of a great mining engineer of the calibre of Carleton Jones. Carleton Jones, with the encouragement of Dr. Hans Pirow, the metallurgical men of his laboratory, and the University of the Witwatersrand, have given us some of the great treasures of wealth we have to-day.

I am not going to refer to the research that has been done in uranium and vermiculite; it is well known to us in Johannesburg and to everybody in the country. But I want to refer to Clause 4, especially where the hon. the Minister has the authority to appoint the executive of this Institute He makes provision for six names. That leaves him a free hand in respect of three. I should like to suggest to him that, in order to show appreciation of the association which the Government has had with the University of the Witwatersrand, he should add a seventh name, a representative of the University of the Witwatersrand. I know that all universities will co-operate; I know the hon. the Minister has made provision for university representation, but I think the situation of the University of the Witwatersrand in this research and in this development we have had in metallurgical research is unique. Because it is unique amongst the universities of South Africa I think special provision should be made for a nominee from that university. Members of the new generation may forget that this great University of the Witwatersrand was originally established as a school of mines. It was not established as an academic institution in the ordinary manner in which we establish a university to-day. All our universities in South Africa, with one exception, the latest creation, developed from colleges of various kinds. They were all academic institutions excepting the University of the Witwatersrand. At one stage many of us thought that the University of the Witwatersrand would develop into a great technological institution but it has gone much further. It is not only a technological institution to-day but an academic institution as well. Its medical school and medical research are renowned throughout the world. I think the hon. the Minister has a great opportunity to pay tribute to it. I should like to say in conclusion that the head office will, of course, be in Johannesburg. One cannot think of metallurgical research in South Africa without thinking of the headquarters in Johannesburg. I suggest that the headquarters be next to the University of the Witwatersrand. I congratulate the hon. the Minister that at this early stage of his ministerial career he has had the privilege of introducing this Bill.

I also do not wish to give a silent vote on this measure. I am very glad indeed that this Institute has been established because if there is one country in the world which deserves an institution of this kind on the basis of the mineral riches of that country it is South Africa. One only has to look at the quarterly report of the Department of Mines on our minerals and mineral production to realize fully—which is not easy when you don’t see those minerals—the immense wealth of this country. We know that our economy has very largely been built up on our mineral wealth. There has been a great deal of research and it is quite obvious that there will have to be a great deal more. In the modern world new metals and alloys are being used. We know how far the human mind has progressed in making use of riches. There is no country in the world which has greater riches in this regard than South Africa, not only in respect of the goldfields, but also in respect of the other fields which are being developed. One only has to look at this report, as I do regularly, to realize just how fortunate we are not only in respect of our base metals but we are tremendously rich in respect of those metals which are scarcely known to mankind. When you look through this index I wonder whether there is anyone in this Chamber who really knows what some of these names mean. What they mean, taken together, is that this is a country with great mineral wealth, a country which, I believe, has a very great part to play. It is quite obvious that it is in these rarer metals that a great deal of the advance of human knowledge is going to take place. I express the hope that this Institute which is being established in this Bill before us to-night is going to play a leading part just as South Africa has played a leading part in the mineral field in certain respects over such a long period. We have an economy which was originally based on gold; we have enormous coal deposits in this country. I believe we have only, right throughout the country, begun to scratch the surface in respect of many of the lesser known metals, many of the metals which are almost unknown. It is only in taking the step which we in this Chamber are taking to-night that we will be able to build up our advancement in the scientific fields to an extent which will enable this country of ours to take the fullest advantage of these enormous riches which we have in this country and which we are only just starting to develop and which, unquestionably, are going to play an ever-increasing part in the development of this country.

I congratulate the hon. the Minister on having had the privilege of introducing this Bill. I express the hope that this Institute is going to play, as I am sure it will, a very worthy part in helping to build up this great country of ours.

The Metallurgical Institute which we are establishing here is being launched with a great measure of goodwill. It goes without saying that that ought to be so, and I also welcome the approach adopted by the Opposition in this connection. This goodwill on both sides of the House is occasioned by the large contribution made by the Metallurgical Laboratory in the past, as well as the knowledge that this is a rich country as far as minerals are concerned and that there is a tremendous potential in respect of processing those minerals even further. and by the fact that we should not rely on the outside world alone but should also undertake the necessary research in this country and devise and discover our own methods of further processing. It is therefore pleasing to know that this new institute is being launched with that measure of support.

The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) particularly emphasized the important contribution which could be made by this Institute as far as the training of scientists is concerned. That is perfectly correct. We know that the Atomic Energy Board is making a very great contribution towards the training of scientists in that direction. The same applies to the Metallurgical Laboratory. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) also referred to scientists. I therefore want to point out that the Metallurgical Laboratory already has 65 trained scientists on its research staff, as well as 113 research assistants and administrative members of staff. That is in 1965. So we already have a staff of nearly 200 here, most of whom are scientists.

Mention has been made of bursary schemes. The 1964-5 Estimates did make provision for bursary schemes, and five bursaries have already been awarded by this laboratory. This year the number has been increased to nine. In addition to that there is an exchange scheme, and the Laboratory is doing its best to keep in touch with what is happening in the outside world. The Laboratory makes use of that exchange scheme to enable many of its staff members to go abroad for further study. It is therefore obvious that this new Institute is also going to play a very large part as far as the training of scientists is concerned.

The hon. member for Rosettenville also pointed out that a larger contribution ought to be made by the sector which benefits from the training of these people. I wholeheartedly agree with him, and I think much more can be done by those sectors which benefit from this research, so as to ensure that this Institute would not have any shortage of funds, but that in addition to the State’s contribution an even greater contribution is made by that sector. The hon. member referred to Clause 4 in particular, and asked whether we would not consider appointing a representative of the Chamber of Mines to serve on the board of control. I want to refer him to Clause 4 (1) (b), which provides: “one shall be appointed by reason of his knowledge of matters relating to the mining industry”. We shall therefore take into account his representations and the whole of the mining industry when those representatives are appointed. I think he may accept that as far as that matter is concerned, we can look at the example of the Atomic Energy Board, on which two members of the Chamber of Mines serve, not only by reason of their close association with the uranium industry, but also because the Chamber of Mines makes a very large financial contribution to the Atomic Energy Board. I can therefore give the assurance that we shall take these representations into account when the appointment of this one representative is considered. I want to point out, however, that the Chamber of Mines represents mainly the goldmining industry, and as the research to be undertaken by this Metallurgical Institute will cover a much wider field than the goldmining industry. I want to point out that to a large extent the goldmining industry has its own research divisions, and that they make a very large contribution on their own initiative to mining research in our country. I have already referred to that. In the case of the broader metal and minerals industry, however, we have to do with a much wider field, and I again want to express the hope that this Metallurgical Institute will make a very large contribution in its field, just as the gold-mining industry is making its contribution in respect of the gold mines.

The hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha) also referred to the ferro-alloy industry. I can only add that the Natural Resources Development Council has been directed to investigate all the aspects of that industry, as we realize that it can develop into one of our largest industries after the iron and steel industry. It has a tremendous potential, based on the minerals which we have in this country and which other countries do not have, and we are thoroughly aware of the possibilities of that industry.

The hon. member for Springs asked whether the R20,000,000 which has been set aside for strategic minerals could not be used for this. I think the intention there was not to use that money to seek methods for the further processing of those minerals, but to set aside and make available those funds for the purpose of prospecting for strategic minerals in our country. I think that is what is provided by the legislation in that regard.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) also asked whether it was not possible to give representation to the University of the Witwatersrand. I have emphasized the contribution which has been made by the Witwatersrand, and I am of the opinion that our universities will make a very important contribution in future in so far as this Institute, too, is concerned and that they will become linked up with it. When these appointments are made I shall take into account his special representations as far as the University of the Witwatersrand are concerned.

I should like to repeat that I appreciate the positive contribution which has also been made by the other side of the House as well in this connection.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

This Bill proposes to amend the Mines and Works Act of 1956 as regards control over tunnelling works and certain quarries, the transport and use of explosives in the case of works, and the declaration of Republic Day as a holiday for mines and works on a quinquennial basis. A minor consequential amendment to the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act is also necessary.

The question of effective control over the digging of subterranean tunnels has come into sharp prominence lately, inter alia as a result of an extensive tunnel work which is being undertaken or planned in connection with the Orange River Scheme. At the moment all tunnelling work which is not carried out in a tunnel in a mine is still controlled by the Department of Labour in terms of the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act, but because tunnelling work has so much in common with mining operations and the Department of Mines has at its disposal the services of trained staff to exercise control over such work, it has been agreed that the Department of Mines is to take over that control. As appears from Clause 1 (a) of the Bill, it is now being proposed that the making, repairing, reopening or closing of any subterranean tunnel should be declared a work for the purposes of the Mines and Works Act, while in Clause 3 provision is also being made for control over the transport and use of explosives at tunnel works and other works by way of regulation. In terms of Clause 4. Section 2 of the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act is being amended to omit control over tunnelling work from the last-mentioned Act. I may mention that in terms of Section 1 of the Mines and Works Act any excavation work, such as a trench in connection with a subterranean tunnel, will form part of the tunnel or work concerned, and Clause 4 of the Bill also makes it clear that where such an excavation forms part of a tunnel the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act will not apply.

A further amendment which is introduced by Clause 3 is to bring the control over the transport and use of explosives at quarries which are worked for or on behalf of local authorities within the ambit of the Mines and Works Act as well, as is the position in the case of all other quarries which are not worked for or on behalf of State departments. This amendment is deemed necessary for the purpose of introducing greater uniformity, and also in view of the fact that the Department of Mines already deals with certain safety and other aspects at quarries worked for or on behalf of local authorities.

As far as Clause 1 (b) and Clause 2 of the Bill are concerned, I mentioned on a previous occasion that it was the intention to introduce legislation to declare Republic Day a. holiday for mines and works, and in the said Clause 2 provision is now being made for declaring Republic Day, 1966, and thereafter. Republic Day in every fifth year, such a holiday, while Clause 1 (a) merely deals with the definition of Republic Day. From time to time representations have been made to the Government to amend the Mines and Works Act so as to provide that Republic Day will be a compulsory holiday for mines and works, and after careful consideration the Government has decided that Republic Day can be introduced as such a holiday on a quinquennial basis.

In conclusion I may explain that the proposed amendment will not in itself introduce Republic Day as a paid holiday for mines and works, but that that is a matter to be mutually arranged between employers and employees themselves.

We on this side of the House will support the Bill, and it remains for me to make one or two criticisms of the contents of this Bill. I want to deal firstly with the clause which makes Republic Day a holiday. Well, Republic Day is a holiday, and there is no difference if Republic Day is a holiday this year or in five years time—it is the same holiday. So why the hon. Minister cannot make Republic Day a holiday every year, is a mystery to me, but I take he wants to bring it into conformity with the celebrations that will take place every five years. However, he has not mentioned anything about that at all. Of course if you give a worker a holiday this year or next year, or in five years time, he wants to know what goes with the holiday, and I think the Minister must tell the House what good thing comes with this holiday. He has said that it is probably going to be an arrangement between the industry and the Mine Workers’ Union, or those people interested in the mine workers’ activities who will make arrangements as to whether or not it is going to be a paid day. But there is nothing in the Bill at all to provide for the miner to get paid on holidays such as this. I think a little clarity on this position is necessary. At least it will put the mineworker in a position to know exactly whether it is worth his while staying off work that day. The question also arises what happens to a monthly paid worker on the mines. Does he enjoy a privilege that the daily paid man at present enjoys. It is something I would like to have clarified.

The rest of the clauses are straightforward. We agree that tunnelling should be taken out of the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act. There is one point here I want to have clarified. In an excavation for a very large building where the excavation may go several hundred feet below the surface and tunnels are put in to the walls of those excavations to be filled with concrete, would that be considered as tunnelling in the true sense, or is it only where blasting takes place, and where there is an opening at one end and an opening at the other end? Or does tunnelling also include the work that takes place in connection with excavations when very large buildings are erected?

I agree that as a safety measure it is a good thing for the Department of Mines to take under its control the conveying of explosives. I think that is very important, especially in these days when one wants to see that explosives are properly looked after and do not fall into wrong hands.

This is a measure we support strongly on this side of the House, and we hope it will lead not only to efficiency in the conveying of explosives but will also act as a safety and security measure. With those few observations, Mr. Speaker, I want to say once again that we support this Bill and we hope that the Minister in his reply will clarify these points. There is one other matter which has just been brought to my notice. In Hansard, col. 467 the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) put a question on 23 April asking the Minister whether it was his intention to introduce legislation to declare Republic Day an official paid holiday for all mine-workers in the goldmining and coal industries in the Republic, and if so, when, and if not, why not. Now in a Cape Times report on 20 April, there was an article which said—

Could I be told whether it is as a result of this representation that was made, or was it contemplated before that?

Order! Is the hon. member referring to a Cape Times report of proceedings in this House?

No, Sir. I hope the hon. the Minister will reply to my question.

I rise merely to thank the hon. the Minister for declaring Republic Day a holiday for the mine-workers in terms of this measure. The question of payment has never yet been determined by way of legislation as far as any of the holidays enjoyed by the mine-workers are concerned, not in the case of Good Friday, nor in the case of Christmas Day or the Day of the Covenant. That is not provided for in the Act. It would also be extremely undesirable to provide in an Act that people have to be paid in respect of such a holiday.

It can be provided though?

No, that is not a question which the hon. member should put to the Minister.

Order! The question of payment is not relevant.

That is what I am saying. Mr. Speaker; it is not a question which should be put to the Minister. It has nothing to do with the Bill. Why the question then?

Why are you discussing it then?

Because the question which has been asked by hon. members over there may create a wrong impression. The question suggests that the Minister should indicate that it will be a paid holiday.

Order! I have ruled that out of order.

Mr. Speaker, the question has been put and so I am just replying to it. Far be it from me to be ungrateful for a fifth of an egg, but the thought that will in actual fact occur to the mine-worker is this: Why every five years? I for my part want to say now—and I think that if there is one member in this House who knows how the mine-workers feel, then I am that member—that the mine-workers will ask, “what about the other years?” and I think the answer is very clear, and it is that we had to make representations for many years in connection with the Day of the Covenant. I introduced a Bill, and it was only 25 years after I had introduced that Bill that we got the Day of the Covenant as a holiday on the mines. I want to say to hon. members who might want to make political capital out of this that they cannot succeed in doing so. Because just as we had to fight for many years and had to keep on submitting representations, at the highest level eventually, and ultimately succeeded in getting the Day of the Covenant restored to its rightful place, so I want to say that the mine-workers must not be upset and must not expect to get Republic Day every year at the very first request, to get it on a plate, as it were. A great deal of persuasion will still have to be practised, and I am convinced that the time will arrive when their request will be granted, but do not let us perhaps bring those people under the wrong impression now that this is the end of the matter. I think a very good start has been made, and I want to predict that it will not take 25 years, as in the other case, before Republic Day is celebrated every year by the mine-workers.

And do not let us get the idea that the mine-workers are only thinking in terms of payment. The main consideration on the part of the mine-workers is the place of honour which such a day should occupy in the life of the nation; that is of value and nothing else is of value; and it is not for the sake of that little bit of money, but they would like to see this day occupying a place of honour in our national life. I therefore welcome this measure because it represents a very good start, and I want to express the hope that the first Republic Day provided for by this Bill will be duly appreciated by the mine-workers in that they will celebrate the day in such a way as will show both the employers and the Government what great value the mine-workers attach to that day. That would be the most positive step they could take with a view to getting it every year in the future, instead of once in every five years. I hope that the first commemoration will be celebrated in a splendid way. I therefore think that I am voicing the sentiments of a large number of members in expressing our sincere thanks for this very good start which the Minister has made here.

I find it exceedingly difficult to understand the logic of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg). I do not think that is surprising, but in this particular case I found it most unusual. He started off by saying that it was perfectly justified for the Minister to make this holiday a five-yearly holiday only and not an annual one. But by the time he had developed his argument, he was making the plea that he hoped that it would not be long before this Bill was rescinded and that he would strive to see that the miners would get an annual holiday, even though it was not a paid day. I do not understand that logic, and I think that the hon. member for Krugersdorp was talking with his tongue in his cheek. He apparently believes, as we do that there should not be any difference between Republic Day, the Day of the Covenant, Good Friday or Christmas Day, but he is not prepared to commit himself. We cannot see why this should not be an annual holiday.

Why don’t you move that?

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he has not satisfied us in his second-reading speech in any manner whatsoever to the arguments why this holiday should only be once every five years, and not annually as it is stipulated in the Act in relation to the other three days mentioned above.

If one compares this particular Mines and Works Act Amendment Bill, in conjunction with the draft amendment Bill that was published on 3 March 1965 dealing with the Factories, Machinery and Building Works Act, we note that there we have Clause 6 which establishes “Republic Day” as a holiday once every five years as well—the wording is practically the same as in this clause in our Bill—but we have this vital difference between the Bill before us and the Bill introduced by the Minister of Labour, in that the Bill introduced by the Minister of Labour, makes Republic Day a paid holiday. We on this side of the House cannot see the difference why an employee working in any other particular industry or undertaking should have “Republic Day” declared a paid holiday, whereas the mine-workers cannot receive the same consideration by the Government.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, when you were not in the Chair I replied to a question why the Bill cannot provide for a paid holiday. I was ruled out of order when I was merely replying to a question, but now the hon. member for Springs is discussing the whole matter.

Order.

If the hon. member for Krugersdorp is getting so concerned about that particular argument, I wonder what his reaction will be . . .

No, the hon. member should return to the Bill and leave the hon. member for Krugersdorp there. The House is not interested in the hon. member for Krugersdorp, but only in the Bill.

I quite agree with you, Sir. But why this five-year period? Is it perhaps because it coincides with the election every five years?

Order!

What we would like to know is this: Have any negotiations taken place between the employers and the employees in regard to this particular day as a holiday? Sir, the hon. the Minister has also made reference to the fact that tunnelling, repairing, reopening or closing of subterranean tunnels will now be taken over by the Department of Mines. I am inclined to concede that it is necessary that this particular sphere of work should be administered by the hon. Minister of Mines. But I am very concerned whether the hon. Minister’s Department is going to be in a position to take on any extra work, especially work of this nature which will involve his inspectors travelling right through the country in various fields sometimes as far apart as the Orange River scheme, the Witwatersrand and elsewhere. This is the difficulty in which the hon. Minister finds himself: In the Department of Mines and Machinery under the Government Mining Engineer we find that there was a shortage of 50 per cent personnel . . .

That is not a matter that can be discussed under this Bill.

Sir, I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether in accepting this responsibility, he believes that he will be able to administer it in a sufficiently satisfactory manner for the safety of everybody concerned. Because the people who will have to tackle and carry out this work—the assist-ant-inspectors of machinery—are not available to his Department to-day. The Government Mining Engineer’s report for 1963 states—

I quote these words of the Government Mining Engineer, where he states that he has a shortage of approximately 50 per cent of assistant-inspectors, and I am concerned over the other remark that was made by the Government Mining Engineer, when he says that the shortage of technical staff has become critical.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. the Minister can satisfy us that he has the facilities and the personnel, then we will gladly accept the position that this is a further sphere of work that can be rightly and correctly taken over by the hon. the Minister’s Department.

Other than that, Sir, I feel that this Bill needs no further comment. But we would like to get the reactions of the hon. the Minister to the various comments that I have found it necessary to raise at this particular stage.

I am very grateful to say that I agree to a large extent with the remarks made by the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher). But I am sorry that I cannot agree with the discordant note, or the somewhat discordant note, sounded by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog). We in this House occupy a responsible position and I want to say immediately that as far as the holiday, Republic Day, is concerned, a day which is the National Day of South Africa and a holiday which we by no means begrudge the mineworkers, those workers who are rendering such excellent service to South Africa will have every opportunity to participate fully in this national day of South Africa. This Bill does to some extent make provision whereby the mineworker will be able to participate in the celebrating of Republic Day as a full-fledged holiday every five years. We are grateful for this and I want to say that an appeal in this House to the effect that 31 May of every year, Republic Day, should be a public holiday, will be a very popular one, as far as the Mines and Works Act is concerned as well so that the mine-workers will also be able to derive benefit from this fact. I believe that this would be a very popular appeal but we are in a responsible position and I want to say frankly that this side of the House and the National Party do in principle support the idea that this national day, 31 May, should be a holiday for the mineworker as well. We support this idea in principle.

Every year?

Yes, we support this idea of an annual holiday on this day. I know, of course, why the hon. member has asked that question. He has done so in order to try to make some political capital out of it. The hon. member knows that if the Chamber of Mines demand an explanation from them, they are going to be in trouble. We must act responsible. We are grateful that in this case, other than was the case when we advocated the Day of the Covenant being made a public holiday, we will not have to wait so long but that we can already say that in 1966, next year, on the occasion of the first major celebration of the coming into being of the Republic of South Africa, Republic Day will be a public holiday and that this will be the case every five years thereafter. I want to emphasize the fact once again for the benefit of that hon. member that in principle we support the idea that this should be a holiday every year but we are also responsible and realistic and 1 can only express the hope that circumstances may result in 31 May of each year being declared to be a public holiday for the mineworkers as well. I can only express the hope that we shall have the support of the whole House and of the whole world for an increase in the price of gold so that we will also enable the Chamber of Mines to make its contribution and to give its employees a public holiday on this national day of South Africa. That is the only wish I should like to express on this occasion. I am in full agreement with the other matters that have been raised, the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Rosettenville and also with the observations made by the hon. the Minister of Mines in his introductory speech.

The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) asked whether the fact that provision is now being made whereby Republic Day will now be a public holiday, springs from representations which were made by way of a question put to the Government earlier in the year. I can only say that the representations which were made that Republic Day should be a public holiday were made long before the question was asked, and I have correspondence here— dated 12 July 1963—containing representations from one of the hon. members on this side of the House and an explanation of the position by the then Minister. This suggestion has been under consideration for some time and the fact that Republic Day has now been made a public holiday has not been as a result of that question which was asked in the House.

The question was also asked whether cases in which excavations for foundations are made also fall under this Bill. I want to point out to the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) that provision is made in the Mines and Works Act and also in the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act for excavations, and Clause 4 of this Bill makes specific provision whereby excavating work can fall under one of these two, either the Mines and Works Act or under the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act, so that in the case of building work where tunnelling has to be done in connection with the foundations, it will fall under the Building Work Act, 1941, but in the case of a tunnel and other work connected with the tunnel, it will fall under this Act.

The question was also asked in connection with the holiday: What about wages? I can only emphasize what has already been stated clearly, and that is that as far as remuneration is concerned, it is a question of bargaining between the employer and employee. If the employer wants to pay his employees for that day on which they do not work, that is a matter which must be resolved between them. and there will be no interference on our part. The attitude which has been adopted consistently by the mineworkers throughout the years has been that where their salaries are concerned, this is a matter between employer and employee and that the Government has nothing to do with it. This matter also falls within the province of that specific agreement. It is not governed by any of the labour laws.

Another question that was asked was why Republic Day should not be a public holiday every year. I am not quite able to conclude from the speeches which have been made here whether hon. members are advocating this fact or whether they are just asking questions in this regard. I can only say that we must consider that there are a considerable number of holidays, recognized holidays when there is no work. This means a very great loss to the mining industry, just as is the case in regard to any other sector of our economy. It is estimated that the yield of a working day on the mines is R3,500,000. This does not mean to say that the loss will of necessity be the same amount because provision is made in the legislation whereby certain parts of the mining industry continue to work even on holidays. It is therefore not correct to conclude that the loss will really be R3,500,000, but we must consider that there may be a considerable loss in production if no work is done on that day. As far as remuneration for working on this day is concerned, this is not a matter for us. But the fact that one day is selected and declared to be a public holiday is quite in conformity with the policy of the Government that we will hold a Republic Day celebration once every five years, and that this occasion will be celebrated in a festive manner. That is why the Government is going to a great deal of trouble to ensure that this will be a festive occasion, and the fact that this day will be a public holiday once every five years is laid down in legislation is simply to fit in with the fact so that the mineworker will also have the opportunity to attend those celebrations and cannot be compelled to work.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Although I had already dealt with the question of our relations with the High Commission Territories and with Africa in particular, the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) again put certain questions to me to which I shall try to reply as briefly as possible. Before doing so I want to point out that co-operation between countries cannot be one-sided; co-operation must come from both sides, and when we talk about co-operation in Africa therefore we must continually bear in mind the position as it exists in Africa at the present time. We must bear in mind that the young Africa states are faced with a difficult task in maintaining their independence, in maintaining peace and order; that they face difficult economic problems and a serious shortage of trained staff, etc. Moreover, we must not lose sight of the fact that a certain climate prevails in Africa at the moment. The inhabitants of Africa are very prone to remember the evils of colonialism and to view the White man on the Continent with suspicion. We must remember that it is difficult for the African States to appreciate that what we are striving to do is to ensure peaceful co-existence and that in doing so we have no ulterior motives and that our aim is not domination. The hon. member for Turffontein wanted to know what we were doing to renew diplomatic relations in Africa. In this connection I must point out that there is already co-operation, of course, between the Republic and certain Africa States.

I do not want to take up much time but I want to mention a few examples. We are rendering considerable services in the sphere of health and in the scientific and technological fields. Let me remind hon. members that South Africa disseminates weather reports throughout the whole of Southern Africa in terms of an arrangement entered into with the world meteorological organization. Let me also remind the Committee of the co-operation that exists in connection with foot-and-mouth disease. In this connection the Republic is a member of an organization together with eight other States in Southern Africa and last year we attended the congress in Angola. I have already referred to the work that we are doing in this connection in Swaziland. I can also refer hon. members to the international red locust control service. Last year we attended a congress of this organization in Abercorn together with 14 other Africa States. A South African is the director of this organization with his headquarters in Zambia and South Africa contributes 24 per cent of the cost of this organization. Sir, I could mention quite a number of other examples. Let me remind the Committee that last year Premier Tshombe applied to the Republic for assistance and that the Republic decided to comply with the request for medicine, first-aid and food. This assistance, which was granted at the request of an Africa State, was granted in accordance with the policy of the Government to co-operate with other States in Africa. I would also remind the Committee of the statement which the hon. the Prime Minister made this morning in connection with humanitarian aid to Basutoland, a neighbour State. I do not want to deal at length with the cooperation that exists in many spheres with the other High Commission territories, but I must point out that it is not quite correct to say that we cannot co-operate with the Africa States and that we are not prepared to help them. In point of fact a great deal is being done and it is being done under difficult circumstances. I believe that this co-operation will increase as the Africa States come to realize that it is to our mutual benefit and as the spirit in which we are prepared to cooperate with them becomes clear to them. I might point out that the Government has been giving attention for some considerable time to the possibility of greater co-operation in various spheres and fields in Africa and particularly in Southern Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister has already referred to a form of co-operation in the economic sphere with a view to promoting common interests without in any way seeking to introduce an element of domination either in the economic or any other sphere. The hon. the Minister of Planning has also made an important statement in this regard and I take it that hon. members have noted his remarks. I do not want to go into this matter any further except to say that it is receiving attention. I trust that what I have said in this connection is sufficient indication of the Government’s conviction that co-operation is in fact possible and that that is what we are striving to achieve. I also believe that it is possible for the Republic of South Africa to maintain its position in Africa without any necessity for us to sacrifice our principles.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) referred to the proposed visit of a group from the Netherlands. Sir, I held out the prospect of such a visit last year during the discussion on my Vote and I explained at great length what the object of the visit was and in what spirit the Government welcomed the proposed visit. I pointed out that the main object of the visit would be to promote mutual understanding and I myself and many others believed that this visit would strengthen and promote friendly relations between South Africa and the Netherlands. The Government’s reaction was conveyed to this group through the Netherlands Ambassador to the Netherlands Foreign Minister, and it was decided that this visit would take place once we had received the assurance that the members of the group concerned would view the visit in the same spirit in which we viewed it. It was to be a non-official visit; we were therefore not going to arrange the programme but we nevertheless offered certain facilities. We offered to assist with transport and to put forward certain suggestions and to make arrangements for certain interviews, etc. We placed no restrictions on the members of the group but it was put to them very pertinently that they would have the right to have discussions with the leaders of all recognized, lawful organizations. They found no fault with this either and everything went smoothly until I was informed at quite an advanced stage by the Netherlands Ambassador that the group had asked for permission to have an interview with ex-Chief Luthuli. Later on he said that only a few members of the group wanted to talk to Luthuli, not the entire group. Sir, this was really a surprise and a disappointment to me. After all, this was a semi-official visit by prominent political leaders from the Netherlands; the visit was to take place with the approval of the two Governments and, amongst other things, it concerned the relationships between the people of the Netherlands and those of South Africa. This request therefore was by no means in accordance with the spirit in which we had hoped that the visit would take place. The Government was not prepared to allow such a thing. Sir, I had the privilege of visiting the Netherlands last year in November and on that occasion I had discussions with the Foreign Minister of the Netherlands as well as with his deputies. These discussions took place in a friendly atmosphere and, amongst other things, we discussed this proposed visit. I might also say that I had a friendly and useful conversation with the person who was going to be the leader of this group, Professor Gaay Fortman, and in the course of both of these conversations emphasis was laid on the promotion of friendship between South Africa and the Netherlands through better understanding. We agreed that nothing should be done which might do the relations between the Netherlands and South Africa more harm than good. Naturally no decisions were taken; the matter was left at that and nothing further happened.

The hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) has asked me to say a few words about my visit abroad. Sir, I could say a great deal about it but I shall try to be brief. I may say that during the second half of last year I visited eight countries—seven Western European countries as well as the U.S.A. In all these countries I had very frank and useful discussions with members of the Government and with the Foreign Ministers I met there. I also had discussions with two Prime Ministers and with a Deputy Prime Minister. The object of the visit was to get some idea of the work of our representatives abroad; to pay courtesy visits to Foreign Ministers and, in the case of Portugal, to sign agreements.

What struck me throughout was the courteous and friendly reception which was accorded to me everywhere; the interest taken in South Africa and particularly in the Government’s policy and its principles, and the desire to hear more about it. I found that in many respects the ignorance with regard to our policy and conditions here was greater than I had expected, although I met many people who expressed their appreciation of what we had achieved in South Africa. What impressed me was the fact that there was not such a great tendency as I had expected to condemn what we were doing here. I found everywhere that there was a desire to strengthen the bonds with South Africa and in particular to extend trade relations with South Africa. I may say that it is also my intention to visit other countries as soon as possible.

I also visited the United Nations Organization, of course. This visit proved useful both to myself and the members of our delegation. We renewed quite a number of old acquaintances, and I made many new contacts. I had useful discussions with a large number of Foreign Ministers, leaders of delegations and diplomats representing most parts of the world. It became clear to me that UNO Sessions were being used more and more as an opportunity for Foreign Ministers to meet their colleagues and representatives of other countries, whom they do not meet in the normal course of events, and that, apart from the debates in the assembly halls, very important discussions take place in the lobbies and in private.

The hon. member for Turffontein wanted more information with regard to UNO. I want to point out that the last Session of UNO was very exceptional and that it was practically impossible for the General Assembly to pay attention to its ordinary agenda. As a matter of fact, the ordinary agenda was never formally approved. The cause of this, as hon. members are aware, was the problem which arose as a result of the interpretation of Article 19 of the Charter which provides that a member country loses its vote in the General Assembly if its arrear obligations exceed its obligations for the previous two years. The dispute which arose as a result of this, led to a confrontation particularly between the U.S.A. and Russia. Strenuous efforts are being made at the moment to find a solution and if and when such a formula is found, every member of UNO will have to decide whether or not that formula is acceptable to it.

The hon. member for Turffontein was interested in the possibility of amending the Charter of UNO. It is not necessary for me to say that the Charter does make provision for amendments. So far no amendments have been made to the Charter in terms of the relevant articles, which I think are Articles 108 and 109, Chapter 18. The main objection which exists to the present Charter is the so-called veto right of the big powers, as well as the fact that the military provisions of the Charter have never been put into operation, and it is doubtful if it will be possible for these provisions to be amended in such a way that they will be acceptable to everybody. I can say that South Africa strongly insists on the principle laid down in 1945 that the Charter cannot simply be amended by interpretation. The attitude of this Government is that the Charter, like every other contract between parties, cannot be amended without the permission of all the parties to the contract. The Republic therefore rejects all efforts to amend the Charter by interpretation. I might point out that certain steps have already been put into operation in connection with the composition of the Security Council, in connection with a possible extension of its membership from 11 to 15 and also in connection with the composition of the Economic and Social Council. The General Assembly has already approved of the extension of the membership of these two organizations, but there are still certain formalities which have to be complied with and confirmed by members.

I do not think I have listened to any reply by a Minister with more alarm and anxiety and more trepidation. The Minister refers to the services we are rendering in Africa. He discussed technological services and health matters, and above all, the destruction of red locusts. I could hardly believe my ears. We are living in a world which does not accept the policies of this Government. We provide on the Estimates an amount of R4,300,000. When we examine these Estimates, what do we find? We find that on the Continent of Africa we have three contacts, one in Mozambique, one in Angola and one in Rhodesia, and nothing in the whole of the rest of Africa. In Asia we have one contact in the Lebanon, in Asia Minor, and one in Tokyo. In South America we have one contact in the Argentine and one in Brazil, nothing in the West Indies and four in the U.S.A., and the bulk of our money, R4,000,000, is spent in Europe trying to convince White people that the policies of the Government are acceptable. I say that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is guilty of a grave dereliction of duty. He has not told this House what steps he is taking in regard to presenting the image of South Africa as the Government wants to present it, in those countries, which are hostile to us. It was Eisenhower himself who said: Never negotiate from fear, but never be afraid to negotiate. I think it is a sad state of affairs that on the African Continent to-day, we have the leader of Red China making friends.

Making a fool of himself.

No, it is the Minister who is making a fool of himself, because I want to say it is high time that the Government realized that we have to take steps to know what is going on in these countries. We are spending R4,000,000, not in the countries where we should know what is going on.

I want to ask the Minister a few questions. What treaties have we got with other countries? Upon whom do we rely for information as to the activities in those countries? He does not answer. The Minister has given us an account of what goes on at UNO, about the constitution and what they hope to do. I say we live in most serious times, never more serious than to-day. We used to hear all about the 190,000,000 in Russia and the other millions behind the iron curtain. Here we sit to-day with 600,000,000 in Red China and their leader is on this continent and the Foreign Minister is silent. I say he must tell this House what steps he is taking to know what is going on. I am not interested in his trip to the Netherlands or to the U.S.A. I want to know what steps he is taking to ascertain what public opinion and the reactions are in those countries to whom we have to sell the policy of the Government, if we are going to survive as a people. Let us get that perfectly straight. Do not let us hoodwink ourselves.

Go to China.

No, China is coming to Africa. When I hear these interjections I am amused. We are arming ourselves to the teeth. For what? We talk in terms of freedom fighters in Africa. That is not our problem. I say to the Foreign Minister that he is a man, upon whom we relied, and whom we thought would rise to great heights. We thought he was going to be a big improvement on his predecessor, and that he would stop threatening people, but what do we find? Here is a debate where we have offended people who come to visit us. I will not go over the “carrier incident” again. What I want to say is this. If one goes through the Estimates one finds that all the money under the Foreign Affairs Vote is spent on countries which are predominantly White. If we are involved in some controversy or even a conflict, I want the Foreign Minister to say who are our friends. With whom has he made treaties? Upon whom can we rely? These are the things the public want to know. We are not interested in the sweet words and the fancy talk; that does not help us. Conditions have changed; times have altered; events are marching. Whoever thought that Red China would be on the African Continent? I say that the time has come when the Foreign Minister should take steps to ensure that we get correct and accurate information as to what is going on in these countries. We heard talk not so long ago that we would have a roving ambassador who would travel all over Africa to make contacts. What has happened to him? Was he ever appointed? Do we know who he is? I say seriously that I am bitterly disappointed that the Foreign Minister in his reply to-night has failed to answer those things which exercise the minds of the people of South Africa. There are those of us who do not approve of Government policies, but we say, we will fight them here, by constitutional methods, at home, among ourselves. We may be in a minority, temporarily, but there will come a time when those responsible, will be swept away and will disappear like mist on a summer’s morn. I believe the Foreign Minister is guilty of a grave dereliction of duty because he has not reported to this House what steps he has taken and what results he has had. I am not concerned when he mentions that there are a few African states who are hostile. There are other states who are friendly, and he must ascertain who they are. If ever a country needed friends, it is us. We have friends in this country but we do not recognize them. The Bantu and the Coloured populations are our best friends. I say that as a nation we are in extreme danger and the Minister’s job is to report to us faithfully and honestly, what is happening and not to come to this House and talk as he did this evening, to my great disappointment. I am sure the country will agree that the platitudes and all the fancy talk we have had, trying to convince people that the policies of this Government are acceptable, is futile. We have to put it across to the world, and the only way is through the Foreign Service. This side of the House will support him through any possible adversity, if he would put the case fairly and squarely and tell the outside world, through the proper channels, that this country has a legitimate Opposition which makes its voice heard. [Time limit.]

If ever there was an hon. member who was out of step it is the hon. member who has just sat down. I think that even his own side of the House is surprised and taken aback at the attitude which the hon. member has adopted here this evening. I think that it would be better for the hon. member in future to discuss matters about which he knows something instead of participating in a debate such as this because his participation in this debate this evening sounded the only discordant note in this whole debate up to the present.

The questions asked by the hon. member have to a large extent already been answered by the hon. the Minister, as well as by the hon. the Minister of Information, because some of the questions fall under his Department. Moreover, three-quarters of the questions he asked were not relevant. In any case, he as a responsible person ought to have been able to answer more than half of the questions which he himself asked if he had the intelligence which one expects of a member of this House. I want to discuss only one or two of the points he raised.

The first point which he made with much gesticulation was that the hon. the Minister must immediately obtain information in regard to what is going on in the Africa States. He wants the hon. the Minister to take immediate steps to obtain information in this regard. Well, the hon. member must not think that if he does not know what is going on in the States of Africa, this is also the case as far as the Government and the hon. the Minister are concerned. The hon. member must not think that because he knows nothing of what is going on, we, the hon. the Minister and his Department, know nothing either.

Then tell us what is going on.

If there is one appeal which we can make in this House, an appeal, I think, which every well-meaning South African would like to make this evening, it is that this House as a whole, in other words, as far as the Government and the Opposition are concerned, should speak to the outside world with one voice, and should speak of allegiance, loyalty and dedication to South Africa. If the Opposition revealed these sentiments this evening, they would be a worthy Opposition and they would then be playing the role which we expect them to play. But consider instead the petty attacks that have been made here this evening and also the spirit in which these attacks have been made . . . [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, the spirit in which the hon. member made his attack here this evening was not worthy of this House nor of the Opposition.

What has been the task of the hon. the Minister and his Department over the recent past? What has been their task? Let us consider this matter soberly; do not let us dream or idealize. We have experienced a period during which the States in Africa have developed and become emancipated. These States have become free at a very swift pace indeed. In the process they have thrown overboard everything which belonged to their past. The pendulum reached its zenith and we had to contend with an extremely extremistic attitude on the part of the Africa States—not only towards the Whites of Africa but also towards the Whites throughout the world. Let me make a quotation in order to prove the spirit we have had to contend with on the emancipation of these States. Tom Mboya, one of Kenya’s Ministers, said the following—

This, Mr. Chairman, is the spirit which the White man in Africa and throughout the world has had to contend with—a spirit of “the White man does not belong on the Continent of Africa”. This is the spirit that we have had to contend with. It has been because of this spirit that we have had gradually and by means of sensible and quiet means to put the attitude of the Government and to emphasize the right of the White man to remain on this Continent as well.

Together with this we had the division of the world into its eastern and western groups. Within this division there has been some hard bidding for the favour of the Africa States and both sides have been prepared to sacrifice everything for the sake of the favour of the 200,000,000 Blacks in Africa, people who have not as yet chosen sides or ranged themselves on either one side or the other. So anxious were they to win the favour of these States that both the East and the West were at a certain stage prepared—note well that I say “were prepared at a certain stage”—to sacrifice the White man on the altar if by so doing they were able to win the favour of the Blacks. This presented us with another problem, namely, that we had to take up a position in opposition to these currents. The Government could of course have ruined everything by acting wrongly. But it did not. Instead of doing this it followed the policy of gradually and by means of responsible and adult action as mature and sovereign State changing the attitude of these people. We succeeded in this and to such an extent that we can look back to-day on a whole series of achievements.

We had first of all to convert the antipathy, the open hostility, into a neutral attitude before we could promote a spirit of amity or goodwill. We made a great deal of progress in this direction and I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his Department in this regard. The result is that to-day we find a far better understanding of Africa and its problems and particularly of South Africa and its problems in the world than was the case a few years ago.

Can you prove that?

There is daily evidence of this. The hon. member ought to know it. According to the Report of the Department of Information, this has been proved in every country in Europe. The spirit in Europe as far as we are concerned is far better now that it has ever been.

Is that in the Report?

Mr. Chairman, I think I must mention the fact, so that it can be placed on record, that it appears to me that the attitude of the hon. member is such that it can be interpreted as though he were sorry that this feeling has improved to-day. It appears to me that it would give him great pleasure to make quotations in order to prove that this is not so. There is a loyal South African for you!

But is that in the Report?

Yes, in the Report of the Department of Information and not in the booklet which the hon. member has there.

The position is that we have already achieved a number of things in Africa to-day. We already have the position in which we are experiencing the heartiest co-operation in the technical and in the agricultural sphere—as the hon. the Minister has also told us—in regard to a whole group of Africa countries. There are interesting developments within those territories. We are receiving co-operation in various spheres. In this connection let me refer hon. members to the Report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. The hon. the Minister has already mentioned one or two things in order to prove this cooperation. I should also like to add something in this regard. There is the organization known as SARCCUS—South African Regional Committee for the Conservation and Utilization of the Soil. The main function of this organization is to promote inter-territorial cooperation insofar as the combating of problems of communal importance in the spheres of the utilization of the soil and the conservation of agricultural resources in Southern Africa are concerned. We are a member of this organization. In June of last year this organization held its annual meeting in Durban. The Secretary-general of this body is an official of the Department. There were 33 representatives at the conference and a very good spirit of co-operation prevailed at that conference. A large number of matters were discussed and a great deal achieved. The representatives were all from Africa countries. There were representatives there from, firstly, the Republic of South Africa, Basutoland, Bechuanaland, Swaziland, Mocambique, Angola, Malawi, Southern Rhodesia . . .

And further North?

The hon. member wants to go further and further north. Let me tell him about countries further to the North. As things develop and as countries in Africa come to realize that the Republic has the right of survival here as a White State, and while we on our part continue to act responsibly, not as the Opposition want us to act, so will the countries of Africa gradually accept the fact that South Africa and her White population have a right to exist on the continent of Africa. Gradually, by our actions and by our example we shall make them realize that we also want to co-operate with them. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I always listen with interest to the hon. member for Randfontein, because although I very often do not agree with his arguments, I know that he is very sincere in the views that he expresses. Therefore, although I might disagree with what he says, I nevertheless listen with respect to the views which he expresses.

On this occasion I disagree with the hon. member once more, because, Sir, I cannot help thinking that he views the whole question in a rather narrow way. If he has listened with care to what the hon. the Minister had to say—and I do not doubt that he did listen with care—he will agree with me that the statement of the Minister, coming at the end of a debate of this nature, was really extremely disappointing. The hon. the Minister is. after all, the mouthpiece of us all in regard to foreign affairs. This evening he gave us a statement as to what happened the the United Nations last December. The first question I should like to ask the Minister is why he has given us this statement at the very end of the debate on his Vote. Because, Mr. Chairman, I should have thought that the obvious time for making the statement would have been at the very beginning of the debate. The Minister said—quite rightly—that at the United Nations he not only meets foreign ministers of other countries who are represented in the Republic by their ambassadors, but he also meets foreign ministers of countries with whom we have no relations at all. The hon. the Minister gets in touch with opinion from all over the world—unofficially, so to speak—-in the corridors of the United Nations. All this means that the Minister enjoys opportunities of assessing the position in general and the attitude of the whole world towards us in particular, opportunities which he would not be able to enjoy in any other way. Therefore when it comes to debating the foreign affairs Vote in this House, I should have thought that a statement by the hon. the Minister on his visit to the United Nations would be the very key to the whole debate. That is why I say I am very disappointed because the Minister did not make such a statement—disappointing though his statement was—right at the beginning of the debate.

The hon. the Minister referred to co-operation with the rest of Africa, co-operation which he said—quite rightly—should come from both sides. He said that from his side they have repeatedly made it clear, both in words and in deeds, that co-operation was indeed their aim. Nobody on this side of the House has ever expressed opposition to this view, and nobody on this side has ever suggested that we should not do all we could to establish the desired co-operation. As a matter of fact, we have deplored the fact that in many instances we have actually been excluded from certain organizations in which we did formerly co-operate as best we could.

The hon. the Minister mentioned matters like health, technology, meteorology, foot-and-mouth disease and locusts . . .

Red locusts!

... in respect of which we have attended conferences. I am not suggesting that we should not have co-operated with other States in regard to these matters, but these subjects were discussed by the experts, and the hon. the Minister is unable to show us that any contact on a higher level has been made. It is simply no good making contact on the level of red locusts or foot-and-mouth disease alone—although it is no doubt very valuable. If we are going to make contact with the emergent African States, it will have to be made on a much higher level than that.

One of our criticisms of this Government is that for many years now we have heard— from the hon. the Minister and his predecessor about their readiness to make contact with friendly States in Africa, but if certain States are not friendly disposed towards us, well, there is simply nothing they can do about it. I am afraid that is a very defeatist attitude to adopt. I do not believe. Sir, that all the emergent African States are in fact so unfriendly that it is beyond the bounds of possibility to establish friendly contact with them. Provided, of course, the right people are used to make that contact. And here 1 wish to say that in my view the hon. the Minister is possessed of all the personal qualities—I shall not refer to his politics—to make those contacts. He told us that he had visited seven European countries and the United States. If he could also have told us that in addition he had been to even two emergent African States and had had personal talks with the heads of these States as a result of which he had arrived at a friendly understanding with them, well, such visits would have been much more valuable than anything else he has done since he has been Foreign Minister. The hon. the Minister has told us that he has fresh visits in mind. I am indeed very glad to hear it.

The hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister have talked about roving ambassadors. I am afraid I do not think roving ambassadors will do much good, unless they are followed up by people who can remain in the countries concerned permanently. I believe that if the hon. the Minister would in the course of his projected travels visit one or two of the emergent African States—and here I think of two such States who have expressed their willingness to make contact with us—and as a result of his visit and ensuing talks he managed to establish some official contact which could lead to our having representatives in those countries and vice versa, then I think the hon. the Minister would be rendering a most valuable service to this country. Because the establishment of reciprocal contacts must inevitably lead to a better understanding of each other’s problems.

The hon. the Minister also told us of the collapse of the intended visit of certain people from the Netherlands to the Republic. Now, the hon. the Minister has what I might call an irritating habit of telling us an interesting story and then not completing it. One may well compare it to a serial on the radio. He told us about the projected visit of certain individuals in the Netherlands to the Republic; he told us that they had expressed a desire to interview Albert Luthuli. And that was the end of the story. Well, Mr. Chairman. I am sure there was more to it than just that! I am very curious to know what was the end of the story. There is no denying the fact that that visit would have benefited the Republic. The visitors were responsible people from Holland, people whom the hon. the Minister had met in Holland. Yet, just because they wanted to talk to Albert Luthuli the visit was cancelled. This is something I just cannot understand. What could Luthuli have told them that they did not already know? What could they have seen when they visited him that they did not know existed? Albert Luthuli, Mr. Chairman, is a world-famous man. It may not be our fault, but nevertheless he is. So why their intention to see him should have prevented them from coming here is something I fail to appreciate. It would have been very simple to have told them what his position was. It would have been quite simple to have told them that they could visit him at ‘Stanger—or wherever he is—if they so desired.

These little things seem to me to be so short-sighted. Things of this nature should be dealt with on a broad basis in view of the major issues involved. The people who wanted to visit this country no doubt now all have a chip on their shoulder. They are walking about saying that they wanted to visit South Africa, but the South African people, through their Government, would not allow them to come because they wanted to see this unfortunate fellow Luthuli who—they say—is probably in a concentration camp, and God knows what has happened to him! [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, when one considers the pessimistic nature of the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), one feels that he actually made an encouraging speech. Viewed against this background I think it can be said that the hon. member has shown that there is really nothing in the sphere of foreign affairs to give us cause for concern.

The hon. member raised three points of criticism. I want to deal briefly with the last point first and will then discuss the other two important points.

The hon. member referred to the proposed visit of leading personages from Holland, a visit which had apparently been cancelled because they were refused the right to visit Luthuli. What we want to ask the hon. member and the Opposition as a whole is whether it is in line with the present South African image that the Opposition should resent the fact that the Government does not want to permit a group of foreign visitors, official visitors, to visit a person who is under certain restrictions. The hon. member for Constantia referred to Luthuli as a “world-renowned” figure: in other words, a person who can be regarded as universally known, although not necessarily renowned, but indeed notorious from certain points of view. Why should the official Opposition in South Africa be in favour of giving a group of visitors from overseas the opportunity to visit this person? I maintain that if the hon. member for Constantia and his party reconsider the matter, they will realize that it does not behove them to act as the champions of such a matter and thereby bring the Government into discredit in the eyes of the world.

The other two points raised by the hon. member are to my mind of more importance than that which I have just dealt with. In the first instance the hon. member said that the hon. the Minister omitted to give a full report on UN relationships, a report which could have served as a starting point in this debate. By saying this he intimated that our relationships with UN are actually the crux of our international policy. In the second instance he criticized the hon. the Minister because the hon. the Minister had neglected to make contact with Africa States to the north.

As far as the first point is concerned, namely, that of UN relationships, I want to point out that the difference between the approach of the United Party and that of this side of the House lies in the evaluation of UN as a factor in international politics. There was a time, somewhere in the ’fifties and before the Korean war, when UN was still the prevailing and only international platform on which international relationships could develop. But with the Korean war the great difference between America and Russia became obvious. It was then that the first centrifugal factor at UN made its appearance. Since that time the centrifugal forces which have influenced UN have multiplied. There is conflict to-day in regard to the admission of Red China; there is the conflict between Red China and Russia; there is the fact that France is blazing its own trail in Europe and in the international world; there is the new relationship which has developed between America and Russia as a result of the Chinese situation; there is the European Economic Community as a third international power factor. There are, indeed, a number of centrifugal factors, factors which have robbed UN of much of its original value and importance. Moreover, UN has now been handed over to an Afro-Asian majority where colour prejudice and racism prevail and so we find that UN has been compromised into an irreconcilable enmity towards South Africa.

Why do the Opposition insist that we should continue to find our salvation in international relationships on this extremely difficult platform of steadily decreasing importance? Why are the Opposition not prepared to agree when we say that our salvation lies in the development of relationships with individual states? There are, for example, our relationships with France as a separate, rising power; our relationships with the states of the European Economic Community; our relationships with America, a strife-encircled power which also needs friends; our relationships with Britain, relationships which rest on historical foundations which go a long way back and also on economic relations; and so forth. Is this not inherently a more fertile sphere in which to develop our international relationships than at UN where we are the prey of unavoidable hostility?

As far as our relationships with states in Africa are concerned, there are only two points I want to raise. Hon. members opposite are continually emphasizing the neglect and inability of the Government to make contact with the Northern Black States in Africa. The hon. member for Constantia has said that it is not satisfactory to say that we cannot penetrate the antipathy of these countries and that for this reason we cannot report progress. But in the same breath the hon. member belittles the contacts which have been made in the technical sphere. For example, he spoke sneeringly about “red locusts and foot-and-mouth disease”. The point I want to make in this connection is that when one has to deal with hostility from the highest level, the only way in which that hostility can be broken down is to start at the lowest level, that is to say, to start with the technical contacts. One can try to climb up from there to the contacts at the administrative level and from there eventually to the contacts at the governmental and diplomatic levels. That is why I resent the fact that the Opposition underestimate the technical contacts, which have been reported upon at this stage, instead of admitting that contacts by this means are the only and most logical starting points from which to expand and eventually to reach that level at which they want these contacts to be made.

Moreover, our relationships with Africa fall very clearly into two geographical spheres. Firstly, there is our relationship with the States of Southern Africa—our sphere of influence, the sphere which influences our fate most, that is to say, the sphere south of the Zambesi-Kunene line, the sphere which therefore includes the Portuguese territories, the Protectorates and Rhodesia. This is the Republic’s immediate sphere of influence; this is the part of the world, so to speak, where we must make our international authority felt, where we must weld international bonds of friendship and where we must develop our energies. No criticism can be expressed in this regard of the policy of the Republic towards Southern Africa, nor in regard to the results which have been achieved here. Indeed, things are going swimmingly in this regard. Northern Africa, like many other parts of the world, is also of importance to us, although not of real or cardinal importance. The Opposition adopt the attitude which cannot be justified if they continue to miss the importance of Southern Africa. We are continually being asked what our contacts with Northern Africa are? But, Mr. Chairman, what interests do we have in Northern Africa? Trading interests at best and, moreover, we are faced with tremendous transportation problems in this regard. There is no land transport and accordingly we have to make use of coastal traffic, a sphere in which we are no more favourably off than our European and Asian competitors. There are no strategic considerations which unite us with those territories; there is no common background as far as technical or cultural interests are concerned. Indeed, we have very little to do with these territories. It is coincidental that the Continent on which they live is called Africa. In reality Central and North Africa are remote, if I may use that expression, from us. [Time limit.]

I could not agree more with the hon. member for Kempton Park when he says that our immediate most important task is to establish good relations with our bordering States. I have also said so. What worries me is the fact that I do not detect any signs on the part of the Government which indicate that they realize how vitally important it is to consolidate those relations and cement them. I hope the hon. member for Kempton Park will use his great influence with the Government to impress upon them the great urgency of this matter.

This side of the House was glad to hear the statement of the hon. the Prime Minister in connection with the aid we are giving to Basutoland.

Hear, hear!

I am only sorry that it is not possible to give them more aid. I am sure our help will be greatly appreciated. The Government has adopted the correct attitude in the matter.

But the remarks by the hon. member concerning UNO leads me to believe that he misunderstood me. The point I made was that UNO was the most suitable place for the hon. the Minister to make contact with, to meet, to discuss with and to put our point of view to foreign ministers and other delegates from all over the world. He cannot meet those people otherwise because of the present state of our diplomatic relations with other countries. The Minister talks about France, Britain, Germany as countries in which we have our own diplomatic missions. But, Mr. Chairman, our diplomatic missions are but a fraction of what they should be. If the hon. the Minister looks at the number of diplomatic representatives in the main capitals of the world he will see that we have representation in only a few countries compared to the number of countries represented at UNO. I was not suggesting that UNO was the only place where the hon. the Minister could cultivate these valuable contacts. But I did say that UNO was the place where the Minister—and he knows this very well—has the greatest opportunity of making such contact. That made it important to us that he should have given us a report as to his views and opinions regarding things he had learnt over there when he returned or at the very first opportunity he had of addressing this House.

The hon. the Minister has informed us that he has further visits in mind. I am very glad to hear him say this. I said that I hoped his visits would result in improved relations with at least one or two of the emergent African States. Because, Sir, as the hon. member for Karoo said, we have no contact at all with these countries. We do not know what is going on in these States. We all know of the recent visit of the Prime Minister of Communist China to Tanganyika. We just do not know what took place there. And, of course, it is most important that we should know what occurred.

I should now like to refer to a certain item appearing on the Vote of the hon. the Minister. It is a new item for an amount of R500,000 for Secret Service. I do not know what the Secret Service is for. I do not know whether it is in fact a substitute for a diplomatic service. Is the R500,000 going to be spent overseas, on service abroad? What is it for? I realize, of course, that the House cannot expect the hon. the Minister to give details regarding the item, but it is nevertheless a new item, and I think we are entitled to know something about it. Will the Minister tell us whether it is to be a substitute for obtaining information from the African States? I am not for one moment disputing the fact that we should have an intelligence service. But, Mr. Chairman, in my view it is a very poor substitute for what I might call “above-board” relations and “above-board” contacts which I think are most important for the future of our country.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that in my view this has on the whole been a very disappointing debate from the point of view of obtaining information and define statements from the Government as to just what they are doing in regard to the very difficult position in which we find ourselves in the field of foreign relations. I should like to give a final example to illustrate what I mean. One of the hon. the Ministers said that a great deal of time at the United Nations last year was taken up by arguments concerning member States who had not paid their subscriptions. There was a dispute as to whether or not these States should be allowed to vote. The rule is that members who are two years in arrear with their subscriptions shall not be entitled to vote. The dispute prevented any work being done at all for a period of about three months. But the hon. the Minister neglected to tell the House what is our attitude to this dispute. The Minister should have told us what the attitude of the Republic is. Is our attitude that member States who are two years in arrears and who refuse to pay their subscriptions should have a vote? Do we consider that they should be allowed to vote for or against things which have an influence on world affairs? Mr. Chairman, this is one more serial story of which we did not hear the final chapter! This is one of the reasons why this has on the whole been a disappointing debate. We look forward to the hon. the Minister giving us a much more complete and much clearer picture of the affairs of his Department and the picture he has of world affairs in relation to the Republic of South Africa.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Revenue Vote No. 49—“Mines”, R 11,260,000,

Mr. Chairman, I should like to discuss this Vote but I see the hon. the Minister responsible for it is not in the House.

Where is the Minister? Has he gone underground?

May I in the circumstances move the adjournment of the debate?

Order! No, the hon. member may not do that.

I move—

That the Chairman report progress and ask for leave to sit again.

Agreed to.