I move—

AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT NEAR SEYMOUR

Mr. Speaker, before I commence my Budget speech I want to make a very short statement in connection with the aircraft accident near Seymour in the Eastern Cape. Members of the House will already have learned through the medium of the Press and radio of the aircraft accident which occurred yesterday afternoon at approximately 3 o’clock when, in unfavourable weather conditions, a Dakota of the South African Airways, on a scheduled flight from Grahamstown to Queenstown, crashed into a peak in the Katberg.

It is with deep regret that I have to inform members that the accident was not without loss of life.

Capt. A. J. McLeod of Pretoria and First Officer D. B. Gunn of Germiston were killed, while First Officer W. Malan of Kempton Park sustained serious injuries and is at present in the hospital at Fort Beaufort.

From information available at this stage, the remainder of the crew and the two passengers in the aircraft sustained only light injuries and shock.

On behalf of myself, the Government and the South African Airways, I would like to convey my deepest sympathy to the bereaved.

I may also inform the House that an investigation has been ordered into the occurrence and that investigating officers have already been visiting the scene of the accident to-day.

INTRODUCTION

The record of the railways and their associated services during the past year can be considered good in most respects. A healthy national economy resumed a more pronounced forward march after a brief interval of uncertainty during the early months of the financial year; as the year rolled on, the economy improved progressively. Exports, as reflected in tonnages moved by rail, reached record proportions, and domestic traffic was influenced by the biggest maize crop yet produced in South Africa as well as by industrial expansion.

As was to be expected, transport requirements grew correspondingly and I am happy to be able to report to the House that the onus on the Railways of keeping pace with development by being ready to provide the required transport, was successfully discharged. South Africa has thus been able to draw early dividends from the railway planning of recent years.

However, I do not want hon. members to get the impression that the excellent record of the year is leading to complacency. While the facts are encouraging, it is realized that self-satisfaction, being usually unwise and dangerous, can be rudely shaken by unexpected setbacks and unforeseeable adversity.

Having made this reservation, I want to give a report to the House on what the railways and their associated services have accomplished during the year. I am going to let the facts speak for themselves. The encouraging picture presented by the Railways does not, however, derive only from the successful transport of passengers and goods by rail, road and air. We can look back on a period of tranquil staff relationships as well as steadily improving relations with the public who use our services, and also on a year of progress in many directions. In the last-mentioned category can be included improved and faster main-line passenger trains; the introduction of refinements to make main-line passenger travel more comfortable and attractive; the expansion, coupled with growing public support, of express goods services; the introduction of special trains to get the produce of farmers more quickly to the major markets; successful experiments with the transport of perishable products in refrigerated vehicles; increased mechanization of goods handling in general and better harbour facilities. These are but a few of the improvements brought about during the year and still further measures are receiving attention. What is specially significant is that there has been encouraging public response to our efforts and that increases in both passenger and goods traffic have been recorded.

Another factor that deserves mention is the response of the staff to the appeals made to them to make service their watchword. This is a somewhat intangible factor, difficult to express in statistics, but I can assure hon. members that there is ample evidence that on the Railways courtesy and efficient service have become practically synonymous terms. There are exceptions, fortunately very few, and they serve merely to underline the new approach of the vast majority of our staff.

In the light of available facts, it would appear that the positive measures that have been taken to improve rail travel have of late been bringing people back to the railway. To-day, a train journey is both interesting and comfortable. Aided by higher standards of cleanliness and maintenance, by better timekeeping and by new and modern rolling stock, adverse criticism is being largely eliminated. Last December, for example, was a record month. More than 300 special trains were scheduled in addition to augmented regular services and even then difficulty was experienced in accommodating all passengers.

I do not want to give the impression that the year was without transport problems. Contrary to dismal forecasts made in some quarters, railway traffic has been maintained throughout the year and at times the traffic offering in respect of particular lines was so heavy that delays were unavoidable. The delays, which usually occurred when unexpectedly large tonnages had to be moved quickly over a particular section—for example, when ships bunched on arrival at South African ports— were not of long duration and served to focus attention on the continuing high level of transport demands. To some extent the erratic arrival of ships caused congestion. For a period after the declaration of the Republic, certain shipping lines avoided South African waters and subsequently those shipping lines tried to compress into a few weeks what ordinarily would have taken months to do.

It is a truism that the railway system and the economy of the country are closely interrelated and that the responsibility of transport to keep abreast and even ahead of national requirements is explicit. That it has been possible to keep rail as well as road transport in pace with national progress is a tribute to sound planning and foresight, but we have nevertheless learned from experience that some supplementary planning is necessary, because there are indications that the railways will have to be prepared for new traffic peaks.

The application of import control with its inevitable influence on high-rated traffic did not adversely affect railway revenue to the degree expected, and the effects were still further reduced by the high level of domestic traffic, including agricultural products and coal, but more particularly ores and base metals for export. The changing pattern of industrialization is also having a beneficial effect on railway revenue as greater tonnages of high-rated traffic are becoming available from domestic sources. Consequently, it is expected that the volume of high-rated traffic will improve in comparison with the previous year.

The overall tonnages to be transported by rail are expected at least to maintain the recent annual rate of increase. The export of iron ore and pig iron to Japan, which is estimated to amount to approximately 1,350,000 tons during the 1962-3 financial year, the increased consumption of iron ore by Iscor, the development of phosphate production in the Northern Transvaal, the export of chrome ore and manganese and the movement of agricultural produce will not only ensure overall tonnages but are expected to test railway capacity to the utmost. I am confident that all this traffic will be successfully handled. It will be necessary, however, to undertake some major additional capital works, and I propose in the Additional Estimates to be presented later in the Session to provide inter alia for the electrification of the line from Witbank to Komatipoort and certain improvements on the line between Kimberley and Klerksdorp.

Work is also being pushed ahead on the undoubled section of the line between Newcastle and Glencoe and should be completed by the end of June this year. The remodelling of Glencoe yard and station and the installation of new signalling should also be finished by then. When the line between Newcastle and Glencoe has been doubled and the new facilities become available, the delays at Glencoe. caused largely by the difficult conditions under which the work is being done there, will come to an end.

The electrification of the Volksrust-Union section of the Natal main line is scheduled for completion early in 1964 and the entire Natal main line, from Johannesburg to Durban, will then be electrified.

In addition, work on the doubling of the line between Poupan and De Aar and Beaconsfield and Modderrivier is progressing satisfactorily, and attention is also being given to the carrying-capacity of the Natal main line, particularly the section between Pentrich and Umlaas Road. The installation of centralized traffic control between Hamilton and Springfontein is making good progress and the first section between Hamilton and Kaalspruit is already in use.

Hon. members will be interested to know that the ore-loading plant at Port Elizabeth is now scheduled, by agreement with the contractors, to be completed by December 1962, namely six months earlier. The plant has also been re-designed and on completion it will have twice the original capacity.

Mr. Speaker, having now given the House a broad outline of the year’s activities, I shall proceed to deal specifically with certain of the more important facets. Firstly, I shall touch upon the activities of the Planning Council which player an important part in the design of the present national transport pattern and, as I have already stated, of enabling the Administration successfully to discharge its onus of keeping pace with development.

Immediately after that I shall deal briefly with two subjects of a general nature which have no actual bearing on the other matters to be discussed later in my speech, but which nevertheless, are of great importance, viz. the Railway Traffic Inquiry and the Stores Department.

In so far as the rest of my speech is concerned, hon. members will be able clearly to notice the causal link between traffic offering, the capacity of rolling stock, i.e. the handling of traffic, as well as Harbour services, Grain Elevators and S.A. Airways. For that reason, these subjects are grouped together under the caption Traffic Review.

A further vital transport problem is of course the conveyance of passengers, but for obvious reasons a clear distinction must be drawn between goods and passenger carrying-capacity. Hence passenger traffic is surveyed under a separate heading Train Passengers subdivided into Long Distance and Suburban Services.

One could hardly think of matters connected with the movement of traffic, some of which I have mentioned above, without immediately appreciating the vital rôle played therein by the staff and for that reason staff matters are dealt with immediately after the Traffic Review and Train Passengers.

The efficient utilization of all the aforementioned assets and the contribution of the staff thereto, are clearly reflected in the basic working results for the year, namely the financial results. That is why, as is customary, I intend then to give a review of the financial aspects of the current year’s operations which also assists one in making a forecast for the ensuing year, which I shall do towards the end of my speech.

THE PLANNING COUNCIL

Forward planning is vitally necessary, but much depends on the approach of those responsible for the planning and on a clear appreciation of the ultimate objectives. For reasons easy to understand, temporary expedients as well as sectional planning should be avoided. The Council for Planning and Development, established on the Railways in 1954, has now been remodelled in the light of experience. In the intitial stages, planning had to be carried out under great pressure because the leeway in equipment and facilities resulting from the second world war had to be caught up, and caught up quickly. We are now on a more even keel and the new Planning Council, consisting of five members of the Management and the Chief Civil Engineer, with a Deputy-General Manager as Chairman, is able to consider questions in broader perspective and to pay more attention to long-range projects. In addition, we now have the planning machinery better to determine rolling stock requirements and it is possible to work to a defined programme, based on a formula which takes traffic trends into full account. The underlying principles are two-fold: (1) to base all new rolling stock acquisitions on economic justifications, and (2) to apply scientific methods in determining the rolling stock required to enable the Administration to give optimum service.

THE RAILWAY TARIFFS INQUIRY

Since the tempo and pattern of industrial development have changed considerably in recent years and as the railway rating structure will materially influence the establishment of industry in the border areas, I have decided on a thorough investigation into railway tariffs. Hon. members are aware of the terms of reference of this Committee but I would like to draw attention to the fact that the Committee has been asked to report on the adaptation, where necessary, of the rating policy and the method of tariff determination with a view to the promotion of decentralization of industries, the development of border areas and the possible elimination of present uneconomic rates. The Committee, in making its investigation with due regard to the effect of the proposed re-adjustments on the general well-being and development of the national economy, has to bear in mind that the revenue of the South African Railways derived from all services and sources, should be sufficient to cover total expenditure.

I think it will be agreed that an inquiry on the proposed lines is necessary since railway rating policy cannot be allowed to lag behind development. Nor can the Railway Administration afford to ignore changing conditions but must endeavour to make the application of its tariffs as equitable and scientific as possible.

STORES DEPARTMENT

During the past year, special attention has been given to the Stores Department. A large sum of money is tied up in stores stock, but while this is unavoidable, the onus to see that the quantity of stores is not disproportionate to requirements is correspondingly greater. It is essential to economise on capital and to ensure the effective control of all stores. These objectives have become cardinal principles of policy.

A new code of procedure has been introduced for the replenishment of stocks, and holdings have been confined to a minimum. Close liaison is maintained with the various departments from which supplies are received or for which stores are held. As a result, the quantity of stock has been reduced with a corresponding reduction in interest charges.

TRAFFIC REVIEW

Rail Traffic

The volume of traffic being handled by the Railways is a good yardstick of the capacity which has accrued as a result of the modernization programme. Most of the major works have been completed and are in commission. But railway capacity is not reflected only in new buildings or in miles of double track, in new stations or in impressive harbour extensions.

There are the equally important aspects of locomotive power and goods wagons in service, all representing heavy capital investment. The Railway Administration has during the last five years increased the tractive effort at its disposal from 101.89 million pounds to 118.1 million, an advance of 15.8 per cent. The new diesel-electric locomotives in service in various parts of South and South West Africa and new electric locomotives are responsible for the increase.

An equally spectacular advance has been recorded in the case of goods wagon carrying capacity, which will at the end of this month amount to 3.299 million tons in comparison with 2.869 million tons five years ago. The percentage increase was no less than 14.9.

The traffic to test our greater resources has fortunately been on offer. The first eight months of the current financial year, for instance, showed an increase over the corresponding period of the previous financial year of more than 1,000,000 tons in goods carried by rail, equal to about 3 per cent. This can be considered a normal rate of expansion although substantially below the record increase of 7 per cent of the 1960-1 financial year over 1959-60. What is significant is that there has been an increase in tonnage over the record year. Judging from present traffic trends, the total tonnage for the full year is expected to exceed that for the preceding year by about 4 per cent. The average length of haul has also increased and the ton-mile figure, a better yardstick than the tonnage figure, shows an advance of 6 per cent.

Since all relevant statistics are given in the memorandum which has been prepared as a supplement to the Budget, I do not propose to weary hon. members with masses of statistics. A few pertinent facts deserve mention, however. Ores and minerals transported by rail exceeded 8,000,000 tons during the first eight months of the current financial year and by the end of the year last year’s totals will probably be exceeded by about 1.25 million tons. The heavy maize, kaffir corn and sugar cane crops account for an increase of about 400,000 tons in the volume of agricultural products transported during the same period, while general merchandise has advanced by 100,000 tons in spite of import control. Building materials provided an unfortunate exception to the general trend. Here the drop was 140,000 tons, but I expect that conditions will change for the better in the foreseeable future.

Rolling Stock Ordered

I would also like to mention that for the first time electric locomotives will be built in South Africa. An order, valued at about R16,000,000, has been placed with a firm in the Transvaal. Only certain electrical components, as well as the wheels and axles, will be imported, but more than 70 per cent of materials will come from South African sources. Electric suburban coaches and trailers as well as all-steel coaches have already been manufactured in the Republic and we are virtually independent as far as the manufacture of goods stock is concerned.

Harbours

The tonnage of cargo landed at the harbours during the first eight months of the financial year fell below the volume for the same period of last year, and general cargo from overseas showed a decline of some 410,000 tons. Import control was clearly responsible. On the other hand, exports during the first eight months of this year advanced by more than 800,000 tons, and for the first time exceeded imports. Agricultural products, ores and minerals and 1,200,000 tons of general cargo accounted for the increase in the volume of exports. General cargo exceeded the total for the corresponding period last year by 90,000 tons.

The port of Durban recorded the greatest increase in tonnages: 500,000 tons more than during the corresponding period last year. For the first time, Durban passed the 10,000,000-ton mark in goods handled during the 1961 calendar year.

Grain Elevators

During the first eight months of the financial year, 876,000 tons of maize and kaffir corn were exported through South African ports and Lourenço Marques. In October the Maize Industry Control Board advised that the 1961 crop was likely to exceed the original estimate by some 3,000,000 bags, and that to avoid an excessive carry-over it had been decided to increase the export programme. It is now estimated that the total tonnage of maize and kaffir corn to be exported during the current financial year will be well in excess of 1,000,000 tons.

Road Transport

Railway road transport services have had a successful year. A record tonnage of goods was carried and non-White passengers continued to increase. The introduction of the road/rail vehicles for the transport of petrol and fuel oil in bulk has been most rewarding. It is proposed to add another 50 of these vehicles to the establishment and to bring the total to about 200. More luxury passenger buses have been placed in service and experiments with the transport of fresh fruit and vegetables, fruit juices and ice cream in refrigerated road vehicles have been successful.

South African Airways

South African Airways is at present carrying more passengers than during last year, whilst mail ton-miles have increased by 19 per cent and freight ton-miles by 62 per cent during the first eight months, in comparison with the corresponding period last year. This increase in passengers and freight is by no means the experience of some other airlines and should be accepted with gratitude coupled with caution.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to balance the Airways budget. Ways and means have been explored of utilizing aircraft to better advantage, especially during peak periods, but revenue has not come up to expectations. Expenditure has, however, been kept below the estimate, and the results for the first nine months of the year reflect a surplus of R578,000.

The new Boeing non-stop-over-Africa Service to London is one of the features I had in mind when making my recent appeal for whole-hearted support for our airline. In a highly competitive field, South African Airways operates a service second to none on the international route, but modern jet airliners demand a high pay-load if the service is to be economic. I am sure that, on reflection, it will be agreed that our own airline should have first claim on the support of South Africans.

On the domestic routes the numbers of passengers during the first eight months of this year showed an increase of over 6 per cent, largely because of the greater popularity of the Skycoach services. The latter are, however, not economic as the DC-7B aircraft now being used were not designed to meet the operational characteristics of domestic services. Operating costs are high in relation to the low fares charged. To permit of more economic utilization, an increase in the number of seats from 74 to 96 is now being considered.

Whilst the domestic services in the Republic are paying their way, the same cannot unfortunately be said of the services to and from South West Africa which, due to lack of public support, are being exploited at a loss.

The regional services to Lourenco Marques in partnership with DETA, and to Bulawayo and Salisbury in partnership with Central African and East African Airways, have shown a decline of 8 per cent in the number of passengers. Results on the Australian route have also not come up to expectations.

TRAIN PASSENGERS

Long-distance Services

As I have already indicated, steps have been taken to arrest the persistent downward trend in European main-line passenger traffic. An order was placed some time ago for 322 mainline all-steel saloons with a South African company. These coaches are of the latest type with many refinements to give them passenger appeal. All new dining cars to be placed in service will be air-conditioned and now that we have established how welcome a lounge car on a long-distance passenger train is, more of these cars will be provided. Provision has been made in the estimates for the purchase of ten more lounge cars.

The reductions announced last year in the running times of most of the main-line passenger trains will, I hope, prove to be but the prelude to a still further speeding-up. Another investigation of passenger train services is now being made and it is expected that more improvements will be reflected in the next issue of the railway timetable, in July this year.

Suburban Services

Suburban services are responsible for an increase in passenger revenue. The non-White services from the resettlement areas are being particularly well supported and there are no signs of the numbers of non-White passengers declining. On the contrary, the tendency is still upwards. I am fully aware that in the case of the non-White suburban services, the Railways Administration is not yet in the position to provide enough rolling stock. Uncomfortably crowded trains, especially during peak hours, cannot yet be obviated, but I want to assure hon. members that the problem is receiving special attention. The new coaching stock on order for both White and non-White services is being delivered at a satisfactory rate and new trains are being scheduled as soon as stock becomes available. By the end of the coming financial year, 393 suburban sliding-door steel coaches will be in service on the Witwatersrand and 364 on the Cape suburban system.

STAFF

Frequent references have been made during recent years to the various measures introduced to promote staff efficiency and to increase staff productivity. Encouraging progress has been made but this is not a subject on which to be dogmatic, since general conclusions are often subjected to criticism and condemnation because of the act of one individual or isolated instances.

With these contingencies in mind, I am pleased to say that the index of labour productivity was positively encouraging. According to calculations made, the productivity of the staff has risen appreciably during the last ten years.

It is not easy to postulate the extent to which this increased productivity can be ascribed to the mechanization of goods handling, to modern loading and handling methods, such as palletization, fork-lift trucks and other equipment, and to the training of staff. Better supervision also has a direct effect on efficiency. Men have been trained to demonstrate the best methods of loading goods and experienced officers are there to give assistance and guidance. Non-White servants have not been neglected in this drive for greater efficiency and more than 6,000 have already received specialized instruction in goods handling. Hon. members will appreciate that the purpose of all these measures, together with mechanized track maintenance, better supervision and intensive training, is to earn maximum revenue with minimum expenditure, or, to express it even more simply, to spend relatively less on conveying every passenger and every ton of goods without sacrificing either standards of service or efficiency. It is, therefore, a matter of considerable satisfaction that the Railway Administration is to-day handling more passengers and greater goods tonnages with fewer staff and, I may add, with far fewer complaints from the public.

FINANCIAL

Revenue: 1961-2

The financial position of the Railways can, at this stage, be considered as reasonably satisfactory with revenue exceeding the anticipated level. In the budget I presented last year, provision was made for a deficit at the end of the current financial year of R507,200. The determining factors at the time included the application of import control and uncertainty about export markets. Only a small increase in general merchandise, in comparison with the previous financial year, was therefore expected and in the case of exports, one of the principal revenue-producing sources, estimates of volume were framed on a conservative basis.

The total tonnage of revenue earning traffic expected to be moved by rail, was placed at 76.900,000 tons. On the basis of tonnages already moved by rail and on indicated prospects for the balance of the financial year, the total tonnage (revenue and non-revenue earning) for the 1961-2 financial year is now estimated at 90,200,000 tons or 2,200,000 tons more than the total tonnage actually conveyed during the 1960-1 financial year.

The expected decrease in high-rated traffic has. as I have already indicated, taken place, but a substantial advance in low-rated traffic more than compensated for the decline. For instance. R4.000,000 more is expected from ores and base minerals and R1,700,000 more from maize and kaffir corn.

Goods traffic is thus expected to produce R232,500,000, an advance of R4,500,000 on the original estimates and R6,400,000 more than the previous financial year.

Revenue from the transport of coal, which was affected by smaller despatches of coal by rail to the Highveld and Taaibos power stations, is expected to yield R780,000 less than was estimated.

The embargo on the movement of cattle after the foot and mouth disease outbreak in South West Africa reduced income from the transport of livestock while the movement of sheep by road from the North Western Cape during the drought in the early stages of last year was another unfavourable factor. Revenue under this head is now expected to fall below the estimate by R340,000 and to be R900,000 less than during the last financial year.

During the early months of the current financial year, main line passenger traffic fell below expectations and threw our estimates slightly out of gear. The revised estimate of earnings from all passenger traffic at R42,300,000, while showing an increase of R290,000 over the previous financial year, is nevertheless R 150,000 less than was estimated.

The falling-off in main line passenger traffic resulted in Catering services earning R500,000 less than expected, but subsidiary services, boosted by the higher earnings of the Road Transport services and an advance in grain elevator revenue produced approximately R1,000,000 more.

Revenue from Miscellaneous Receipts was Rl,290,000 higher but this was helped by an amount of R700,000—the loss on rail services in South West Africa recoverable from the South West Administration. Interest on investments produced R 1,400,000 more due to higher balances in the various funds and to investment at improved interest rates.

Although wharfage charges were adversely affected by import control, the dry-docks and coal-loading appliances earned more with a resulting increase in the estimate of R400,000.

South African Airways earned R 1,100,000 more than originally estimated.

Summing up. the revenue for the current financial year is expected to be:

Expenditure: 1961-2

Total expenditure for the 1961-2 financial year is estimated at R430,568,200.

The original estimates made provision for a deficit on the year’s working of R507,200. A satisfactory level of revenue plus strict control of expenditure, however, helped to change the picture and I estimate that there will be a surplus of R8,599,800 at the end of the year. Expenditure has not increased at the same rate as revenue in spite of heavier traffic.

I think hon. members will agree that the financial position of the Railways is a tribute to the soundness of the economy of the Republic and is a more than adequate reply to some prophets.

Revenue: 1962-3

Before dealing with estimates of revenue for the coming financial year, I want again to thank those private and public concerns and the various institutions which have helped in the assessment of future economic trends by providing information based on their experience and knowledge of business trends and conditions.

The general view appears to be that we can look to the future with moderate optimism and railway financial planning is based accordingly. In addition, the demand for South African products on the more important world markets looks reasonably stable and the national economy should receive a further uplift from the expansion planned by Iscor, Escom, Sasol and Foskor.

A relatively small increase is also expected in general merchandise, that is to say, in traffic in the high-rated category. The export of ores and base metals is expected to expand still further.

Revenue from goods traffic during the 196263 financial year is estimated at R239.4 million, an advance of R6.9 million on the revised estimates for the current year.

Coal producers expect an increase in production during the coming year and allowance is being made for an advance in revenue of approximately R800,000 from the transport of coal by rail.

Livestock is expected to yield R365,000 more than during the current year and passenger revenue R800,000 more, after taking into account the amount to be recovered under the guarantee arrangements covering the resettlement areas.

Wharfage dues should be higher by R400,000 and rents and interest on investments by R 1,485,000. Catering services, Road Transport and Grain Elevators should also show some improvement. It is estimated that harbour revenue will advance by R734,000 in comparison with the current year.

The estimates of Airways revenue provide for an advance of R1.8 million or 8.8 per cent from passenger traffic. Trunk services will account for the lion’s share because of additional frequencies coupled with normal expansion. Domestic and regional services will provide only R508,000 of the increase, equal to an advance of five per cent on the current year. This is more or less the normal rate of expansion.

It has been necessary to take cognizance of the operations of foreign airlines to South Africa. Competition from these lines, coupled with a reduction in international postal tariffs, is expected to lead to a reduction of approximately 10 per cent in Airways earnings from mails and freight. The total estimated revenue to be earned by South African Airways during the coming financial year is R28,404,000, which is R988,000 more than during the current year.

Revenue from all services is estimated to amount to R451,790,000 during the 1962-63 financial year, made up as follows:—

Expenditure’. 1962-3

In accordance with usual practice, the White Book, already tabled, gives comparisons between the estimates of expenditure for 1962-63 and the original estimates for 1961-62, which, as I explained in the Budget Speech last year, did not provide for the consolidation of the cost-of-living allowance. A comparison of the 1962-63 estimates with the revised figures for 1961-62, consequently provides a more realistic picture.

In comparison with the revised total expenditure of R430,568,200 for the current year, R451,290,200 is provided for in respect of the coming financial year. This, as hon. members will see, is an increase of R20.7 million of which R15 million arises from fixed charges. Interest on capital will account for R4.15 million of this, because of the additional capital assets provided under the new works programme.

Interest payable on Superannuation and other fund balances accounts for another R1.25 million, contributions to Pension and Superannuation Funds for R0.3 million, whilst depreciation is up by R9.3 million. Of R8.5 million needed on Railways’ account, R6.6 million will be allocated to finance higher replacement costs. Harbours and Airways show increases of approximately R400,000 in each case to allow for depreciation.

I would like to tell the House what is proposed in connection with the Higher Replacement Cost Account. This account is part of the Renewals Fund and has been in operation since 1955. The procedure of net revenue appropriations to this Account failed to meet a position which is subject to unforeseeable fluctuations. The net result was that the Renewals Fund has, over the years had to take a debit which should logically have been covered by the Higher Replacement Cost Account. Because of these considerations, I have had the matter closely examined and it is now proposed to provide the necessary funds by a percentage enhancement of contributions in respect of normal depreciation and crediting the Renewals Fund accordingly. In this way, the required funds will be obtained directly by a regular charge against Revenue in the same manner as ordinary depreciation contributions. The percentage enhancement will, however, be reviewed from time to time to meet changing conditions, but always with the assurance that adequate finances will be made available.

As for the other accounts, additional expenditure will have to be allowed for since more traffic is expected during 1962-63. The increases are moderate, totalling only R5.7 million. This accounts for the balance of the increase of R20.7 million in anticipated expenditure during the year.

Total revenue from all services is estimated at R451,790,000 and total expenditure at R450,723,000 (excluding net revenue appropriations) resulting in an anticipated gross surplus of R1,067,000.

While this is sufficient to permit of Net Revenue appropriations of R67,200 to the Pension Fund, as recommended by the Actuaries, and R500,000 to the Level Crossings Elimination Fund, it will not be enough to meet the commitments of the Betterment Fund which at the end of March this year is expected to have a credit balance of only R1,242,000.

It is estimated that the new works programme for 1962-63 will involve betterment expenditure to the extent of R8.5 million.

As this requirement cannot be met from the anticipated revenue for 1962/63, it is proposed to utilize R8,000,000 of the 1961-62 surplus, by an appropriation through the Finance Act later in the Session to provide the Betterment Fund with the necessary resources.

The sum of R8,000,000 together with the credit balance of R1,242,000 will provide sufficient funds to enable the year’s requirements to be covered and still leave a small credit at 31 March 1963.

Hon. members will also recall that in 1959-60 loan funds amounting to R10,000,000 were allocated under the Working Capital head for Betterment Fund purposes. This was a temporary measure to be put right when the revenue position improved sufficiently to enable the loan funds to be redeemed.

Already as a result of the surplus resulting from the 1960-61 financial year the figure of R 10,000,000 has been reduced to R6,000,000, but unfortunately in view of the existing financial situation it is not practicable to provide for the redemption of a further portion at present. I want to assure the House, however, that the matter will receive attention as soon as funds become available as it is desired to avoid the interest burden associated with the use of loan funds to meet betterment expenditure.

CONSOLIDATION

Hon. members will recall that last year I announced the consolidation of cost-of-living allowances with salaries and wages. Since then, during negotiations with the staff, I undertook to give priority to the consolidation of the non-pensionable allowance, providing railway finances permitted.

In spite of the fact that I am estimating for a very small surplus in the printed estimates for next year, I am convinced that the consolidation of the non-pensionable allowance with basic salaries and wages will further promote the good relations between the Management and the staff and will act as an incentive to the staff to continue giving of their best in the ensuing year. I met the Federal Consultative Council of Railway Staff Associations on Monday last, when consolidation of the non-pensionable allowance into salaries and wages, as from the April 1962 pay-month, was agreed upon on the same basis as that on which the cost-of-living allowance was consolidated last year, namely that the Administration will bear the additional costs arising from consolidation, so that no servant will be worse off financially than before. Payments in respect of this allowance amount to approximately R10,000,000 a year, and the additional expenditure involved as a result of consolidation, on the basis outlined, will amount to approximately R3,000,000 per annum.

I have also directed that certain adjustments be made in the starting notches of those grades of staff where recruiting is proving difficult. This will involve additional expenditure of R250,000 per annum.

As I have already stated, a gross surplus of R1,067,000 is expected at the end of the ensuing financial year. After providing for net revenue appropriations amounting to R567,200, a net surplus of R499,800 remains. However, this is not sufficient to meet the proposed consolidation and the wage adjustments to which I have referred. It is therefore expected that the year will close with a deficit of approximately R2,750,000. There is of course an alternative and that is to increase rates and tariffs, but I do not think it is desirable at this stage.

CONCLUSION

I would now like to express my thanks to members of the Railway Board, to the General Manager and to every member of the staff for outstanding service during the past year. In some ways, it was an exacting year which called on the staff for sustained effort. It is, however, ending on a better note than at one time seemed possible. I am both grateful for and conscious of the support I have received from all in the Railway Service and it will be my constant endeavour to make their rewards commensurate with their efforts.

I now lay on the Table a Memorandum setting out particulars of estimated results of working for the financial year 1961-62, and the anticipated revenue and expenditure for 1962-63, together with the latest traffic and other statistics.

I also lay on the Table the Statements of Estimated Revenue and Expenditure for the year ending 31 March 1963, as well as the Statements of the original and revised Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for the year ending 31 March 1962.

I second.

It was with a sense of shock that all of us heard of the tragedy to a South African aircraft in the Katberg mountains. It is my sad duty, on behalf of my Leader and of everyone on this side of the House, to say how our sympathy goes out to the families, relatives and friends of those who have died in the accident. We extend to them our very deepest and most sincere condolences.

We know that the South African Airways have a probably unequalled record for safety; they have skilful pilots and excellent maintenance crews. An inquiry will be held into this accident and, meanwhile, we will have to confine ourselves to offering commiseration with those who have suffered through it.

Mr. Speaker, this year the hon. Minister has pulled another rabbit out of the hat, by way of a surplus, using one of his usual conjuring tricks. I feel myself that, just as in the case of many of the previous surpluses he has produced, this surplus is a façade concealing a multitude of financial sins. There are many unsatisfactory features still existing in the financial management of the Railways. One thing I would like to mention, and I think now is the time to refer to it; that is the distressing lack of up-to-date figures, statistics and information available to us on this side of the House and the public generally during any given financial year, including this year under consideration. The hon. Minister of Transport is in sole control of the nation’s largest commercial and industrial undertaking He is charged with the responsibility of running it on business lines. He has told us that we are shareholders in this vast corporation, and it can be said, I suppose, that we are now holding our annual general meeting, one month before the books are closed. Well, here we are, less than a month before the end of the financial year and, until to-day, the latest figures available to us for examination were those for October last year, supplied to us a little while ago, in February of this year. Many of the facts and figures which we have sought in vain by question and inquiry in the House, seem to have remained a closely guarded secret of the Minister and his Administration. I wonder why the Minister cannot give us more up-to-date figures. Who knows, our constructive criticism may even help him away from some of the errors for which he is heading To-day we have been given the revised Esti mates of Expenditure for the financial year ending 31st March 1962, and yet another estimate of the balance expected from this year’s workings. We were originally told to expect a deficit of some R500,000, but the Minister has turned this into a surplus of R8,500,000. We have also been given estimates of revenue and expenditure for 1962-3, which would have resulted in a surplus of some R500,000, but which, because of calls upon the fund mentioned almost as an afterthought by the Minister, will be turned into a deficit of R2,750,000.

Sir, it will take us some days to examine these Estimates with the close attention they deserve; to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the “mess of pottage” which has been served up to us this year, before we can criticize it as knowledgeably as we would like. Past experience has taught us to mistrust and to suspect the reliability of much of the financial information which the Minister gives us at this particular stage. I shrewdly suspect, Sir, that to-day’s figures may be found to be very wide of the mark when we examine them even in a month’s time. For many years we have been plagued by what has become almost a habit of bad estimating. I believe it is improving. I think that the many reforms that have been introduced into the Railways, the stricter control of expenditure that has been introduced since this side of the House started its call for an efficiency drive, have forced the Railways to improve the efficiency of their methods. At last it seems that we are making progress, and we feel that we have been partly responsible for it. Let me give the House some examples of inefficient estimating in the immediate past. As I said, the hon. the Minister produces a surplus often like a rabbit out of the hat. He is not the only one who knows how he produces it. All too often he carelessly (I say carelessly because I do not like to say deliberately) under estimates his revenue by millions of rand. He then grossly over estimates what his expenditure is likely to be. Finally, after having forecast a deficit as he does to-day, he produces a surplus at the end of the year. In many cases in the past he has given us to understand that he does not know, one month before his books are closed, whether he is going to have a deficit or a surplus, or even approximately what the amount is going to be.

Let us take the year 1959-60. He started off by prognosticating a deficit of R65,000 on 4 March 1959. A year later he made another estimate, this time a surplus of R3.8 million. One month later he found he had a surplus of R16.1 million. In one month he was out by R12,000,000. To say the least of it, that is something remarkable. Even we, who should have become accustomed to the Minister’s sleight of hand, are capable of being surprised. In 1960-1 he foretold a deficit of R3,500,000; 11 months later he told us that he would have a surplus of R19.7 million; and a month later, no, three weeks later, he turned up with a surplus of R23.6 million. He was R4,000,000 out in one month and R27,000,000 out in one year. Do hon. members now agree with me that there may be something in our allegation of bad estimating? We find very often that, one month before the year closes, the Minister is millions of rand out of reckoning. We have heard, and we now believe, that vast improvements are being made. We have been told that methods of financial control have been improved; that there are stricter systems of control of expenditure. We appreciate the fact that the Minister cannot always accurately estimate the fluctuations of revenue. On more than one occasion he has told us that he has no control over economic circumstances. We realize that his own Government policy can and does adversely affect his budget figures. The imposition of import control, for instance, may push down high-rated traffic by a small percentage and result in a loss of many millions of rand in revenue. We are glad to know that South African industry is developing to a stage now where it is taking up the slack caused by a loss of imported goods. That is going to give the Railways in future increasing amounts of high-rated traffic, which is the cream of the Minister’s profits and has been the best revenue-producing part of his programme. But he must remember, too, that it is the low-rated traffic that bears the heat and burden of the day. His surpluses for the last two years have really come out of increased low-rated traffic. But, Sir, even though I understand how revenue can be wrongly estimated for reasons beyond the Minister’s control, the enormous fluctuations in estimates of expenditure, which I have pointed out in the past, cannot be condoned. We have been told that improved methods should result in a much closer approximation of estimates of expenditure and a much tighter control and management of the spending of money by the Railways. We are told that new accounting methods are being introduced. We are told that more up-to-date methods of prognostication and estimation are in force, that mechanization has taken place. The Minister himself must get speedier figures given to him now. I ask him two things: First of all that he should take the greater notice of them and, secondly, I ask him to see that we, on this side of the House, who should partake in the action of making this industry in South Africa a thriving one, are given the benefit of watching its progress; to see that we are given the figures which the Minister must now have available to him, timeously. This Minister knows that for three successive years our side of the House have pointed out deficiencies which resulted in large deficits. We kept on at him about his management of the funds. We will examine the position in regard to the statutory funds and reserve accounts in closer detail as this budget goes through. We have insisted in the past that managerial efficiency has not always been what it should have been. Gradually there has been improvement spurred on by the fact that he has had our criticism. There is none from his own side. They accept anything that he does—they will accept a surplus or a deficit without even knowing where it comes from. Mr. Speaker, the Minister has had his trials. In order to overcome a transport crisis in which he had been plunged by his predecessor, who had cut off the far-seeing plan of the United Party, this Minister created a financial crisis for himself. [Interjections.] The Minister himself has acknowledged it. I am using his own words. It is taking him some time to extricate himself from that financial crisis. I hope that he realizes that one of the main reasons why he is getting out of his financial mess is because of the splendid work of the railway worker. Although there are many shortcomings as far as the treatment of the staff is concerned, shortcomings with which we shall deal during the course of this debate, the railwayman, to me, has set an example in loyalty and endeavour to railwaymen and other workers in many other countries….

Are you trying to get their vote?

Immediately we talk about the Railway staff, Sir, those sycophants over there, who live on votes, start thinking in terms of catching votes. We are making a genuine appeal to the Minister never to forget, as he seems of late to be forgetting, the fact that the railway worker and the railway staff have by their sweat and labour turned the hard days of the Railways into days of comparative prosperity. That is why, Sir, I regret so much that the Minister did what he did two or three years ago. The lower paid staff were then asking for advantages and increases. The Minister’s first act was to give the “top brass” pensionable increases and leave the ordinary railway worker unsatisfied. And now, Sir, he has done two things in this Budget to which I object. First of all he has, I think with almost unseemly haste, been only too ready to grant a worth-while increase of R800 to his Railway Commissioners. Then he has turned down the artisan staff …

That was done last year.

The Commissioners are getting their increase retrospectively. The Minister announced it in his recent Additional Estimates.

Parliament approved of it last year.

Disgraceful.

Yes, it is disgraceful. These Commissioners who are well-paid, privileged and pampered political advisers to the Minister …

Repeat that.

Well-paid, privileged and pampered advisers to the Minister …

“Political” advisers.

He has involved the Railway Board once more in the realm of politics. [Interjections.] The Minister himself knows that the original intention was that the Railway Board should be divorced from politics. Indeed, the Board was established, as the Act of Union specifically says, so that no political influences could be wielded over the business-like arrangements of the Railways. The Minister himself was a member of the Board; he was the Chairman of the Board. The Board, in the original Act, was charged with the management of the Railways. That has changed and I regret that it has been changed. The Board is now merely advisory. We accept our part of the blame for the fact that in our régime, 15 years ago, we rewarded party-politicians by putting them on to this Board. But because a bad practice was indulged in the past is no reason for continuing it. We will not continue it. [Laughter.] I fail to see the amusement in that, Sir. The Nationalists never follow our good examples. Why should they follow one bad one? The Minister says he wants a well-balanced Board. The way to get a well-balanced board is not to crowd it with party-politicians who have the same outlook as the Minister and who are probably subject to the same foibles as the Minister and have the same political aims as the Minister. That is not the way to run a business institution. It is said, as I have said, that the Minister has seen fit to reward these people at a time when he has apparently turned the most unsympathetic ear to the demands of the railway artisans. The railway artisans have approached the Minister for a rise in wages which they themselves considered to be moderate. I do not know what those demands were on this occasion. But I do know that in 1961 they asked for a higher rate of remuneration on the following basis: On appointment R151; after five years’ service R157 per month; after ten years’ service R163. I do not know what they were negotiating for this time …

In 1961 I gave them much more than they asked for.

I do not know the details … [Interjections.] The negotiations, of course, were completely secret. The Minister is the only one who knows the details. He saw them on behalf of the Cabinet and then the Minister said he could not speak for himself; the Cabinet had decided that the Railway artisans were not to get any increases …

That is quite untrue.

Will the Minister correct me. That is the report in the newspapers …

I do not want that impression to get abroad. The report in the Cape Times this morning that I had told the artisans that the Cabinet had decided that they should not get any wage increase, is quite untrue. I have never hidden behind the Cabinet. I take my own decisions and I take full responsibility for them. What I told the Artisan Staff Association was that the Cabinet had already approved my Budget and that if I decided on any further expenditure I would at least have to place the matter before the Cabinet. It had nothing to do with any increases. The Cabinet has not decided that they should not get any increases. That was entirely my own decision.

I thank the Minister for his explanation, and, of course, I accept it unhesitatingly. ([Interjections.] That report in the papers was apparently based on false information. It is the Minister who should give us the information that we want. I hope he will do so during the Budget debate. He knows these artisans better than anyone else. He knows what they have done in the past. He knows how they have helped him, how they took off their shirts and sweated to serve and save the Railways in serious times. He should know that if they talk in terms of striking that they must feel that they have been treated unfairly. They would not talk like that if they did not feel seriously disturbed by their treatment. They have given good and loyal service to the Railways, to my personal knowledge, during and since the war. If their local Divisional Councils are now passing resolutions suggesting the possibility of taking serious action, such as a strike, I can only presume that they feel that they have been grievously wronged. I pray to the Minister to give as serious consideration to their calls as he has given to the calls of his more immediate friends, the Railways Board.

At this Stage, Mr. Speaker, I should like to move—

That the debate be now adjourned.

I second.

Agreed to; debate adjourned until 12 March.

I move—

The object of this Bill before the House is of a twofold nature. In the first place it is proposed that the present South African Bureau of Standards Act be amended so as to create the necessary legal mechinery to separate the S.A.B.S. from the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research and to let it function again, as it did before 1956, under its own board of control. In 1956 the S.A.B.S. Board was abolished and the S.A.B.S., in terms of the Standards Act (Transfer of Administration) 1956 (Act No. 63 of 1956) was placed under the control of the C.S.I.R. Secondly, advantage has been taken of this opportunity to consolidate the existing S.A.B.S. legislation. As hon. members will see from this Bill, the main principle contained in the Bill is that of bringing about a separation between the S.A.B.S. and the C.S.I.R.. In other words, the status quo of the S.A.B.S. prior to 1956 is being restored, and as a necessary consequence also that of the C.S.I.R., as is proposed in the Scientific Research Council Bill which, with the leave of the House, will be dealt with after disposing of this Bill.

In order to facilitate matters and because the main principle contained in both Bills is the same and because the legal amendments which are necessary to give effect to this principle are so interlinked in these two Bills, I laid an explanatory memorandum on the Table a few days ago which deals with these two Bills jointly.

This explanatory memorandum deals in broad outline with the developments which gave rise to the proposal which is being made here to-day, and I do not think it is necessary for me to cover that field again. I propose therefore to give just a few more details briefly and where my explanation happens to be a repetition of what is contained in the explanatory memorandum, it will be purely coincidental. I hope therefore, Mr. Speaker, that in the circumstances you will not call me to order if I am obliged to refer just in passing at this stage to the Scientific Research Council Bill.

The C.S.I.R. and the S.A.B.S. were brought into being in 1945 by way of legislation as two separate bodies. In the main the objects for which the C.S.I.R. was instituted were and are to undertake and to promote scientific research, and also to promote the establishment of associations of persons in industry with the object of doing scientific industrial research. On the other hand the objects of the S.A.B.S. were to promote standardization in commerce and industry, to draw up specifications, to test commercial articles and to administer a standard marks scheme.

In the light of the circumstances which prevailed in 1945 and as a result of the conclusions arrived at by the then law-givers, these two bodies were established as two separate entities, and the responsible authorities at that time were convinced that the obvious course was to create two separate bodies. The then Minister of Commerce and Industries, as this portfolio was called in those days, pointed out, for example, that the Standards Bureau, in the nature of its objects, was a body which would develop slowly and in accordance with the development of the country and the requirements of its industrial growth, and that it was not impossible that eventually the Bureau would become self-sufficient and be able to make ends meet without State funds, but that would be difficult in the case of the C.S.I.R., which, in the nature of things, is a research body That was one of the reasons then why these two organizations were established as separate bodies at the time and why Parliament agreed with that line of thinking.

Nevertheless the question whether these two bodies should function separately or jointly often arose after 1945 and it was gone into on various occasions by committees or in ordinary discussions. On every occasion that this matter was examined and discussed, divergent opinions were expressed and divergent recommendations were made and, to put it briefly, the fact that it was never possible to obtain unanimity on this matter was always subconsciously taken into account by the persons who dealt with these two bodies. I do not propose to-day to go into the details of the recommendations and the findings of all the committees of enquiry in this connection. I do not think that is necessary. I just mention these facts briefly to emphasize that there was no obvious solution for this problem; it was not such an easy matter to solve.

But I should like to refer to two of the latest enquiries. The first enquiry to which I refer came in 1952-3 when the then Minister of Economic Affairs was requested to appoint a committee to decide on the siting of the buildings of the S.A.B.S. This request was granted, but at the same time the Minister took advantage of the opportunity to extend the terms of reference of the committee which consisted of two scientists, Dr. Monnig and Dr. A. I. Malan and one industrialist, Mr. Poole, so that it could also go into the question of the possible amalgamation of these two organizations. The findings and recommendations of this committee, which reported in 1953, are known to us. Two of the members advocated amalgamation and a third member of the committee advocated a separation of functions between the C.S.I.R. and the S.A.B.S. There was no unanimity therefore.

Subsequently a further committee was appointed with instructions to keep a watchful eye on developments over a period of time. This committee, which consisted of Drs. H. J. van Eck, Frikkie Meyer and the late Frans du Toit, did not meet often but in 1956 when a decision had to be taken in a hurry with regard to the purchase of additional land for the C.S.I.R. and the S.A.B.S., the members were asked to submit a recommendation. Once again there was no unanimity. But in view of the heavy expenditure which would have had to be incurred, my immediate predecessor had further consultations, and although there was still a certain amount of opposition to amalgamation, the Standards Act (Transfer of Administration) was piloted through Parliament in 1956 and the incorporation of the S.A.B.S. with the C.S.I.R. became an accomplished fact.

Mr. Speaker, apart from the financial considerations, in so far as the purchase of more land for these two bodies was concerned, there were also these further motives at the time for taking this step. In the light of the circumstances which then prevailed and having regard to the advantages which it was anticipated would flow from amalgamation, this step was certainly justified and honest and active efforts were made both by my Department and the C.S.I.R. and the S.A.B.S. to make a success of amalgamation and to give effect in practice to the spirit and the good intentions underlying the idea of amalgamation.

But things would not go smoothly and here I want to say at once that this cannot be ascribed to unwillingness to co-operate on the part of the C.S.I.R. or the S.A.B.S. In practice it transpired over a period of a little more than five years of amalgamation that where one deals with two bodies, whose approach and views in respect of the carrying out of their obligations cannot possibly be identical, because of the very difference in their respective objects that it was simply impossible to exercise the desired control under one board of control, however willing the staff concerned may be to let things function smoothly.

The outcome of this was that in 1960 the Government felt obliged to cause a very extensive and far-reaching investigation to be instituted into this burning question. An interdepartmental committee, known as the Barrie Committee and consisting of Messrs. F. C. Barrie, then Deputy Secretary for Public Works; I. P. Strydom, Under-Secretary to the Treasury; and S. J. Erasmus, Regional Magistrate of Pretoria, was then appointed with the following terms of reference—

The findings of this Committee, which are set out in broad outline in my explanatory memorandum, finally settled the issue and showed that incorporation was not the desired course and, moreover, for the first time since these two bodies had come into existence in 1945, there was unanimity in the main findings and the recommendations brought out by the Committee. Here I might point out in passing that in the past few years there have also been other countries which have come to the conclusion that standardization and research bodies operating as a joint organization cannot be controlled and managed to the best advantage, and those countries have also operated the organizations concerned. In this connection I have in mind Canada, Britain, Rhodesia and Israel, for example. In all these countries, however, there is no doubt about the desirability of close co-operation and, where possible, co-ordination between these types of organizations. Nobody can dispute the wisdom of such a policy, and in fact the Barrie Committee in its report laid great stress on the importance of this course.

After thorough consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Barrie Committee, the Government came to the conclusion that, although there were advantages in joint control of the S.A.B.S. and the C.S.I.R., the disadvantages outweighed the advantages and that on balance there was no doubt that these two bodies should again be separated, with a separate board of control for each. Hon. members may ask: “What about the saving of manpower and funds on which so much emphasis was placed in 1956?” In this connection I must admit that the position is rather problematical. The fact that there were savings in certain respects, is one which cannot be disputed. These savings, however, did not come up to the expectations of 1956, and as the Barrie Committee correctly pointed out. that was due to the fact that the activities and development of these two bodies, which had never been static, were constantly expanding, that the economic and industrial development of the country made greater demands upon them and that it was an impossible task to produce concrete figures in respect of savings. Moreover, the Committee found that, where there were signs of savings, they were effected at the cost of more effective service to commerce and industry. Here, Mr. Speaker, I want to say, however, that the position was never such at any stage that there were complaints about the quality and the speed of the services which both the C.S.I.R. and the S.A.B.S. rendered to the public and the State.

As a result of the proposed separation there will, of course, be additional expenditure in respect of the S.A.B.S. as a separate body, and that expenditure will be incurred mainly for administrative services and facilities, including an accountancy division. This additional provision is comparatively small in comparison with laboratory facilities which will remain unchanged in the separate organizations. The immediate additional costs will be more or less as follows: As far as capital costs are concerned. an additional sum of R 12,770 will be required in respect of administrative services (furniture and office equipment, library equipment, tools for workshops, etc.); as far as current expenditure is concerned, it is estimated that there will be an additional expenditure of R33.000 for administrative services, R4,100 for special services; an additional R 10,200 for technical services and R7,100 for miscellaneous services: in other words, a grand total of R54,400. The financial implications, as far as the disestablishment of the building programme of the S.A.B.S. is concerned, have not been taken into account here, and in this connection I just want to explain that whereas the building programme of the S.A.B.S. and the C.S.I.R. has been drawn up jointly under the present set-up, it will be necessary as the result of a separation of functions to divide the programme into two and to revise it. That is being done at present. As soon as the S.A.B.S. occupies its own buildings, the rent which is included in the above-mentioned items will, of course, fall away as a separate item.

In its report the Barrie Committee specifically pointed out that it was an extremely difficult and almost impossible task to frame definite estimates, but it came to the conclusion that a figure between R41,400 and R71,786 could be regarded as a general indication of the probable level of additional current expenditure.

The annual budget of the Bureau as a separate body amounts to approximately R 1,750,000 on current account and more than R 100,000 on capital account. The current account of the joint organization amounts to more than R5,500,000.

The recommendations of the Barrie Committee were made with a view to efficient service to industry, as well as for economic considerations, and the opinion of this Committee was that, although the administration of two bodies will cost rather more than the administration of a single body, that would be offset by improved functioning which would be in the interests of the community.

As far as buildings are concerned, the most important additional expenditure for buildings will be in respect of separate administrative facilities, an accountancy division and allied services, the cost of which is estimated at approximately R60,000. It should be mentioned, however, that in 1959 the building programme of the Bureau was submitted to the Department as part and parcel of the building programme of the C.S.I.R. The cost of the Bureau’s building programme was estimated at a total of about R3,000,000. The Barrie Committee found that additional capital expenditure on buildings would be in the neighbourhood of between R70,000 and R 120,000. This estimate, of course, includes the additional facilities for an independent administration and accountancy division for the Bureau, but it also took into account accommodation that would be necessary for services to meet the current day-to-day requirements of a separate Bureau, such as the maintenance of testing apparatus, ablution rooms, storerooms, site services, warehouse facilities, etc. However, the replanning of the Bureau’s building programme, as was in fact also recommended by the Barrie Committee, will not cause an appreciable difference in the cost in comparison with previous Estimates. In fact we believe that replanning will bring about no increase. The above-mentioned figures give a picture of the extent of the additional expenditure that would have to be incurred.

Apart from the reduction of the total budget of the C.S.I.R. by that portion which relates to the Bureau, the budget of the C.S.I.R. will not be appreciably affected by the separation.

As I said at the outset of my speech, the Bill which is now under consideration is also of a consolidating nature. The vast majority of the clauses therefore bring about no change whatsoever in the existing law. These clauses have simply been worded better and some of them have been drafted in an improved form. Only eight clauses, namely Nos. 5, 12, 13, 15, 20, 28, 31 and 32 have either been inserted as new clauses or amended so as to bring about the separation between the S.A.B.S. and the C.S.I.R. The principles contained in each of these clauses have been explained in the explanatory memorandum and I do not think that the House will expect me to take up its time unnecessarily by repeating those explanations.

In coming to Parliament to-day with legislation to place these two bodies once again under their own boards of control, I think hon. members will agree that this step is the outcome of lessons that we have learnt in practice not only here but also in other countries, and although no harm have been caused so far to the smooth functioning of either of these bodies and both of them are still held in high esteem by commerce and industry and, I think I am entitled to say, also abroad, I believe that this is the appropriate time to bring about this separation. The recommendation of the Barrie Committee that an attempt should be made, if necessary by way of legislation, to define more clearly the functions and activities of the S.A.B.S. and the C.S.I.R., with a view to eliminating as far as possible any overlapping that there may still be or that may arise, is, as I have already indicated, a difficult question and it is still receiving the serious attention of my Department, in co-operation with other interested authorities. In the final result the best solution for this problem lies in harmonious mutual co-operation and co-ordination, an aspect which is wholeheartedly accepted and supported by both groups of staff. Nevertheless, it is quite possible that I may come to Parliament next year with amending legislation in this connection. All we are doing today therefore is to ask for approval of the principle of separation, and I trust that in view of the exposition I have given here, hon. members will not find it difficult to support this proposal.

In dealing with this Bill I want to start by saying that the explanatory memorandum in my opinion was a model and is of great value to anyone having to study the two Bills it covers, the S.A.B.S. Bill and the C.S.I.R. Bill.

The C.S.I.R. and the Bureau of Standards have done very good work for South Africa in the past and some of our greatest scientific men have been associated with these two bodies, both when they were apart and when they were together. This Bill, as the Minister says, separates their direction and management. Now the separation of good friends is always regretted, but on occasions it is unavoidable. Whether this particular separation was unavoidable of course we do not know, but the decision to divide has been made, and we can see no objection to it and we will support this Bill. I wish to express the hope at the same time that the closest co-operation will be maintained between these two bodies when divided and that no opposing interests will be allowed to grow up. There may have been difficulties in the running of these two different bodies, difficulties which are unknown to us, and there may be no financial savings in this separation which is now to take place. The Minister, I think very reasonably, said he could not give us much detail in regard to that. But in fairness to this side of the House, I must draw attention to the fact that in 1956 we expressed ourselves as being against the amalgamation of these two bodies, but I do not intend to dwell on this. With our usual constructive attitude towards reasonable legislation, such as is now before us, we give this Bill our blessing. We hope the Bureau of Standards will continue its good work and maintain its high standard. We wish it well and ask only that it continues to promote the value of the stamp “S.A.B.S.” and co-operate to the greatest possible degree with the C.S.I.R. We support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to concur with the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) in welcoming the fact that the C.S.I.R. and the S.A.B.S. are once again to be separated into two independent bodies. At the inception of the C.S.I.R. and the S.A.B.S. in 1945 it was very clearly the intention that the C.S.I.R. should concentrate more on scientific and industrial research and that the S.A.B.S. should concentrate on the promotion of standardization and carrying out tests in the interest of commerce and industry in general. Bearing in mind the original intention, it is surprising to see that as early as 1953 there was a movement afoot to amalgamate these two bodies into one single unit, and that by 1956 this actually took place when the Transfer of Administration Act No. 63 of 1956 was passed by Parliament. It was obvious that considerable difficulty was being experienced in drawing a line between the activities of the two councils. Overlapping occurred, and in many instances it must have been very difficult at times to determine which council should undertake certain responsibilities. Under those circumstances it was thought that both bodies should unite so as to pool resources. It was also logical to think in terms of using the same buildings, thus saving capital expenditure. It is clear from the information available that the Mönnig Committee report to the Government in 1953, that it was not clear-cut in its recommendations, because the then Minister of Economic Affairs appointed a further committee. This new committee appears to have been rather forced to make an uncertain decision because the C.S.I.R. had to purchase land owing to the expansion of its activities. The S.A.B.S. was also bound in the same direction. The pity of it is that the deliberations must have gone on for some considerable time. The last committee allowed itself to be rushed. Furthermore, according to the White Paper, it is intended to come to Parliament with proposals for amendments of both Bills under consideration. It is to be hoped that there is no possibility of re-opening the case for amalgamation, and that it will deal only with the line of distinction between the two bodies. I think it is beyond doubt that the amalgamation of the two bodies did not work out as expected. The savings and equipment was negligible and there were no savings in respect of buildings. In fact, it has been proved that the two bodies would function best when separate. It is gratifying to note that we have before us two Bills to separate these important bodies. It is noted with interest that already the two Bills show an increasing difference between the two councils. The C.S.I.R. Bill has certain amendments because of the recent Inventions Bill. This is further proof, if proof is necessary, that the two councils vary in their activities very much, and in fact belong to different spheres of scientific outlook. The experiment has been tried. The lessons learnt will doubtless stand the councils in good stead and no more time and effort need be wasted in thinking about whether or not amalgamation should take place, and all arguments on this score should be over.

Clause 5 of the Standards Bill lays down the constitution for the Council of the S.A.B.S. I note that the Minister of Economic Affairs has considerable powers in the appointment of members of this council, but I trust he will give the same consideration in promoting young, energetic and highly qualified people to this council as he has promised to do for the Inventions Corporation. This I believe to be important, because our country is expanding at an ever-increasing rate and, indeed, the C.S.I.R. and the S.A.B.S. have considerable tasks ahead of them. Nothing but the best in management and staff is good enough. Both these bodies have rendered valuable services to South Africa. In the course of my profession I have come into contact with the work done by the S.A.B.S. I refer to the timber industry, with particular reference to timber for the building trade. I cannot let this opportunity pass without paying tribute to the Council of the S.A.B.S. Having had experience in the sale of South African-grown timber, I would like to say that since the granting of a standard for South African-grown timber there has been almost a revolution in the timber industry in the Republic. Before this standard was granted an almost chaotic condition existed and members of the retail timber trade experienced the utmost difficulty in marketing South African timber. The quality varied so considerably that almost every consignment was different. The timber was often badly sawn, badly graded and very poorly seasoned. There was no pleasure in selling South African timber, and still less in using it. Since the establishment of the S.A. Bureau of Standards, which granted a standard mark, all this has changed. The whole timber industry, which to-day involves many millions of rand, is now on an entirely new basis. The quality of South African-grown timber compares very favourably with many of the imported types of timber. This is only one illustration of the value of having created a Bureau of Standards in 1945. The foreign exchange saved in the timber industry must run into millions, to say nothing of the boost to our own development and the future of our country. I welcome the fact that the C.S.I.R. and the S.A.B.S. have had the experience of acting as one body. The honeymoon, so to speak, is now over. The two bodies can get down to their own spheres of activity and yet still cooperate with each other on the highest possible level.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasant duty to congratulate the hon. member who has just sat down on his maiden speech, and I do so with pleasure. His speech has proved that he has fully considered and studied the subject with which he dealt and consequently he was able to approach it quite objectively. What he has said about South African timber will be greatly welcomed throughout the country. Had more people been of the same opinion there would have been a much better market for our own timber than there is to-day. I congratulate the hon. member and wish him a good future in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I would not have risen to my feet to take part in this debate had it not been for the fact that I was a member of the Committee to which reference has been made this afternoon. It is for that reason that it is perhaps just as well that I give a general review of the results of our deliberations. It is usually very easy to be wise after the event and to say where mistakes had been made. That always reminds me of the days when I was at Onderstepoort and we had to perform post mortems on animals that had died. Perhaps you did not know what the animal had died of and in that case it was easy to say this and that was the cause. That is the case here. To-day it is much easier to let the whole pattern fall together and to say where mistakes had been made. Although I do not want to point to the mistakes, I do want to say this that the main reason why we have this Bill before us to-day, is a mistake which was made in 1945. When it was originally decided that we should introduce standardization in South Africa and secondly that all research work should be combined in one big body, the C.S.I.R., it should have been clear to everybody in 1945 that we were starting with something small, particularly as far as standardization was concerned. I myself served on the Standardization Committee before 1945 and we realized that something would have to be done in respect of standardization but that it would be a small start; and it was obvious therefore, that anything that started as small as that would easily fit into the bigger body, the C.S.I.R. Unfortunately the Government of the day—and I am not handing out blame; I am simply stating facts—did not set about it in the right way in 1945. They decided to start the C.S.I.R. and the S.A.B.S. separately. It was as a result of that difficulties were encountered right from the beginning, difficulties which results in the appointment of the various committees to which the Minister has referred, committees which continually reported, and finally just before 1948. They submitted a long report in which they stated that it had been wrong to establish the two bodies separately and that they should really have been one body. In addition to that there was another reason which must also be taken into account, namely that we are a young country and a small country and it is obvious that our activities as far as research and standardization are concerned, will be on a small scale to start with. It was clear therefore, that they should be consolidated, that they should fall under one body. That, however, was not done. That was the mistake that was made at the time, but we only noticed the results of that mistake at a later stage when it became progressively clearer that what had been done in the past, the establishment of two bodies, had been a mistake. It was because of that the present Government appointed a commission in 1953 to go into the whole matter. The Minister has given us the details of the recommendations of the commission. It was very clear, even at that stage, particularly in view of one very important consideration. We were in a same position at that time as we are to-day, namely that scientists had to be used sparingly. We did not have many scientists in the country and there were two bodies in the course of development, bodies whose functions were duplicated in many respects, particularly in the scientific field. It was felt that much scientific labour could be saved if the two bodies were consolidated. You will notice, Sir, that the Barry Committee conceded that there had indeed been a saving of manpower. That was the most important consideration which made the Mönnig Commission recommend that the S.A.B.S. should be consolidated with the C.S.I.R. It was for that reason, and because of the findings of a second Committee which was appointed subsequently under the chairmanship of Dr. van Eck, the supervisory Committee, that it was felt that matters should be left as they were and that it would become clear at a later stage whether the Mönnig Commission had been right in their recommendations. That was done and eventually it was decided in 1956 to incorporate the S.A.B.S. I repeat that it was a logical step, after what had happened in 1955, to have incorporated the S.A.B.S. with the C.S.I.R. at that stage. A saving of scientific labour was effected, which was a very important consideration at the time. You will now understand my following point, Sir, namely that the two bodies, although they had started small, had been allowed to develop into two big bodies, with the result that it was extremely difficult to consolidate them by way of legislation. Their staffs had increased greatly —separately—and after consolidation human relations could not be eliminated. That is really the reason why consolidation has failed. Human relations between the two big bodies were such that it was impossible to obtain the co-operation which is so necessary in any big scientific body. That became more evident as time went on. After the S.A.B.S. and the C.I.S.R. had been consolidated it became even more clear. That was also clear to the supervisory committee. That is unfortunate, but that is the sort of thing which you realize better today than you did at that time, and something which can be expected when two big bodies are consolidated. It was obviously wise on the part of the Government to have had the whole matter reinvestigated and the Barry Committee was then appointed. Sir, you should bear in mind the importance of the work which both these institutions are doing—standardization is of the utmost importance to us and research is equally important. When the Barry Committee investigated the matter and discovered that it would not work and that these two under takings were both suffering as a result, the logical thing for them was to say that we should again separate that which should originally have been one; two bodies which were consolidated into one at a later stage and which could not, because of human relations, be kept together. That was why the Barry Committee said that they should again be separated and that the extra funds should rather be found to keep them apart.

There is one consolation that I wish to mention, and it is this: Since 1945, up to the present, the S.A.B.S. has developed on a tremendous scale. It has continued to do good work, separately, and subsequently after consolidation with the C.S.I.R. But it has to continue with this good work because standardization is of the utmost importance to us. The same applies in the case of the C.S.I.R. They have done work which is being recognized by the whole scientific world to-day. I referred the other day to the new method of measuring distances which has been accepted by the Department of Defence of the U.S.A. Had that not been an outstanding discovery, it would not have been accepted. We have the desalting of salt water, something which is not being done in any other part of the world on as big a scale as here. The C.S.I.R. is, therefore, doing research work which is of the utmost importance. We have this consolation that, although the two bodies are separate, both of them can continue with work which is of the utmost importance. However, they have developed to such an extent that development justifies separation; and separated as they are, a wonderful future awaits both of them to perform a great service to this country. With these few words I wish to express the sincere hope that the Bill will have a smooth passage, and I want to express my appreciation to the Opposition for the attitude they have adopted.

The hon. member for Hercules (Dr. A. I. Malan) takes this attitude in regard to the Bill that he accepts it because in effect it is making the best of a bad job. He makes it quite clear that, in his opinion, when these Bills were first put on to the Statute Book, a mistake was made in not combining them in the first instance. His argument is that in those days they were both such small affairs, and that there was such a shortage of scientific people, that the right thing to have done in 1945 would have been to put one Bill through and to have both under one cover. But, of course, as one of the Ministers who put these Bills through about 20 years ago, I may be pardoned a certain amount of sardonic satisfaction in seeing, after all that time and after the appointment of various learned bodies, of which the hon. member for Hercules was a member at one time, all of whom incidentally disagree with one another, that we were right in 1945 after all, because these Bills were put through in 1945, not at a moment’s notice; they were drafted and discussed and introduced into this House after the most careful examination and consultation with experts, including certain gentlemen who, incidentally, subsequently served on some of these committees of inquiry. And, as for saying that they were both small in those days, of course they were, but then we were not thinking small in those days, and, in our opinion, it was quite certain that, if these two bodies were established on a proper basis and given proper encouragement, they would both grow into most important, large and valuable bodies in the economic life of this country, which, of course, is just what has happened. I agree with the hon. member for Hercules to this extent, that I think the Government is wise, in the light of all this diverse experience, and in the light of the clash of expert opinion—and the Minister no doubt knows how dangerous it is when there are too many experts under one roof–—I agree with the hon. member the Government is wise in taking this step.

The Minister made one reference to his White Paper when he said that the question of more clearly defining the dividing line between the work of these two bodies might be dealt with by legislation. With the greatest respect, Sir, I would suggest that he approach that subject with the greatest possible delicacy, because I do not see how it can be done without simply causing more friction. As the hon. the Minister himself said, I believe that is not a matter for legislation, that it is a matter for common sense and co-ordination and, in the last resort, if it becomes necessary, it is a matter for the iron hand that rolls within the velvet glove wielded by the Minister of Economic Affairs. But, apart from that, as my hon. colleague here has said, we support this Bill.

I just wish to thank hon. members on both sides of the House for the support they have given to this Bill. I want to thank them especially for the words of praise for these two organizations, and for the expression of confidence in the future of these two bodies. I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Mr. Odell) on his maiden speech. I think you will agree with me, Sir, that we need men in this House who can speak on matters of this nature, and I think you will also agree that in this new member we have a person who will strengthen the forces of Parliament in this regard. I wish to assure him that if and when I do come with legislation next year in this regard, it will not be to re-open this problem of amalgamation or no amalgamation, but only to define more clearly the division between the aims and the activities of these two bodies in order to avoid any possible future repercussions. I also agree with the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) that we shall have to approach this matter with great caution. This is not a matter which lends itself usually to legislation, and I can assure him that we shall go into this matter very, very carefully. I also want to say to the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) that I believe that the new position that arises, this question of disamalgamation, will promote a spirit of goodwill and co-operation between the two bodies, and I believe that with greater cooperation and with a spirit of goodwill between these two bodies, we shall also see an increase in the efficiency of each of these two bodies.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

The object of this Bill is threefold. In the first place it is proposed to amend the present C.S.I.R. legislation so as to provide that the S.A.B.S. which is presently under the control of the C.S.I.R. will in future once again function under its own board of control, separate from the C.S.I.R. Secondly, it is proposed to amend the present C.S.I.R. legislation so as to bring it into line with the provisions of the Development of Inventions Bill which was introduced a short while ago. Thirdly, we are availing ourselves of this opportunity of consolidating existing C.S.I.R. legislation.

The main principle contained in the Bill is, however, to create the necessary legal machinery to separate the C.S.I.R. and the S.A.B.S. once again and to revert to the status quo of those two bodies as it was before 1956. As I have already explained in my second reading speech in respect of the S.A.B.S., the C.S.I.R. and the S.A.B.S. were placed under the control of one board, namely, the C.S.I.R. in 1956 in terms of the Standards (Transfer of Administration) Act of 1956 (Act No. 63 of 1956). Similarly I have already explained that the main principle contained in the C.S.I.R. Bill is the same and that contained in the S.A.B.S. Bill and because of that I considered it desirable to Table one explanatory memorandum in which both the Bills are explained.

In the circumstances, therefore, I trust that hon. members do not expect me once again to give the background of the developments which have led up to the Bill which is before us to-day. Just as in the case of the Standards Bill the majority of the clauses of this Bill are also of a consolidating nature; although we are improving the wording and the phraseology nothing in the existing law is being changed in any respect. The remaining clauses, namely 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13 to 16, 20 and 21 have been either newly inserted or amended in order to give practical effect to the separation of the C.S.I.R. and the S.A.B.S. and in order to bring the existing C.S.I.R. legislation into line with the relevant provisions of the Development of Inventions Bill. The implications of each of these clauses are explained in the explanatory memorandum to which I have referred and I think it is necessary for me to explain briefly the implications of those clauses which are being amended or which have been inserted in order to bring the Bill into line with the provisions of the Development of Inventions Bill.

Clause 10 (4), read together with Clause 5 of the Development of Inventions Bill, provides that the C.S.I.R. may transfer some of its staff to the proposed Development of Inventions Corporation. We are doing that because this staff already have the necessary experience in regard to inventions and patents and because the Corporation will in future handle the development of inventions and their patenting, something which is being done to-day by the C.S.I.R.

Clause 13 provides that in future the C.S.I.R. may request the Development of Inventions Corporation to develop inventions, etc., in respect of which the rights vest in the C.S.I.R. and such inventions, etc., will then be transferred to the Corporation. Furthermore it is provided that the relevant rights, whether they be patent or other rights, will be transferred to the Corporation when that request is made. Clause 15 (2) provides that the C.S.I.R. must pay for the shares which it may take in the proposed Development of Inventions Corporation from its capital funds. Sub-clause (6) of this clause provides that the C.S.I.R. may receive moneys from the proposed Corporation and the same sub-clause also provides that those moneys must be paid into the capital and current accounts of the C.S.I.R. in proportions to be determined by the Ministers of Economic Affairs and Finance; and Clause 16 provides that regulations which the C.S.I.R. promulgate in respect of its inventions, discoveries, etc., will not be applicable to those inventions and discoveries which have been transferred to the proposed Corporation. In terms of Clause 15 of the Development of Inventions Bill the proposed Corporation will be able to promulgate its own regulations in this connection, with the approval of the Minister of Economic Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have now dealt with all the principles contained in this Bill.

This is not a Bill out of which we wish to make any political capital or in regard to which we wish to try in any way to cause a disturbance either in the House or outside, but it does lend an opportunity to us on this side of the House who take an interest in scientific research or in any research whatever, to criticize some of the effects of the introduction of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research.

The first thing that is noticeable about the C.S.I.R. is that it had a very stormy birth and a stormy adolescence. Scientific research in this country started off in about 1918 with the Research Grant Board which was under the control of Mines and Industry. It then moved to the Department of Commerce and Industries and then later—what possibly was an improvement—Mr. Hofmeyr, then Minister of Education, created two Boards, the National Research Council and the National Grants Board and he hoped, as so many other countries have done, to create a National Research laboratory. But then we come to 1945 by which time it was obvious that there were difficulties and that science was not receiving the help that it should, and Mr. Hofmeyr, then Minister of Education but acting as Prime Minister in the absence of the late General Smuts, introduced the Bill for the establishment of the C.S.I.R., and in that introduction he drew attention to the fact that there were difficulties about the control of science and of research, and there he said something very significant. He said: “We are putting this under the control of the Prime Minister because we feel that it needs to be under the control of the highest authority in the land so that it can be dealt with completely impartially and on the highest plane.” He went on to say that it would not be under the sole control of the Prime Minister but that it would be under a council of Ministers—“so much importance did he attach to this”. Unfortunately as time went on the feeling that there was a necessity for wide control was apparently lost, until we find that this Government transferred it to the care of the Minister of Economic Affairs. That, in my opinion— and I hope the present Minister will not think that I am talking personally—was a disaster for scientific investigation. It should never have left the control of either the Minister of Education or of the Prime Minister, because from that day it seems to me that there has been gradually an increasing stress on industrial investigation and industrial scientific research to the detriment of other forms of research. There has been a starvation of research in educational problems, of research in the humanities; there has been no research in music; there has been extremely little research in history …

I beg to differ.

Everything has acquired a utilitarian outlook. Unless it has some obvious application to the making of money or something of that kind, research has been starved, and it has done even worse harm because it has created a form of octopus in the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, an octopus which controls the whole of research—and that is practically in the Act. That is definitely one of the reasons, but only one, for the loss of our young scientists. One of the reasons why they are leaving the country is because research and teaching cannot be separated. So long as we have this overriding control of this body, so long will we find that they are neglecting the teaching and that the universities are compelled to some extent at least to neglect research. Sir, young scientific men and researchers do not drop out of the sky. The universities perhaps have young students who have a tendency to do research, but they must be given the climate in which to work, and it is the absence of that climate in the universities which is today stultifying the efforts of some of our young men, and, in other cases, driving them out of the country, because in other countries they find that climate; they find that group of people who talk their language, who are themselves struggling with problems and who are ready to discuss those problems with them. That climate of learning, that climate of research, that climate of discussion, while not absent in our universities, is nevertheless starved. I would be the first to admit that this body, the C.S.I.R., has tried and has cooperated greatly with the universities. There is hardly a university which is not carrying out some research on behalf of this body, but if you study what the grants are for, apart from medical research, if you study the problems and the propositions which are being studied you will find that they are nearly all utilitarian; they are nearly all directed to the help of some industry. I am not saying that should not be so; what I am saying is that they should not all be doing that. What I say is that it is time that the Educational Department took some control, greater control than they have to-day, of research; I say it is time they created that climate in the universities for pure research, for research into the humanities, and I say it is time that we dragged away some of the funds of this country from pure utilitarian industrial research.

Sir, if you look at the actual moneys which have been given, you will see that last year the C.S.I.R. had R6,500,000 and the universities, of which there are at least 12, I think, were given some R 11,500,000, not quite double that. Admittedly again some of the funds from the C.S.I.R. went to the universities, but how much autonomous thought can you expect to find in universities if they have to go cap in hand to the C.S.I.R. and ask for funds for research, well knowing that they will not get funds from that body, at any rate, for pure research. The funds for any pure research in the universities must come from their general funds, and there are 12 of them dividing this sum between them. Universities create a feeling in the young men which makes them want to go and do research. They further provide help for the research workers which is not available in the C.S.I.R.—work from the students who are prepared to come in and make apparatus, students who are prepared to do secretarial work or devilling for the senior men. That does not exist in the C.S.I.R. From the teaching point of view the C.S.I.R. is a dead loss. It teaches nobody. That is where we are falling down. We are falling down because our young men are not getting the chance to do research; they find it elsewhere. It is difficult enough for us to compete against the great Western powers in the matter of funds for research and in the matter of personnel for research. We send our own people to those countries to learn and a lot of them never come back. That is what we need in our universities. The control of research funds should come back to the Minister and should come back, if possible, to the Minister of Education so that he can help the universities to create this climate of which we hear so much nowadays.

Then there is also the question of technological training. The training of technologists and technicians is also handicapped by the C.S.I.R.—not that they do not give grants; I am not saying that they do not, but it is in their own laboratories that it is not done, whereas if the research were done in the universities and in the technical colleges, the training would go with the research. The men are there to learn their work and they learn while the research is going on, and this concentration of research on a site outside Pretoria divorces these men from research. They are not there to learn, and every technician working for the C.S.I.R. is a paid servant instead of a student who is anxious and willing to learn. As I have already said, I do not wish to denigrate from the great work that has been done, but I do say that from the inception of this institution it has so grown and achieved such power that it is time that the universities received their due and were able to decide for themselves what they want to do. Admittedly it functions as national laboratory, but it concentrates its work of that nature mostly in Pretoria. Sir, Pretoria has not a monopoly of brains, and there is down in this area of the country, in Stellenbosch and Cape Town and also in Witwatersrand a great reservoir of teaching and educational knowledge, knowledge which is available to the country. Why must it always have to seek its funds and its guidance from a body in Pretoria, which is not part of the Government?

Finally, let me say that it is seeking these funds from a body which on the evidence of these two Bills cannot govern itself, because if we read into the reasons behind all this, what do we find? We find that these scientists, like many other scientists, were not able to govern themselves and now they have to be separated. Sir, if I may give a final word of advice to men who know better than I do, may I say that if you have a scientific body, find a layman to be the Chairman.

I am going to be brief. May I say to the Minister that I am the layman who is going to do the job. What I want to say is this: I heard tributes being paid to the Bureau of Standards, quite rightly. I want to pay a tribute to the C.S.I.R. and I want to say that in my opinion, if one looks at the establishment which has been set up by the C.S.I.R. to-day, if one sees those buildings, laboratories and so forth, one finds that they are peopled by some of the finest scientists so far as I am concerned in South Africa and that one might be able to find of their type anywhere in the world, and so far as they are concerned I would appeal to the Minister and the Government to view this matter from this angle, that in the C.S.I.R. we have more gold than we have on the Reef and in the goldfields of the Free State combined. Those gold mines will peter out, but the work of the C.S.I.R. will stay as long as the Republic of South Africa endures; and whereas the gold mines are an asset which is gradually depreciating, which is vanishing, which is becoming less and less as time goes on, the work of the C.S.I.R. will continue to grow more and more. Sir, I repeat, in terms of gold for the Republic of South Africa we get more benefit ultimately from the C.S.I.R. than we do from the gold-fields. Sir, how do we develop our goldfields? By spending millions of rand on each gold-field before it reaches the stage of production. I want to appeal to the Minister and the Government to see to it that the C.S.I.R. is adequately financed. I am not asking that somebody should lose something that they may get. I agree with a great deal of what my colleague has said. In pure research our univiersities can play a part. I am not suggesting that they should have their funds diminished in any way. I am suggesting that adequate funds should be made available for the C.S.I.R. in the same way as we would develop a gold-field, or a particular activity in South AFrica with a view to producing profits. Let us develop the C.S.I.R. and give an opportunity for development to the brains that are working there on our behalf and in the interests of our country. It means money and it means large sums of money. Let us not stint it. It will pay us handsomely.

The hon. member who has just sat down became so eloquent about the C.S.I.R. that I want to express my pleasure. If every layman had approached the matter of research in this country in the way he does, our country would even have been in a better position than it is to-day. I really got to my feet, Sir, to point out that we cannot allow the speech of the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) to pass without commenting on it. He is far off the mark. One of his main objections is that the C.S.I.R. does applied research only. That is not quite right, but even if that were the case, I just want to point out to him that in the first instance it is the duty of any research institution in every country to study the local problems and as a result of that study it encounters basic problems and those basic problems often call for basic research, practically daily in the case of the C.S.I.R., and that is the kind of research which the hon. member wants. I can give him the example of Sir Arnold Theiler who dealt with the shortage of phosphates in South Africa; in medical language it is called osteomyelitis or rachitis. He eventually discovered that a shortage of a certain lime caused a similar disease, which he called osteofibrositis. I merely want to say that the basic problem which confronted Sir Arnold Theiler etiologically, that is from the point of view of the cause, was to determine what was the difference between osteo myelitis and osteofibrositis. The work which he did in this connection—and that was 30 years ago—is accepted by the world to-day as work which etiologically separates these two diseases. There are many cases of this nature. You cannot therefore say, Sir, that if applied research is carried out, that is necessarily not the best thing to do. It always leads to basic research. I merely mentioned that as an example. He said in the second place that more research work should be conducted at universities. He is 100 per cent right when he says that. You should, however, not argue that more research work would be done by universities if the Government provided the money direct to the universities. We should remember that the C.S.I.R. is an institution consisting of scientists and scientists of such calibre that there is hardly any problem in respect of which they have not one or other expert, somebody who can therefore discuss and apply his mind to that research work. If a university, Grahamstown, for instance, which is being treated very well, and also the Witwatersrand university (I think all universities are treated well) require money in connection with one or other project which they think ought to be investigated, the expert of the C.S.I.R. is in a much better position than any Minister or Government to say: “Look, we are justified in spending so many thousands of rand on this matter”. The change in the way money is to be allocated, therefore, whereby the university will get the money direct after application had been made for it by the C.S.I.R. is a great improvement, and I think praiseworthy, because not only will control be exercised in that way but that will ensure that the most important projects gets priority. Finally I just want to say this: As you know, Sir, the C.S.I.R. co-operates with practically every institution which does research work, whether they be universities or agricultural colleges, or even an institution like Onderstepoort. They undertake projects jointly and because of that, because a number of scientists tackle a project jointly, the results must of necessity be better. As you know, Sir, that is the position in the whole world to-day. When research has been done, you find that the various countries exchange the results they have obtained or if it is research which requires a great amount of money, as for example in the case of the splitting of the atom, you find that countries come together so that more scientists may work on the same project. That is exactly what is happening here. That is why I want to emphasize that it will only be to the benefit of the universities but to the greater benefit of the country if the money for research is spent through one channel, through the C.S.I.R. even for the universities. That is why I agree with the hon. member who has just sat down that in view of the fact that tremendous problems face our country—there are always problems in the scientific world which require investigation—we have a great future and we want to establish even greater possibilities for the promotion of research by means of this legislation.

I was very impressed by what the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) said just now, and I entirely agree with him on the tremendous value of our scientific research. Sir, as a whole scientists are a race apart, they are idealists, they don’t really understand what goes on in the ordinary man’s mind, and so they should be made free of all economic stress and the worries that the ordinary individual has to put up with. I am certain, and I am told that is a fact, that the success of Russia in the field of science, their tremendous discoveries, is due to the fact that they took German scientists, gave them their laboratories, and said to them “Now you have to think about nothing else in the world except your job. Don’t worry about your homes, don’t worry about having to pay rent, or school fees for your children; just stick to your job; we will relieve you of all other anxieties.” Of couse the first essential is that money must be provided, and I would like to support what the hon. member said: We must realize that the scientist is a man apart and he should be relieved of all the ordinary anxieties we have, and then he can do his best work. That was the great success of Russia, which is now practically ahead of America.

I want to express my gratitude to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) and the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) for their appreciation of the work which is being done by our scientists and research workers and the work which is being done by the C.S.I.R. I want to assure them that I myself and the Government are deeply grateful for the work which is being done by the C.S.I.R. and for the work which is being done by the scientists of this country. We know that the work which is being done by the C.S.I.R. is not only of great benefit to South Africa but that the C.S.I.R. has achieved fame and renown for South Africa in various parts of the world. I am in full agreement with hon. members that it is our duty as a country to do everything in our power to preserve and to promote our scientific manpower. We are living in an age of science. The country who falls behind in the scientific sphere to-day will also fall behind in other spheres. Ours is a small country with very big problems, problems which we ourselves will have to solve and if we as a small nation want to solve those problems we shall have to train, preserve and use as far as possible every person with scientific talents who is at our disposal. That is why I want to avail myself of this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the work which is being done by our scientists and of assuring them that the Government is attending at the moment to the problem of increasing our scientific manpower and that we are investigating the matter very thoroughly.

As far as the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) is concerned I am afraid I cannot see eye to eye with him. The hon. member really raised two main points. Firstly, he regretted the fact that because we had a C.S.I.R. (as I understood him) so little was being done to promote research of a different nature. He obviously implied that the C.S.I.R. was concentrating on the more materialistic research work, while research in other directions, that research into humanity and the spiritual sciences, were being neglected.

That may be true, perhaps we can do more research in the field of the spiritual sciences. But that has nothing to do with this matter. Then we must create a separate organization for that purpose, then we must have funds for that purpose. But we cannot let the C.S.I.R. suffer; we cannot allow our research into the natural sciences to suffer because we have to conduct research in other directions. Those two things are separate from one another. You can do the one without doing harm to the other. Let me say at once that the C.S.I.R. was established for scientific and industrial research. Its purpose is to promote science particularly with a view to industrial development. Its purpose is not to promote humanity. Other institutions will be required for that. The C.S.I.R. has done wonderful work in the field of scientific research and we trust it will do even more wonderful work in future. In the second place the hon. member complained about the small extent to which research work was being done at universities. Those two things do not have anything to do with one another either. Let us accept that more research work should be done at our universities. I admit that. But again Sir, you cannot blame the C.S.I.R. for that. We can strengthen the C.S.I.R. and we can let the universities do research work at the same time. I do not for one moment accept the fact that not more research work is being done at universities because, of the establishment and the work of the C.S.I.R. On the contrary, I believe that the C.S.I.R. has played a great part in co-ordinating research projects, in stimulating them, not only at the universities but also at other institutions throughout the length and breadth of the country. If we want the universities to do more research, therefore, let them do so by all means, but they should not do so to the detriment of the C.S.I.R.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? If it is true that the C.S.I.R. is only occupied with industrial research, can he explain to me how it is that medical research falls under the C.S.I.R.?

I am afraid those two matters have very little to do with one another. Medical research is also natural scientific research, as I understand it, and for that reason it fits into the C.S.I.R.

I want to deal with the final point raised by the hon. member when he said that everything would in future fall under this octopus, the C.S.I.R. and under people “who cannot govern themselves”. I think it is a little uncalled for and unnecessary to speak of the C.S.I.R. in such a belittling way as a body which cannot govern itself. I think I can give many examples of universities where scientists differ amongst themselves. I think I can give examples in the business world where businessmen differ amongst themselves, and I think I can also give examples of medical men who often differ amongst themselves. However, I do not intend doing that. It is a pity, however, that the hon. member availed himself of this opportunity of making such a belittling remark about the C.S.I.R.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

That the considerations of this clause stand over.

Agreed to.

On Clause 2,

This Clause 2 is in a sense the pivot on which the whole of this Bill hinges. This general Bill is a take-over by the Minister and his Department, in broad terms (with the inaccuracies that broad terminology may usually have) of the main functions of the present Group Areas Board. The Board remains, many of the officials remain, and so on, but in this clause it is provided that the chief administrative officer of the Board becomes the secretary of the Department of the Minister of Community Development, and by that one change, by making the secretary for the Department the chief administrative officer of the Board, the whole of the emphasis is moved from a board which is clothed with certain powers, enjoys a certain authority, governed by its own chairman, to the Department, and because the chief administrative officer is the secretary for the Department in fact the control is vested in the Minister. We are unlikely to accept, if such a suggestion were made, that the Minister is going to abide by the advice of the secretary for the Department. We will find it hard to accept that. We believe that this is the Minister’s take-over and through the new administrative head of the Board, the secretary for his Department, the control now shifts completely from the Board to in fact the Minister. So this is the kernel of the take-over of the Board by the Minister. We are utterly opposed to that. We on this side are not prepared to say that the Board as constituted was the finest human concept that could be put into any legislative enactment; we don’t believe that for one moment, we don’t believe that it was the finest thing that has yet been devised; but when we have to choose between leaving the Board with a certain amount of power which is exercised as a body within the four corners of the statute and the Minister, operating through the secretary for his Department, then we say that it will be far better to leave it in the hands of the Board, unsatisfactory as it was in many ways. A change for the better is not the taking over of the powers of the board for practical purposes by the Minister through the secretary for his Department. Hereafter, Sir, in clauses that I may not deal with now in detail, we will come over and over again to the point where the amendments in this Bill provide for the substitution of the secretary for the Board by the Minister through the secretary for the Department. But that is all consequential. It all flows from the basic principle in Clause 2. And because we are absolutely opposed to this change-over, the takeover by the Minister, we shall vote against this clause.

The hon. the Minister in his reply in the second reading debate pooh-poohed the suggestion that I made that the Group Areas Board by this Bill, and particularly by this clause was being emasculated. I do not want to misrepresent the hon. Minister’s speech, but he pooh-poohed the idea. Sir, sub-section (b) of this clause wants to take out the words “including any functions delegated to him by the Minister under Section 19”, and in sub-section 3bis of the Act it is provided that whenever the chairman is absent, unable to fulfil any of his functions, including any functions delegated to him by the Minister under Section 19, the vice-chairman may act in his stead. Now this clause goes hand in hand with those clauses which take away from the chairman of the Board and from the Board members the power to do those things which the hon. the Minister may delegate to them, and once they have advised on the basic thing, on the question as to whether or not there is going to be a group area, whether there should be this, or there should be that, everything that was normally done by the Board, will now be done by one of the servants of the state in the Minister’s Department. And what are those powers which no longer may be delegated to the chairman of the Board? Every power which has any practical effect upon the lives of ordinary human beings. They are those powers which under Section 19, the Minister may delegate in respect of Section 16, 17, 18 and 37, and those powers are the issue of permits for occupation or the acquisition of land, a very important function because it affects the owners of property, everyone of whom is going to fall within the ambit of one of these proclamations. The whole of South Africa, as I have said, has already been determined by some master plan and every single person in South Africa is affected by such zoning, by such a proclamation, and they are all going to require permits, and this is not to be done anymore by the Board, the hon. the Minister is not going to delegate that power to the Board any longer. Then there is the question of the conditions in respect of a permit. That is also no longer to be left to the Board so far as the Minister will delegate his powers. The determinations to be made under Section 16 (1) (b) as to the race by which property is deemed to have been occupied, the postponement of the making of determinations, the making of determinations, the disposal of immovable property, all these things are now removed from the Board, because this is what the Minister calls “administration”. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that this is not administration. This is the essence of what the Group Areas Board was intended to do. All the decisions which they normally made were made in an area having regard to their experience of that area, having regard to the vicissitudes the hardships, which were being created and their knowledge of the particular area, and their knowledge of the picture as a whole. And over the years, as the Minister knows, the Group Areas Board gained experience. They must have learned to apply their discretion and to provide at least injustice for all, if not justice for all. And now, the Board is not to have those powers anymore. The hon. the Minister can say that they will still have all the powers they had before, but that is not the case. They manifestly won’t have those powers. That was “Onwaarheid No. Drie”, the hon. the Minister referred to. If he reads this clause and all the powers that he can now delegate to the Secretary, you will see that was not an untruth at all. Another thing: These powers are now being given to the Secretary. The Secretary obviously is not going to deal with them, they are going to be dealt with by the officials of the department, and you are going to find the situation that in one area one official will deal with these matters, and in another area another official may deal with these matters. I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us what he is going to do about that. One of the dangers is definitely that you have one person acting on behalf of the Secretary dealing with one particular area, and a contiguous area which is effected by the decision might be dealt with by somebody else. I think that is highly undesirable that there won’t be any sort of uniformity in the taking of these decisions. I hope the hon. the Minister will indicate to us how the officials who are going to exercise the discretion and the powers which he is going to delegate to them, are in fact going to use them and how they are going to give their decisions.

I oppose this clause for a number of reasons, but amongst them are the very reasons that the hon. the Minister has indicated to us here in the course of the second reading debate. Last year, when an amendment was discussed, we complained of the powers that the Minister was taking to himself in the administration of the Group Areas Act, and we indicated that he would come back for more if that was the line he was going to take in order to make this Act work. He said “Yes, I may come back for them”. Here he has come back for them, but in this case he is taking the lot. And as much as I dislike the idea of the Group Areas Board, at least it was a board of human beings who to some extent acted as a buffer between the Act and the people to whom it was being applied. Now in this clause that buffer is disappearing, and the whole of the administration of this Act is going to become a departmental job. In other words, the fact that they are dealing with human beings who need individual consideration is fast disappearing from the whole of the administration of this Act. The Minister indicated this during the second reading when he was told that he would have difficulties in applying this in Natal. Sir, he was not told that just to bait him, but he was told that because we know the difficulties he is going to have in carrying this out in Natal. We know all the difficulties, and the Minister knows them too. That is why he wants to take the powers which this Bill gives him, so that irrespective of the effect upon the people to whom it is going to be applied, he can go ahead and make it work, irrespective of human considerations or any other considerations which at least the Board did take into consideration. I think the resignation of a member of the Board is probably indicative of that fact, that member of the Board did not agree with the Board having these powers taken away from them. At the moment what does this reduce them to? It reduces them to a group of individuals who will investigate what the Minister wants them to investigate. He will even indicate to them the lengths to which they can go. The Secretary, in other words the Minister, because wherever “Secretary” occurs, you can read “Minister”, together with his departmental officials is now taking over complete and utter power to apply this Act to people where he has not been able to get it to work before. We know the reasons why he has not been able to get it to work. We know the reasons why the Board has not been able to get it to work. It was because they had to take into consideration the structure of the population of South Africa. Now he wants to override that, Sir. He is leading us and the various races in this country to disaster in taking over, because it is an obvious indication that he intends to apply this Act, come “hell or high water”.

What the Opposition apparently does not realize, or does not want to realize, is that with the establishment of a Department of Community Development we are facing an entirely new situation. Under the old set-up …

That was what you said last year.

No, the hon. member is wrong again, because there was no Department of Community Development last year. The Department was only established on 1 August 1961 so I could definitely not have spoken about it last year. When we think of the old-set, we find that the Department of the Interior, under which the Group Areas Board was originally established, is undoubtedly the biggest omnibus department in the country. The United Party objects to the delegation of power. But more powers were delegated under the Department of the Interior as it was at that time than under any other department in the country. I maintain that we should take the new circumstances into account. Surely the United Party cannot and does not want to oppose the establishment of the Department of Community Development. That is a fait accompli. What I find curious is this: Hon. members opposite want to take the Group Areas Board under their protection. They have been opposing that board from its very inception; they did not want anything to do with it. No powers are being taken away from the Group Areas Board. It is being made more effective. There are no more regional councils. Those councils are being incorporated. There will be one central board only. It is true that it will no longer have its own officials. The Group Areas Board delegated powers to officials. The United Party never objected to that. Those officials have not been dismissed; they have been taken over by the Department of Community Development. The permannet members of the Group Areas Board have not been dismissed. The Board is functioning as it did in the past and is fulfilling the same functions. The only thing that this clause does is that it activates the Department. It will be doing the preliminary work which the officials of the Group Areas Board did in the past. I want to repeat what I said in my second reading speech. I personally am of the opinion that greater progress will be made in future. I do not think hon. members opposite have had any experience of this. Surely they have already had dealings with the Department of Community Development otherwise they are following an ostrich-like policy. They refuse to face the facts, they hide their heads under the sand. It is a fact that since this reorganization has taken place, since this Department has been established, greater progress has been made with the establishment of group areas; things are happening faster. The fact of the matter is, and nobody will deny it, that it is in the interest of racial harmony and racial peace in South Africa, that the pace be accelerated in the field of group areas.

I am afraid the observations by the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) has not thrown any light on the subject matter raised by hon. members on this side of the House. I do not wish at this stage to ascribe any ulterior motives to the Minister. I merely want to seek some information from him and I hope we shall be able to discuss this matter in a calm atmosphere. I shall be pleased to hear from the Minister the real reasons which motivated him in introducing this amending legislation. As I see the position, in 1957, upon the establishment by this House, of the Group Areas Board consisting of 12 members appointed by the hon. the Minister, we made provision whereby one of the members of the Board shall be designated by the Minister as chairman and one as vice-chairman. Then we went on to say, in the same Act—

In 1961 this House at the instance of the hon. the Minister introduced an amendment to the establishment of the Group Areas Board and in that amendment, under Clause 3bis, the hon. the Minister got this House to change the law so as to make, what he regarded and what the House at that time regarded a reasonable provision, namely, that whenever the chairman is absent or is unable to fulfil any of his functions including any functions delegated to him by the Minister under Section 19, the vice-chairman may act in his stead. The Minister, in explaining the reasons for bringing about that change to the law, indicated to the House at the time, that it was manifestly impossible for any one man to carry out all the duties imposed upon the chairman or the vice-chairman or even upon the Minister under this very complicated Act. He said it was absolutely essential that he should have power to delegate certain of his powers to some of his officials. And he chose what he regarded as the right individual, the chairman or in his absence the vice-chairman to carry out the functions, including the functions delegated to him by the Minister under Section 19. Under Section 19, as hon. members on this side of the House have pointed out, the Minister took unto himself the right to delegate very important powers in the administration of this Act to the chairman of the Board and to such other members of the Board as he may from time to time determine. Under Section 19 the Minister may— subject to such conditions as he may determine delegate to the chairman of the Board any of his powers under Sections 16 or 18, and under Sections 20, 27, 37 and 39 of the Act. Those powers, Sir, virtually consist of everything under this Act. Every power that the hon. the Minister has under this Act, he could, in terms of Section 19 of the 1961 amending Act, delegate to the chairman of the Board or in his absence to the vice-chairman. The hon. Minister nods his head; he agrees.

We on this side of the House, I for one, did not oppose it because I thought it was reasonable. I thought the Minister’s explanation was reasonable and that it was in fact impossible for one man to deal on his own, with all the provisions of this Act.

The hon. the Minister now comes along today and seeks to change the Act still making provision that whenever the chairman is absent or unable to fulfil his functions, the vice-chairman may act in his stead. But he seeks to exclude from the provisions of the 1961 Act the provision whereby those delegated functions, delegated by the Minister to the chairman, should be carried out. I am at a loss to understand why it is necessary to deprive the chairman or the vice-chairman of those functions. If in 1961 the hon. the Minister impressed this House with the necessity of his having the right to delegate those functions to the chairman or in his absence to the vice-chairman, why should we in 1962 deprive the chairman or the vice-chairman of those very important functions? Before we go any further into this aspect of this matter I should be pleased if the Minister would explain to this Committee why that should be the case. In the White Paper which was Tabled there is not sufficient information at all, I am afraid. In the White Paper the hon. the Minister refers to the fact that the secretary of the Department is ipso facto the chief administrative officer and sub-section (iii) therefore becomes unnecessary. How that can change the situation which existed in 1961 is beyond me. I hope the Minister will be good enough to give us his precise reasons why, less than a year later, he now comes along and tries to deprive the chairman of the Board of these powers which he himself wanted to delegate to him.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members are perfectly entitled to put these questions in the light of the new events. I do not hold it against them in the least that perhaps they do not fully appreciate the implications of this matter. I tried to deal with the implications in my introductory speech, because, as the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) has said, hon. members must first understand that here we are dealing with entirely changed circumstances, as a result of the establishment of this Department, as a result of the fact that whereas these two boards, the Group Areas Board and the Development Board, were at first separated, each with its own staff, a Department has now been established which did not exist previously. Because, for all practical purposes, the secretary for the Interior, because of the size of the Department of the Interior, was in no position at all to give his attention to this matter, except that he remained the accounting officer. For practical purposes he was unable to exercise the controlling influence over those two boards because the Department of the Interior took up all his time. Hon. members know what a big department the Department of the Interior is. This new Department has now been established. I have explained why, and I do not want to go into it again. I just want to say in passing that it was done in the first place to co-ordinate the work of these boards. They should know more about each other. They should synchronize more and there should be more co-operation between them with regard to projects. That is understandable. In the second place, up to the stage where the Department came into being, the chairman of the Group Areas Board was the principal administrative officer of the Board, and that is why the Minister took the power to delegate to his principal administrative officer certain powers which are entrusted to him as Minister under the Act, such as the granting of permits, inter alia, etc. And as the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) has correctly said, it was also done because it would be impossible for one person to cope with it. But because of the establishment of this Department, we now have another principal administrative officer. As in the case of all departments, the Secretary of the Department is the principal administrative officer of the Department. In other words, these are not powers which are being taken away from the Board; they are powers which are being taken away from an individual and transferred to a different individual—from one official to another official. The chairman of the Group Areas Board had delegated powers. He in turn delegated certain of those powers to subordinate officials, and there were appeals to the Minister against decisions. The same position still obtains. The only differences is that this is now being transferred to the secretary of the Department. It so happens— I do not want to use this as an argument— that the chairman of the Group Areas Board became the new secretary of the Department. At the moment it is still the same person. But another change has now taken place. Whereas the members of the Group Areas Board foregathered at various points in the country, the members of the Board have now been brought together in Pretoria, and they will constantly be together except when they leave Pretoria on investigations, etc. They are in a position to consult with one another a good deal, more so than ever before. Regional offices of the Department have now been established at the various points such as Cape Town and Port Elizabeth, and at the head of every Regional office there is an under-secretary. Quite fortuitously it has been possible for us to place former members of the Group Areas Board, who were officials, in the regional offices. In other words, the regional offices in Port Elizabeth, Pietermaritzburg and Cape Town are staffed to-day by regional under-secretaries who were formerly full-time members of the Board and who are public servants. All that is happening now is that the Minister is shifting the delegated powers from the chairman of the Board, who no longer has the necessary staff, to the Secretary of the Department who has the necessary staff at the various points. Those regional offices will be in a position, if the powers are delegated to them, to deal more expeditiously with these matters. I hope that is clear to the hon. member. As far as the powers of the Board are concerned, I want to say that these delegated powers were never delegated to the Board; they were delegated to the Chairman because he also happened to be the principal administrative officer—but never to the Board. That is the difference. The Board’s powers, which I do not want to enlarge upon now, remain unchanged as laid down in Section 5 of the principal Act. I hope I have made myself clear with regard to this matter.

The hon. the Minister’s reply makes the position from my point of view even more difficult. The hon. the Minister deals with the load, the load of work which has been carried by the chairman of the Board and to a lesser extent by the members of the Board. But the load was on the Minister’s shoulders last year, it was on his Department. The hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) has referred to that position and the delegation of authority to the chairman of the Board that took place last year. The position before that was that when the Minister, the predecessor of the present Minister, the Minister of the Interior, now Minister of Finance, was dealing with the matter the first point he made was that he was going to deal with all these questions. That was what he said; it is in Hansard. He was going to carry the load. The idea that this would become such an administrative burden that he could not deal with it was out of the question. When we asked him whether he expected to live until he was 1,000 years old—an age which he would have had to attain in order to deal with all the problems— he laughed us to scorn. Now this Minister came last year, complained about the load and he thrust it on to the chairman of the Board. In this amending Bill that we have before us, Clause 2 (a) sub-section (iii) is repealed, which says—

The chairman of the Board shall also be the chief administrative officer of the Board.

The Minister makes that clear. Yes, he says, he is no longer the administrative officer of the Board. There is no clause in this Bill which says that the secretary for the Department shall be the chief administrative officer because he is that already. The secretary of Community Development is the chief administrative officer. We do not need a provision to that effect in this Bill to make that clear. The load now comes back from the chairman of the Board. That is the point we are trying to make. The fact that the chairman of the Board may be the secretary for the Department, that they may be one and the same person, is quite beside the point.

I said that.

Yes, the Minister said that. He simply pointed out that there would be a continuity of thought as far as that person was concerned. But the load now comes back to the Minister. That is the point we are trying to make. Last year, as far as the Minister and his Department were concerned there was a quasi independent board with its own chairman and its own members to which authority could be delegated by the Minister. It did not stop there, Sir. The Minister had power under last years’ enactment to delegate authority to the chairman. Provision was made for sub-committees to be established so that the authority could be delegated down and down and down. In fact, Sir, provision was made that in certain cases a single member could constitute a subcommittee of the Board. Admittedly only in certain cases, limited cases, but it helped to lift the burden. Now, Sir, it comes back again. Again with certain limitations. There are certain functions which the Board can still perform. I do not want to deal with those before we deal with that clause. But the load comes back in its entirety to the Minister, and with it the fact that the decisions have to be made by the Minister. The Minister himself has dealt with this question of appeals. I also want to deal with that, because I myself have made appeals to the Minister. I have no doubt that this Bill will go through; he has the votes behind him to put it on the Statute Book whatever we may say. That will mean that I will come forward with a large number of appeals. But when I appealed in the past I appealed from the Board to the Minister. From whom do I appeal now? I will be appealing from the Minister to the Minister. That is what it will mean in practice. No good saying that I will be appealing from the secretary of the Department to the Minister. I am going to appeal to the Minister who in turn is going to be advised by his secretary. Can anyone imagine for a moment, Sir, that the Minister is going to sit there without any reference at all to the secretary of his Department? The secretary of the Department is the chief administrative officer of the whole of that Department for the purposes not of this Bill before us, but for the purposes of the whole of the Act as consolidated in 1957 and as amended last year, he is administrative officer for the whole of that great complex of legislation. It is inconceivable that the Minister will deal with appeals from the secretary when he has not acquainted himself with the views of the secretary. It was a true appeal, Mr. Chairman, when you appealed from the Board. The Minister may have asked the Board: Why do you come to this decision? Or he may have gone further than that as he did in the case of some of my appeals and said: “What is this tremendous delay? Mr. Mitchell says there is unwarranted delay in dealing with this matter. Weeks and weeks are going by and nothing is being done.” Or the Minister may have said: “I am going to cut the Gordian knot and come to a decision; it must be settled one way or another.” But when the delay is taking place in the Department, under his own secretary, who is the chairman of the Board, to whom do I appeal? The man responsible is the Minister because he is the person with whom I have to deal with here in Parliament. I appeal from the Minister to the Minister. On the ground of equity, Sir, this is wrong and on the ground of the burden, the load, it is even more wrong. The administrative burden will either crush the Minister or he will neglect his duty. If he tries to perform it it will crush him; if he does not try to perform it and he simply throws it off, adopting an attitude of escapism towards the pressure, the whole organization will break down and it will tend to reach the stage which we have reached with regard to the Board to-day, where they simply cannot, human material being what it is, cope with the load which is gradually being built up, together with all the administrative functions that they have to perform. So for those reasons we say: Leave it where it belongs; leave it with the Board. Leave the chairman of the Board the chief administrative officer and do not make this change which the Minister is proposing. It is too far-reaching.

No, I think the hon. member is wrong. The burden that you had to bear when you were able to delegate powers to the chairman, was no less than the burden that you will have to bear now that these powers may be delegated to the secretary and his regional offices. I think there the hon. member was completely wrong. As a matter of fact, I think it will go very much faster, and I shall tell the hon. member why Because the chairman of the Board has always had an extra burden, which the hon. member overlooked, and that relates to the main purpose for which the Board is there, namely to demarcate areas and to bring about the establishment of group areas. That was the main task of the Board, and not permit control. That burden is now being taken off my shoulders and transferred to an effective machine that has been established and by means of which it will be possible to deal with these things. We have our various regional under-secretaries in this country; we even have sub-offices to make it easier for the public to get in touch with these people. There will be delegated powers in the hands of the secretary and in the hands of the regional under-secretaries.

Purely advisory?

I am not going to interfere with their decisions; I never interfered with the decisions of the chairman until an appeal was lodged with me. The Minister then deals with that appeal; he then has before him the case as stated for the appellant and the case as stated for the person who took the decision, and his task then is to decide that appeal. But the other advantage which it may have is that the burden of the chairman of the Board will now be lightened and actually he will be in a better position to perform his main function and that is to expedite, together with his Board, the demarcation of group areas and their implementation. I think we are actually improving the position by taking the burden off his shoulders and placing it on the departmental organization, a burden which he is unable to bear in addition to his other duties. This gives the Board all the more opportunity to devote its attention to the main purpose for which the Board was established.

Having listened to the Minister’s second explanation, I am afraid I completely agree with the line taken by the hon. member for Natal (South Coast) (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). You see, Mr. Chairman, despite what the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) thinks, you cannot get away from the principle of the Act which we are amending, and the effects that it has on the lives of people. The particular Section which we are now amending is probably the cornerstone directing that effect. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that he must remember that every individual who is affected by a decision of the Board, no matter how small that decision is, regards that as the biggest thing in the world. It affects his home, his life and his future. We have to approach it from that angle. Hitherto we have been dealing with a Board constituted in accordance with the original Act and in accordance with what we term a democratic form of government. May be, it was not full democracy but at any rate it had that semblance. There were certain procedures that had to be followed by the Board and its chairman, and over and above it all, and as a last resort, the individual at least had a right of appeal to the highest authority, the Minister. What will happen in regard to this amending Bill, is that right of appeal will disappear. As has been rightly said, you cannot appeal to a person against his own decisions. That is what it amounts to in practice. You cannot have the Board operating without the least semblance of the freedom that it had before after this dictatorship is applied from the top, this dictatorial control instead of democratic control. However much you admire the Minister, Sir, for taking upon himself the responsibility and the terrific load of administering this Act, it will not work in practice. The whole road of the lifetime of this unhappy Act is strewn with the bodies of the men who have broken down under the strain of trying to administer this Act, and one cannot help but admire the Minister for taking this load on its shoulders. It will either make him or break him, but from the public point of view it is eliminating democratic control and putting in its place what is largely dictatorial control, and he is converting the Board into a rubber-stamp to carry out the mandate of the Minister. That is the general effect of the amendment and therefore I must support the hon. member for South Coast in his appeal to the Minister to give this matter consideration. It is a fundamental principle of the Bill and it is fundamental to the people affected by the Bill. They must at least be able to believe that they still have this right of appeal, and not feel that they are appealing in name only.

It seems to me that hon. members of the Opposition who are adopting this standpoint have forgotten the history of the Group Areas Act. The position is that when this Act was passed in 1950 it provided for the establishment of this Board, but that the administration would fall under the Department of the Interior. The Secretary for the Interior performed the functions which now in terms of the Bill before us are being passed on to the Secretary for Community Development. A little while later the Chairman of the Group Areas Board was replaced by the man who is now Judge Hugo, and he said that he also wanted to be the administrative chief of the Group Areas Board, and we then amended the Act, and you will remember, Sir, that the Chairman of the Group Areas Board was then also made the administrative head of the group areas organization, and if I remember correctly the United Party opposed it tooth and nail. At that time I told the Minister that we were putting too much work on the chairman of the Board, but the chairman himself stated he wanted it that way, because then it would ensure that the Department would not issue permits in conflict with the policy of the Board, and the Act was then passed. Experience has taught us that the chairman of the Group Areas Board had so much administrative work that he could not perform his real functions, as the Minister has now told us. Therefore we found that one district after another telephoned and telegraphed and wrote to ask when their group areas would be proclaimed, and no finality could be reached because the chairman had too much work. I want to say that this is one of the best provisions in the whole Bill, where we revert to the position that the Group Areas Board remains there as an independent body with all the rights to make decisions it has in the past. It will still have those rights in future, and only after that Board has given its decision will it now no longer be the duty of the chairman to see that it is implemented, but that of the Department, and that applies also to the Development Board. I am very glad that the administration will now be done by a Department and not by the chairman.

The hon. member raised another point in regard to appeals and asked how one could appeal to oneself? But the appeal is against the decision of the Board, which is an independent body. The appeal against its decision goes to people who have not seen the decision of the Board or heard the arguments. From them the appeal goes to the Secretary for Community Development, and from him a further appeal is to the Minister. To say that a person appeals to the man against whom he is appealing is nonsense. We have parallel cases in many Departments. I can mention an example. The Registrar of Financial Institutions has the right to take certain decisions in terms of the Insurance Act, in terms of the Pensions Fund Act and other Acts, and he often exercises that right. But his decisions are subject to appeal to the Minister of Finance and I know of numerous cases where those appeals succeeded, and we will have the same thing here. I therefore do not know why hon. members are making such a fuss. We are reverting to the position which they wanted to retain when it was introduced in the Act that the chairman of the Group Areas Board would also in future be the administrative head.

It is all very well for the hon. member who has just sat down to talk about the history of the Group Areas Act, but it is interesting to note that the history shows now for the first time that coordination is necessary between this Board and the Development Board, as the Minister said just now. One appreciates that if there are to be these two boards they must be coordinated. But what the Minister does not seem to appreciate is that what we object to is the way in which these two boards are being co-ordinated. Many of the powers of this board are now being taken away.

I am not taking away any of the powers of the Board. They are powers vested in the Minister which he delegates to the chairman of the board.

I will deal with that, but there are other provisions where the members of the Board are also given powers. The Minister may delegate powers to the members of the Board. But the Minister says this is to co-ordinate those two boards. If you look at the Development Board, the way that has been denuded of its powers, compared with the Group Areas Board, there is nothing left of it.

How is that relevant?

I am afraid I do not take such a charitable view as the hon. member for Simonstown, who said that he did not want to ascribe to the Minister any ulterior motives. I do not want to ascribe any ulterior motives to him, but I want to point out to him the ulterior motive he disclosed during the second reading, when he said, “ I am going to do it, whether you like it or not. I will apply this Act in Natal whether you like it or not.”

That is not relevant at all.

Of course it is relevant. Why does the Minister want to put the implementation of this Act entirely in the hands of the civil servants? Because he wants to carry out a threat that he threw across the floor of the House. The Minister wants to bulldoze his path to the chequer-board he has in mind through the lives of ordinary people.

Order! That is not relevant.

With respect, this clause is the one which deals with the implementation of this Act. The Minister said this would provide an effective machine to deal with the administration. He is so right. This is just a machine which will do what the Minister wants when he presses the button. It will not be what it was before, a group of human beings considering the conditions and the hardships, etc. The hon. member for Malmesbury said that the complaint of the Opposition was that there was delegation of powers. It is not that at all, but that these powers are now being delegated to someone else. It is all very well for the Minister to say it is the same person.

You know I did not use that as an argument. Even the hon. member for South Coast admitted it. Do not be absurd.

Then I accept the Minister’s word, but I want to say that the Minister did say that it was just a case of taking away the powers delegated to one individual and giving them to another individual, but that is plain nonsense. The one individual is a member of a board whose duty it is to investigate all the matters. He has a lot of experience of these things and knows what is going on and knows what decisions have been made before and what the policy is. But now it is proposed to give it to another individual who is not like the first one; he is a civil servant because the secretary will not investigate every single case himself. He will delegate it to one of his officials and in the result you will have someone who has no experience doing this work. That is the point of the whole thing, but the Minister does not appreciate it. It is not a case of objecting to the delegation of powers. That is over and done with and we cannot discuss it. It is a case of taking away powers from a board which we do not like but it is better than nothing, and it is infinitely better than one of the Minister’s officials, whose attitude will be determined by his attitude to what his future is in the service, which in turn will be determined by what the Minister thinks of what he has done.

The last speaker has me completely confounded with his argument, if it can be called an argument. What is being provided here? The first part of the section provides, as the existing law was, that the chairman of the Group Areas Board was also the chief administrative officer. That is now being repealed, because there is a different administrative officer, viz. the secretary of this new Department. There can be no ulterior motives. The second part of it says that because certain powers are not being delegated to him as administrative officer, that the delegation of powers is now made to somebody else. Now the hon. member advances this imaginary argument and objection—we are dealing only with delegated powers and not with inherent powers, but delegated powers which he gets from the Minister, and because the Minister delegates those powers to somebody else the Minister is alleged to have ulterior motives and to be dictatorial—the biggest nonsense I have ever heard. I am surprised that a lawyer can advance such an argument. The matter is now being put on a much better basis. As it was before, there was an appeal really from one person who also had delegated powers from the Minister, to the Minister himself. In other words, the appeal was from the decision of a person who exercised powers on behalf of the Minister, to the Minister himself, but now the position is being improved. It now passes into the hands of the Department. He is not connected with the administrative side. Consequently when he gives a decision as chairman of that Board there is an appeal to the Secretary or to the Minister. There is no connection with each other at all any longer. We now have a pure system of appeal. Why hon. members are so concerned about the matter I do not know. They do not have a leg to stand on.

I think the hon. member for Heilbron and some of the other hon. members are at cross-purposes. The hon. member for Heilbron says that since these powers which were previously delegated to the Chairman of the Board are now delegated to the Secretary, it makes no difference. But that is quite illogical. If in fact they were delegated in the first place say to a Judge of the Supreme Court and then they were delegated to the Secretary for Justice you can see that there is a vast difference. In fact, the sort of people whom the Government was in the habit of appointing were akin to Judges, and indeed, the first chairman of the Board has been made a Judge. He was in fact an advocate of many years’ standing when he was appointed chairman of the Board, and various other chairmen since have been people completely outside the Department. I am not saying that there are not very fine people in the Department, but they are obviously much closer to the Minister and it is therefore more difficult for them to have an independent approach, whereas a man who is outside the Department has a more independent approach.

The other point was that the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) said that at one time the Secretary of the Department of the Interior had these powers and then an amendment was introduced delegating these powers to the chairman of the Board. Assuming that is correct history, then at one time the Government did think it was better to delegate them to the chairman of the Board.

The chairman asked for it.

Because he thought it advisable. The hon. member for Malnesbury (Mr. van Staden) said that this side of the House now seemed to be coming forward as the protector of the Board. That is not correct. What we say is that we had objections to that Board in the past and still have them, but having seen it in operation for a long time the Board is the preferable instrument, and that is why we are opposed to this change.

I want to make a further point. We have now had a long discussion on this clause and I think it has revealed that there is a good deal of change being introduced by this Bill. We made certain criticisms of the White Paper in the second reading, and I would like to show the sort of objection we had to the White Paper. All that the White Paper says on this clause is, “The Secretary of the Department is ipso facto the chief administrative officer and sub-sec. (3) has therefore become unnecessary.” I suggest that is most misleading and that is the sort of objection we had to the White Paper. But it does not run through both sections of this White Paper.

Order! That is irrelevant and the hon. member should come back to the clause.

As far as the section of the White Paper dealing with the Development Act is concerned, that is very helpful …

That is not under discussion.

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) said that we did not understand the change that is taking place here through the creation of the Department of Coloured Affairs. Let me say at once that we are perfectly aware of that change, but we do not recognize why it was necessary to make this change to correspond with the change of Department. In other words, the Board could still have been maintained with a change being made to the Secretary for Community Development. Everything could have remained precisely as it was, with the Minister of Community Development and his Secretary and his Department. There was no need, on the formation of this new Department, to have a change in this particular instance. That is the point we want to make. We are aware of the change that was made, but this legislative change is unnecessary.

I should like to have clarity on a few aspects of the clause. As I understand it, the Board is not being replaced here by the secretary or the regional secretary. The functions of a member of the Board who was the local chairman are being taken over by an official. Is that correct?

The administrative functions.

Yes, like permits, etc. So it passes from one official to another, and I cannot see any serious objection to that. In the past the position was that if appeal was lodged against the decision of the local chairman, the appeal went to the Group Areas Board.

To the chairman of the Board.

Yes, and the further appeal was to the Minister. Under the new setup, if the local or regional secretary gives a decision and appeal is noted against it, it goes to the Secretary for Community Development, and from him there is an appeal to the Minister. I have no objection to that, against the transfer of powers from one official to the other, because in fact they are both public servants. But during the whole of last session I was concerned with one appeal in connection with which it was necessary for me to go to the Minister, and it took half an hour of his time. During the present Session it was necessary for me to go to the Minister with an appeal once, and that took up three-quarters of an hour of his time. I should now like to know this from the Minister. If under the new set-up a case again arises in future and it is necessary to note an appeal from the Secretary for Community Development to the Minister, and if I as a member of Parliament go to the Minister in connection with the matter, will he again throw it in my face in a debate in this House?

That is not relevant.

Clause 2 put and the Committee divided:

AYES—81: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotzé, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

NOES—35: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Hen-wood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Holland, M. W.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Russell, J. H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Wood, L. F.

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

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Business suspended at 6.33 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

On Clause 3,

Clause 3 has a number of sub-clauses. Sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) really provide for the administration of the powers taken under Clause 2. In the existing Act provision is made for certain inquiries to be held. I would like to ask the Minister whether he would be good enough to explain to us how this will work. You see, Sir, the Act as amended, will read—

The inquiry there is an inquiry provided for in an earlier part of the Bill. The point is that what appears to be a reverse procedure is adopted. Instead of the Board dealing with matters coming from the Secretary, the Secretary deals with matters in the first place, I take it as a result of publication and the receipt of representations which come to the Secretary, and then it goes back to the Board. But I will be glad if the Minister will explain precisely how sub-clause (d) will be applied in respect of the relationship of the Secretary to the Board and the inquiry to be held by the Board.

I wonder if the hon. the Minister would be good enough to tell us why it is that it was decided to delete the words “on the recommendation of the Board” from Section 5 of the principal Act. Because that would seem to be a useful safeguard and I do not recall the Minister having said anything in his second-reading speech to explain that. I should therefore be pleased if the Minister would tell us the reason.

Clause 3 (a) is what I would call a purely and truly administrative Clause. It deals with an administrative matter pure and simple. Clause 3 provides that the Minister may dispense in his discretion with publication. It is formally provided that before the Board advised the Minister in regard to certain matters publication had to take place. It now provides that publication does not have to take place. I think it is very important that there should be publication of a notice informing people what is proposed, informing them that something is going to be done in the area in which they live. It is very important that the persons who live there and who are effected, should have notice so that they can make their representations. It would appear now that the Minister may, if he so chooses, dispense with the publication. I say that formerly the Board had to recommend it, now the Board no longer has to recommend it. The hon. the Minister can do it himself. It seems to me to be fundamental, if the official or whoever it is or the Board, is going to determine what is to happen in any specific matter relating to any particular area, that the persons who are affected should be entitled to know about it so that they can make representations. The Minister will concede that there are a number of cases where notification has been given and where a good case has been put up to the board in respect of a matter which they otherwise would not have been aware of. I think, therefore, that it is very important. The matters in respect of which the Minister will now have the discretion whether or not he will allow publication, are the matters falling under Section 22 (1) of the Act which relate to border strips. I cannot think of any good reason why the persons who live in an area which it is intended to make a border strip, should not have notice of the fact that such is the intention, namely to make that area a border strip, so that they can make their representations. I cannot stress enough that the entire future of individuals is affected by this Act, and if they do not have any notice, if they are not aware of what is going on, they find themselves just steam-rollered out without having been able to do anything about it. This clause will have very important repercussions in other spheres. Where inquiries are conducted, where one is prohibited from hindering or obstructing members of the Board or any of the officers in the conduct of their duty, if they do not get any notice and if they are not aware of what is happening, they will not be aware that they are hindering or obstructing. There are many ramifications of this. And I do hope the Minister will give us the reasons why he feels it is necessary to dispense with the recommendation of the Board before he gives notice.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members should distinguish here between two matters. The one is thiS: It is the specific task of the Board, before coming to a final decision in regard to which it wants to make a recommendation to the Minister in respect of an area, to follow a certain procedure. I want to deal with that first. In the past the practice has been—and it will still be the same now—that when the Board wants to investigate the area of a certain local authority, it sends one of its representatives to negotiate with that local authority. Discussions first take place in order more or less to come to an understanding in regard to the preliminary work with a view to proclamation. When the local authority is ready to make suggestions, the Board advertises and says that on a specific date it wants suggestions submitted to it—it calls for proposals. When these proposals have been received, the Board in the past submitted its own draft proposal for consideration at a public hearing. Then it publishes the proposals. Then the Board held a public meeting there and could hear evidence from bodies or from affected persons who had definite opinions in regard to those proposals which were advertised. After hearing the evidence, it drafted a report, and that report, together with the evidence and all the proposals submitted, and the recommendations of the Board, were then submitted to the Minister. Then the Minister decided on it, if he wanted to. If he was not satisfied he referred the matter back to the Board requesting more information. It was left to the discretion of the Minister. In the majority of cases he acted on the recommendation of the Board. What will happen now? The same procedure will be followed now, except that it will not be the Board which does that preliminary work, but the Department.

In terms of subsec. (3)?

No, I am talking about the whole clause now, because I want to set out the procedure, from (a) to (d). The hon. member also referred to (d). From (a) to (d) this new position is dealt with. The Department will now hold the preliminary discussions. It will sound the local authority to hear when they are ready, because it is usually the local authority which makes proposals; it is usually not the public. The public, however, reacts to the proposals. But there must be a body which submits proposals. Now it will be the Department, the Regional Under-Secretary of the Department. The Regional Under-Secretary for Cape Town has an area falling under him. From time to time he will get into contact with all those towns falling under him to ascertain how far they are able to submit proposals. After obtaining them these proposals will be published and when the reaction has been received the Board will go and investigate, just as in the past. Then the Board steps in. Therefore, my argument in my second-reading speech was that it is really better that the Department should do this preliminary work, and not the Board. Because actually the Board will now be a completely independent body which will be able to deal even with the Department’s proposals. The Board can even decide on it. The accusation was made in the past that the Board was really deciding on its own proposals. The matter went to court. The decision of the court was that the Board was empowered to decide on its own proposals, but we are changing the position because we consider that it is better for the Board to decide as an independent body on all proposals submitted to it, including those of the Department.

Sub-section (e) deals with another matter. There is the question of permits in which the public is interested. There the Minister in any case has the power in terms of (2) (b) to decide whether there should be advertisement. The practice has always been to advertise, and I intend continuing that practice, where the public is interested in a particular site or property. But where it affects an individual and nobody else is interested in it, that individual only receives notice. Sub-section (2) (b) provides for that. Therefore subsection (5) is unnecessary. I just want hon. members to distinguish between these two matters. One is the procedure followed when the Board decides; the other is the procedure followed when the Minister decides. That has always been so and no change is being made there. It is merely being placed in the hands of other instruments to handle the preliminary procedure.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

Mr. Chairman, Clause 8 substitutes Section 9 of the principal Act. There is a very important point which we have to deal with in this particular clause. You will appreciate, Sir, that the passing of this Bill will mean that the staff of the Board will become civil servants.

That has always been so.

Yes, but I just want to emphasize that for the sake of argument. I am not making an issue of that; I am merely stating that is the position. But the members of the Board are not civil servants. The fact that an individual member of the Board may become the Secretary of the Department is quite beside the point; that has nothing to do with the status of the members of the Board. Section 9 (1), which is being inserted, reads—

This is fine legal language—“if any member of the Board who directly or indirectly receives any fee or reward …”. In other words, Sir, if he takes bribes. If he takes bribes he can be punished by imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year. He is not given the option of a fine. The Minister quite clearly feels that this is a very serious crime. I now come to the point that the members of the Board are not civil servants. If a civil servant gets a fee or reward, in other words, if he takes a bribe, he is dealt with in another Statute altogether. Therefore, we do not have to deal with his case now. That is, the case of the staff of this body. We are dealing with the members of the Board and the members of the Board alone in this clause. I want to say that we on this side of the House think that one year is entirely inadequate. The members of the Board, as has been pointed out before in previous debates, are in a specially responsible position. They occupy a position where they have to deal with recommendations, and permits, etc. They get recommendations of all kinds, recommendations which deal with properties and everything that goes with it. The duty which is imposed upon them, Sir, is a heavy one, the responsibility is a great one, but the temptation is equally great. I propose to move an amendment—

I move that amendment not because we think three years is adequate punishment; because we do not think so. We say that if a member of the Board is convicted for taking bribes he “shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years”. But we also say that he may not again hold office under this Act or the associated Act, the Group Areas Development Act. In our opinion he would be permanently unsuited for such a position. There are probably few instances in our Statutes where a group of people are charged with such far-reaching responsibilities as the individuals who constitute thiS Board. I think Parliament has got to show that it is determined, by a provision of this kind, to see that there are only the straightest dealings and the most honest official contact between the Board on the one side and the public on the other side.

I quite agree with the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) that the members of the Board must be people of irreproachable character and great integrity. Hitherto we have been very fortunate, ever since the Act was placed on the Statute Book, to have had members of the Board who were of very high calibre. I do not think the hon. member meant, by his motion, to cast any reflection on the persons who served on the Board in the past.

Not in the least.

Many of the members of the Board have retired at various stages and are to-day again ordinary citizens, and all of them acquitted themselves of their task honourably. In regard to the present members of the Board I want to say that I have the greatest respect for their integrity and the way in which they are doing very difficult work. I quite agree with the hon. member that a premium should be placed on the integrity of these people. It will also create confidence in the minds of the public if they know that they are dealing with people of outstanding character.

This clause has really just been redrafted and that is the reason why it makes provision for one year only. We simply had to exclude the ordinary public service, because they fall under the provisions of the Public Service Act. That is the only reason why this clause was drafted in this way. I quite agree with the hon. member, and if he agrees with me that it is not intended as an insult to the ex-members or the present members but rather as an expression of confidence in their integrity and in order to give them the status they should have, then I am prepared to accept this amendment.

May I thank the hon. the Minister for accepting my amendment and say at once that no reflection whatever is intended on the past members of the Board or on the present members. Not for that matter, do we anticipate for one moment that the Minister will appoint as members of the Board people in whom he has not got the highest faith in their integrity and the belief that they will do their duty very honestly and sincerely to the very best of their ability. In other words, we believe the Minister will appoint honourable men. We have no reason whatever to doubt that.

I appreciate what the Minister has said and may I assure him that we entirely support him in what he has said about the need for the public to have the fullest faith in the integrity of the members of the Board. We have to differentiate between civil servants and the members of the Board. The punishment for a civil servant is not merely the possibility of a year’s imprisonment but it obviously means the loss of his employment. It does not mean that in the case of the members of the Board. A civil servant may have given years of his life in the service of the State. If he gets a conviction by chance and he loses his job, his pension rights, who knows what he is going to suffer. He suffers far more than merely the imprisonment. In the case of a member of the Board, the position is totally different. He is appointed to the Board and if perchance he should be convicted, he is not losing the whole of his life’s work as the civil servant is losing. That was why we thought that in this case the possible penalty should be higher. We thank the Minister for having accepted our amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 12,

I just want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he could give us a reason for the insertion of the words “from time to time”. I presume it is simply to enable a permit to be issued for renewal. If that is correct, Sir, then I hope the Minister will be prepared to give us an assurance that in all these cases where human rights and human feelings are involved, matters will be brought to a definite conclusion as early as possible. If, for instance, a person has a right to trade which extends over a long period it is obviously desirable that he should be confirmed in that right at the earliest possible time and not be dependent on a permit which is renewable. In other words, Sir, I hope that the inclusion of the words “from time to time ”, if my interpretation is correct, will not mean that the permits will be given for short periods realizing that there is an indefinite power of extension. I shall be very glad if the hon. the Minister will explain the position.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prejudice the decisions of the Board. That is the only reason why I have taken this step. Until I have been advised by the Board, I must be able to act in this way.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 15,

I would like the hon. the Minister to explain the exact purpose of and the circumstances under which he is going to apply this clause. As it reads now, Sir, one might almost describe it as some form of blackmail or coercion clause, because it involves the granting of a permit—and it reads that way—to somebody, provided he vacates the premises which he presently occupies, before he can occupy other premises. The hon. the Minister will know that this can apply, as I read it, where there is an exchange of residential premises for business premises, or vice versa. It can apply in the case of an exchange of land in a new area to which the person is going to be moved, for land in an area from which he is going to be moved. I believe cases have actually happened where a person has not been able to occupy premises owned by him because he owned premises in another area. I would like the Minister to explain to us exactly how he intends to apply this and for what particular reason he has inserted this new Section 8ter in this Bill.

The only reason is this. The Minister can of course attach conditions to a permit. It has already happened that people ask us for a permit to establish a larger business. The person voluntarily applies for a permit. He is not compelled to do so. He tells us that he would like to go to an area where he can acquire a bigger business. Then we ask him: “Very well, what is your argument?” Then he says the place he has now is a small business, with a small staff, and he wants to expand. Then we say yes, we will give it to him, but we ask whether he will give up this place so that he can assist us in implementing the Act and then he says yes. When we have issued the permit he jibs and says no. Thus he has really killed two birds with one stone, under false pretences and with our consent. The only power we are taking now, when such a person comes to us for a permit to do business elsewhere because he will be able to do more business there and employ a bigger staff, is to tell him: “Very well, we will give it to you on the conditions you ask for,” but then we have the right under this clause to insert these conditions in terms of the Act, and then he must abide by them. That is the reason.

One of the difficulties I have with this clause is that there is no definition of the word “premises”. The word “premises” could mean business premises or residential premises. The example which the hon. the Minister gave was reasonable enough. But what is the position when the individual wants a permit to live in a residential area and the official says: “Yes, you can have such a permit provided you give up your business premises.” I presume it is not intended to cover that and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would explain to us how it is that it avoids having that affect.

The Minister has told us that when an individual has a small business and he wants to go to another area where he can expand his business, he will receive a permit to do so provided he gives up the premises which he occupies at the moment. But what happens when he wants to keep the small premises as well. He started there, he has a good clientele there but he wants to develop his business somewhere else as well. Has he got to give up his small business simply because he wants to expand his business somewhere else. That is the point.

It all depends whether he applies.

Say he does apply. He has a small business; he has made money and he now wants to go to another area but he does not want to give up the small business where he had started. Many businesses are started in a small way and develop into big ones.

If he does not qualify I invoke the provisions of this proviso.

In other words, he will only be allowed to open the bigger premises provided he gives up the smaller one.

In certain circumstances, yes, if he does not qualify.

I regret to say that the hon. the Minister’s explanation is not very convincing. I feel that I can best explain my objection to this clause by quoting an actual case. You see, Mr. Chairman, before the Group Areas Act came into being at all, certain people invested money in property in various areas in the Cape Peninsula and elsewhere and certain Coloured people and certain Indian people and certain European people acquired various properties in various parts of the Cape Peninsula. Now take the case of an Indian man, an actual case, who has got a shop, say in Mowbray, which has been declared an affected area, or a European area. He can only carry on his business under permit. He also owns property in another area which is also an affected area. His shop becomes vacant, or he cannot let it. He says: “I would like to occupy that shop which I cannot let.” I had a case like that and I went to the Government, but he was refused. Why he should have been refused to occupy his own property, I do not know. It has to stand there unoccupied because it is in an affected area. Now the Minister wants this power to say to this man: “All right, you want to go to that shop that is unoccoupied. You must give up the other shop.” I know of an Indian man who has done very well in Wale Street, Cape Town. He owns property in other areas. Now the Minister’s Department will say: “If your shop in Wynberg, which is an affected area, becomes vacant, you shall not occupy that unless you give up your shop in Wale Street.” That is very hard indeed, because it is not these people’s fault that an Act was brought into being after they had purchased these properties. The hon. the Minister has given us the assurance that he will carry out this permit system with sympathy, but he must remember that it is now in the hands of an official to grant that permit.

That has always been so.

I know. I am only trying to point out the hardships that may follow. I am not suggesting that the Minister is not bona fide but I am suggesting that this particular clause, this weapon in the hands of an official, can be very hard on the people who fall under it. I would rather see the hon. the Minister to allow this clause to stand over, so that we can talk to him and point out the effect of this clause, in the hands of an official who may not be so sympathetic as the hon. the Minister may be to-day. After all, officials come and officials go and governments come and governments go, but I have heard it said before in this House that power in the hands of officials …

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

Sir, I am speaking to the clause. The granting of this permit is in the hands of an official, and I say that if an official has this power to say to any man “You must close up your shop” when the man may have occupied the shop for 20 years and which is a shop which gives him a good living, in order to go to another property which is his own property, it is a weapon which I feel should not be given to any official, and I appeal to the hon. the Minister to let this clause stand over so that the hon. the Minister can consider the harshness of it, and I think with the courtesy he has shown in these matters, he will consider again the taking of such powers.

The hon. member knows that I implement this section of the Act in the most sympathetic manner.

I said so.

He knows; he has experience of it.

But what about the officials?

If the official refuses there is an appeal to the Minister. The Act provides that there is the right of appeal in the case of every permit. If the hon. member looks at Sec. 18 (2) (a), he will see that it is stated that the Minister will not order any permit to be issued in terms of sub-sec. (1) (a) which authorizes the acquisition or occupation or fixed property or land or sites in the group area unless he is of opinion that the refusal of the permit will result in unfair hardship to the person concerned, or that the issue of the permit is in the interest of the group for which the group area has been established. I want to give the hon. member the assurance to-night that these two principles are continually being taken into consideration, and the moment there are signs of possible hardships the most sympathetic attitude is taken and exceptions are made. That is the accepted policy and all the officials dealing with it know it, and that is why there are so few appeals which come to the Minister, merely a small handful, because the officials act in accordance with that spirit. But now it should not be thought that all the people affected by this Act are angels, and this is intended to deal with the people who are not angels, who have given an undertaking but have not carried it out. That is why we have inserted this provision. It is only those people whom we want to deal with. People who treat us decently and submit a case to us on its merits are treated decently by us.

I think the hon. Minister during the short time that he has been in charge of this kind of legislation, has indeed earned the reputation of dealing with the matters placed before him in a humane and satisfactory manner, but I do not think that Parliament is called upon to enshrine legislation on the Statute Book on the reputation of any particular Minister. Once this legislation is adopted, it is legislation quite irrespective of whether the present Minister remains in his office or somebody else occupies it. With all the best will in the world, I cannot subscribe to the doctrine that Parliament should be asked to promulgate through this particular clause, legislation of the type enshrined in the clause, which sets no limit as far as the powers that might be exercised are concerned. The hon. the Minister gave us an example of the way in which it might be operated, and the way in which he probably would operate it. But the clause has no limitation placed on it—

There is no limitation, and, if an individual so likes to use it, there is a distinct power of coercion contained in it. You must approach this legislation with the full knowledge that the average person to whom it applies is already suffering a sense of tremendous frustration by having in some shape or form to give up his own property which he many have acquired over a number of years, and he approached the question already frustrated and embittered; When the Minister says that we must not believe that all the people involved are angels, I agree with him—

Those who were angels are shedding their wings fast over some of the treatment that has been meted out to them under the Act.

I can quote a case similar to that quoted by the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett), of a man who has had to pay rates and taxes on premises for now almost five years, and has never been allowed to occupy those premises, despite appeal after appeal to the Department. He lives on the same premises but he cannot carry on his business there. Would you expect that man to remain an angel? And here is a typical case whereby powers would be given to coerce that man; by meeting him in some other direction. The particular obstacle preventing him from occupying his own premises could be overcome and he could be asked to give that property in return for allowing him to occupy other premises that he has got. I do not believe it is the type of legislation Parliament should be asked to pass. With the best Minister in the world, it is wrong for Parliament to accept any legislation which provides a coercion factor on the individual to whom the legislation is going to apply.

I cannot understand how hon. members opposite can think that they are doing these people a favour by wanting to delete this clause. The fact is that this clause really gives the Minister the opportunity to issue a permit which in other circumstances he would not have issued.

Where do you get that from?

If the hon. member would be a little more patient, he would become wiser. Supposing an application is made for a permit in respect of a certain site and the Minister is of the opinion that because the man already has a permit for another site he would have granted the permit in respect of this site if he did not have the other one. All he wants to do is to attach a condition to it: “You may have a permit for that site which suits you better and is more convenient for you and more advantageous to you, but then the other site must be deleted from your permit. That is what it amounts to. The Minister has a weapon in his hand. If provision is not made for these details, the Minister need only refuse and say: “No, now I refuse it”, for something which is much more valuable to the man than the previous site. The Minister says: “I will not give it to you because I have no provision in the Act to compel you to give up the other site”. Therefore I say that this clause is definitely in favour of these people, in the sense that it gives the Minister the opportunity to grant them a permit which is much more advantageous to them, but subject only to the above-mentioned condition.

I don’t altogether agree with the hon. member who has just sat down that this is really in favour of the applicant and that it is giving the Minister, as he put it, an opportunity to meet the wishes of an applicant, whereas otherwise the Minister would not have that power. I don’t agree. I think there is some confusion about this clause.

I admit it is a difficult clause, but I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will bear with me if I put the position, to see whether we have got the thing right: Firstly, the question of the permit referred to in (8)ter, authorizing the occupation of land or premises, in presumably a controlled area or a group area where the applicant is not a member of the group for which that group area has been proclaimed; he is a disqualified person … I say “presumably”, because if it was for a group area in respect of which the applicant was not a disqualified person, he would not need to get a permit from the Minister. I hope the Minister will tell me whether my interpretation is correct. Let me repeat it: I assume that the applicant for the permit, referred to here, makes an application in respect of land or premises in a controlled area, or a group area where the applicant is a disqualified person.

Yes.

That has not been clear.

Not a controlled area, because there he could not be unqualified.

Well it might be a movement from one race to another. So the first point is that the premises that he wants licensed are in respect of an area where he is a disqualified person, and he would have no right as such at all. He could have gone to a group area for a race of which he is a member.

Except for 16bis areas.

Yes, let us go on and come to that presently. The point is that the Bill makes provision that “on or before the date upon which he commences to occupy such land or premises, he shall vacate any other land or premises specified in the permit”. Now again I take it that the land or premises that he has to vacate are in an area where again he is a disqualified person.

Correct.

If that is so, then the hon. member for Ceres is quite wrong.

Oh no.

You did not follow my argument.

The position is now: An individual has premises in a group area, in a sector in which he is a disqualified person …

Or he may apply for a permit in a 16bis area.

The point is that he requires a permit. He cannot stay there without a permit. Now he applies to the Minister for a permit, but he applies to the Minister for a permit not to move into a group area set aside for people of his race and colour, but to go into an area where he will still be a person who must have a permit from the Minister to carry on that business, and the hon. the Minister so far as this clause is concerned says “I will allow you to go from an area where you have no right to remain, or from which you can be removed in terms of the statute, and I will allow you to go to another area and adopt other premises where still without a permit you would not be allowed to remain. I will allow you to go to those premises only on condition that you vacate these”. But of course he still has no guarantee that he is going to be allowed beyond the terms of the permit to remain in the new premises to which he goes. The question of him moving to an area where he is qualified to go does not come into this section at all, nowhere. The Minister has got the power in his own hands. What troubles me is this: Why does the Minister put it in such a fashion that, may I say, it looks as if there is a shadow cast on the transaction, not necessarily a shadow so far as the Minister is concerned but on the transaction as a whole; it savours of a little bit of horsetrading when it does not seem to be necessary. It seems to me that the Minister can simply say: You are in an area where

you are a disqualified person. You must get out. He says “Well, allright, where do I go”. The answer is “You can go to an area in which you will be qualified, a group area for your race and colour and you need no permit from the Minister”. And the Minister can say to him “I will give you time to do that”. The Minister can even go so far as to say “I’ll let you remain here as long as you change your business and adopt another kind of business.” The Minister has power to do that. But the Minister has not said that. He has said “You must go”. Now the man comes along to the Minister and says “ I have found a place to which I want to go. I am still a disqualified person there. It is not in an area for my own race and colour. I will still be a disqualified person. But will you give me a permit to go there?” The Minister says “Yes, I will give you a permit to go there and to occupy property there”. The Minister has got that power. Why put a clause in making it look as if there is some kind of a bargain, a bit of horsetrading, by saying “Allright I will give you a permit to go there where you are not entitled to be as long as you leave here where you are also not entitled to be”.

The hon. member for Ceres is quite correct and the hon. member who has just sat down should just have listened carefully to the position as expounded by the hon. member for Ceres. If this provision is not included, the Minister is really in a much weaker position to assist that person. Because if he has a permit in respect of an area where he is disqualified, and the Minister considers that the time has arrived to grant that whole area only to qualified persons, then the Minister really has no way out for that person unless he can put him in an area for which that person qualifies. Now hon. members continually complain that such people are driven to undeveloped areas. But last year we provided for the 16bis area, and now it happens that people who become interested in that area come along and say: “We can see advantages to us in going there, to an area for which the Act makes provision, but here we are disqualified, here we cannot really expand; nor do you want to allow us to expand here in an area where we are disqualified and which must eventually be developed for the qualified group.” But now the Minister is in a quandary. Then the person says, “I will go there”. Then the Minister says “Very well, I wifi allow you to go there, but then you must pull up your roots here where you are disqualified and where you see no chance to remain longer.”

He cannot be there without a permit in any case.

But unless I have this weapon, I have no alternative for him. Then I can simply refuse, because otherwise he may succeed in eventually having two, three or four sites in an area where he is disqualified. The person perhaps now has one or two small businesses in the area for which he is disqualified, but I would like to make him qualify, and in a 16bis area he is qualified in terms of the provisions dealing with the 16bis area. I think the hon. member should cogitate on what the hon. member for Ceres has told him. This is in fact a measure to eliminate further hardships which might arise.

I think so far as the Minister has dealt with this clause I can agree, and also with the hon. member for Ceres. It is quite clear that this clause can be used to the benefit of the person who is applying. The point raised by the hon. member for South Coast is the converse and can equally apply —it is this that this section can be misused. The provision whereby the Minister can grant a permit subject to a condition that another permit will lapse can certainly be used to the benefit of the person concerned. But it cannot be denied that it could also be used to the detriment of an applicant in different circumstances.

How?

The applicant is applying for a permit. Let us take the case of an applicant who has for example a business and he is hoping to acquire the residence. The Minister is prepared to give him a permit to acquire a residence provided he gives up the permit for the business, or it may be, being a trader, that he has a permit in respect of a certain area where he has a business and he desires to open another business in another area to which there is no objection. There may be circumstances in which it may be grossly injust only to grant a permit for a new business, or residence as the case may be, subject to a condition, that another permit which already has been issued, will lapse. Sir, I think I am right to say this to the hon. the Minister that apparently in terms of this clause he could attach that condition even without giving the applicant the option of retaining his present permit. If the person has a permit under the Group Areas Act and he applies for another permit, it seems to me that without consulting the person in any way, the Minister could grant a permit subject to the withdrawal of the permit in respect of the first-mentioned property. But the applicant would not have proceeded with his application had he known that was the condition. I think the hon. the Minister will agree.

Then I will be accused of creating a hardship.

Yes, I agree, and we say that under this clause the Minister will be able to create hardships.

No.

I am very serious about this. Both the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Ceres have only seen one way in which this clause can be used. Now there is quite clearly another way in which it can be used and then to the detriment of the applicant, and one would like to see a safeguard designed to meet that position. The hon. member for Ceres will not contradict me when I say that a person who is in the position of many unhappy people in this country that he has to have a permit for a particular property, if he applies for a permit in respect of another property that could be granted subject to the cancellation of the other permit he has. If there is an answer to that, I should like the hon. the Minister or the hon. member for Ceres to give me that answer. The man is remediless, because having put in an application for a permit, believing he would retain the existing permit, he suddenly finds that his application has been granted, but that he has lost the other permit which is of great value to him.

Is that not conditional to acceptance?

No, it is not a condition of acceptance at all. This is a case where the Minister in exercising discretionary rights has exercised his right, as he will be able to do if this clause is passed into law, to attach a condition to the permit he issued and the applicant can’t say a thing about it. The law has permitted the Minister to do that. It would be grossly unreasonable for any Minister to do this without the consent in writing at least of the applicant concerned. I don’t think it can be disputed that such a step could be taken and we would like to see a guarantee inserted here.

In this clause I see an attempt to get rid of disqualified persons from the areas where they have become disqualified, and in this I see the direct consequence of the amendment we passed last year under Section 16bis, where we created these special areas. In the past the allegation was that the Minister was creating cases of hardship by driving out people from an area where they have become disqualified, particularly people owning properties in which they carried on business, without there being a refuge for them in the areas where they are in fact qualified persons, areas which are still undeveloped. Let me say that it is these disqualified persons with a business who are the most difficult people to remove from these areas. One has a whole community, perhaps without any disqualified persons, but there are one or two traders still sitting there and one cannot get them out. Now last year we inserted Section 16bis to find a refuge for these people so that the area could be cleared up. But now we find ourselves in the position where these people can obtain a permit to move and they can start a business in the special areas, but we still do not get rid of them in the old area, although the special area is available. Now you give a man a permit to go to the special area and to carry on business there, but you are still landed with him in this area where he is disqualified and from which you want to remove him. Unless the Minister has the powers under this clause, the special areas will not have the value I and others saw in them, viz. that it is a means of getting rid of disqualified persons in the areas where they have become disqualified. If we want to implement the Act, our object should also be to remove disqualified persons from the places where they have become disqualified, and for that purpose Clause 15 was inserted.

The last speaker has indicated the true intention of this clause. It is quite obvious that his explanation is not the same as that given by the hon. the Minister, or the hon. member for Ceres.

I have just told the hon. member for South Coast exactly the same.

Oh no, Sir. The hon. member for Parow says that this clause will be used as a weapon to get disqualified people out of areas …

How can you use this clause as a weapon when it depends on an application of the person concerned?

I will tell you how you can do it, and how I think you intend doing it. Don’t let us get heated up about this matter; let us try and deal with this matter calmly. The hon. Minister already has powers given to him under Section 18 of the original Act, and I say that those powers were given to the Minister in the widest possible terms. In terms of Section 18 of Act 77 of 1957, the Minister may, subject to sub-section (2) (I will deal with that in a moment) “in his discretion on written application direct permits to be issued subject to such conditions as he may determine”.

On a written application. Why did you read that so softly?

Yes, on application. Such a permit shall be made subject to such conditions as the hon. the Minister may himself determine. But Parliament imposed this restriction on the Minister’s powers that those conditions shall apply to the premises in respect of which the application is made. In other words, if I go to the hon. the Minister and ask for a permit to own or occupy premises, the hon. the Minister, subject to the provision that he may not inflict a hardship upon me, is entitled to impose such conditions as he in his sole discretion may determine in relation to my holding or occupying those premises, in other words, the premises in respect of which the application is made. But under the clause that we are considering at the moment, Section 8ter, the Minister takes unto himself the power that he may authorize a permit for the occupation of land or premises, subject to the condition that the person to whom it is issued shall on or before the date upon which he commences to occupy such land or premises, vacate any other land or premises specified in the permit. In other words, quite apart from the property in respect of which I make an application to the hon. the Minister, he can in his discretion grant my application in respect of those new premises, but subject to the condition that I shall vacate premises which are wholly unrelated to the premises in respect of which I make such application. The point the hon. the Minister fails to see, and the hon. member for Ceres who is a lawyer, should see, is just that. The offending words in the clause that we are discussing at the moment are these “that the Minister can impose a condition upon an applicant to vacate any other land or premises specified in the permit”, premises which are wholly unconnected and in no way related to the premises in respect of which the application is made to the hon. the Minister. Now if that is not a form of coercion, as was suggested by the hon. member for Simonstown, I do not know what is. While I was speaking earlier on, the hon. Minister interjected “In what respect can I impose this when it can only be done as a result of a written application”? I want to put it to him, I want to take a hypothetical case, because I do not know of an existing case: A man occupies a place of residence in a controlled area in the City of Cape Town, a place like Woodstock. Let us take it that he acquires premises in an area such as Athlone and that he is a Cape Indian. Now, he cannot go and occupy his business premises in Athlone without having applied to the Minister for a permit and having been granted such a permit. Accordingly, he proceeds to file an application with the hon. Minister’s Department asking for a permit to allow him to occupy his own business premises in Athlone. He needs those premises and the permit. In ordinary circumstances the hon. Minister can consider that application in terms of the law as it stands at the moment, on its merits and can decide whether or not to grant the application. If he decides to grant it, it might be made subject to such conditions as the hon. Minister may impose in relation to the new premises in Athlone. Under this clause, however, the hon. Minister can turn round to that applicant and say to him “I am sorry, but while I am prepared to allow you to go to your own premises in Athlone, it will be subject to the condition that you vacate on or before the date on which you take occupation of your new premises in Athlone, the premises which you occupy in Woodstock”. The hon. Minister will therefore be forcing this man to vacate his present premises in order to occupy his other premises. This is the strongest form of coercion I can possibly imagine.

He has the option.

Yes, he has the option either to take or to leave it. So what has this poor man to do? He has to give up one of his premises at the whim of the Minister. He will not be allowed to reside in one place on a property which he has occupied for perhaps 25 years, if he wants to go and occupy other premises in another area.

Order! I have for the sake of clarity permitted the hon. member to continue with his speech so far, but I want to point out to him that what he said is really a repetition of what was said by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay).

I am sorry, Sir, if you think that I am repeating what has already been said, but I think the point I raised has not yet been raised in the debate so far, except that the point that this was coercion had been made by the hon. member for Simonstown. I repeat, Sir, that in my view …

Order! The hon. member said he was sorry if he was repeating but now he starts off again by saying that he wants to repeat!

I just want to say that the offending words are to be found in the last few lines of the proposed new Section 8ter where the hon. Minister seeks the power to issue a permit for the occupation of premises subject to the condition that the applicant, an innocent man, shall vacate any other land or premises which has no connection whatever with the premises in respect of which the application has been made. It is my view that the hon. Minister is hereby taking unto himself unnecessarily extended powers while he already has adequate powers under the existing law. This clause is, therefore, an offensive one and should not be passed.

If the hon. Minister wants to get through this Bill on the basis of sincere and genuine debate, he should impose a ban of perpetual silence on the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé). This hon. member told the House that this clause would be used to get rid of certain people who occupied premises under permit in controlled areas where they were disqualified persons. I merely want to place it on record that this is the purpose underlying this clause and that instead of being intended to help people as the hon. Minister intimated, it is there to get rid of people whom the hon. Minister cannot get rid of by any other means.

I want to associate myself with what the hon. members for Boland and for Peninsula said. There is something else I want to point out to the hon. Minister and that is that the Minister admitted that the application of this clause will be left in the hands of an official. The hon. Minister said that all these applicants would not be angels. Now, Sir, I have great respect for many officials and I have met many of them with whom it was a pleasure to deal. But all officials are not angels either. The hon. Minister wanted to know why we made a fuss about it because if there was dissatisfaction with a decision of the official concerned, there would be an appeal. Sir, that sounds easy, but as a person who has had to deal with many of these appeals, I can assure the House that these appeals take time and cost money. Neither have all these people a Member of Parliament at their beck and call who can go on their behalf to the Secretary of the Department concerned or to the Minister. There is another aspect to this. You might be dealing with a person occupying business premises in a controlled area and who wants to occupy other premises in another area … [Interjections.] Sir, I would like to appeal to you to ask the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) to cease his sing songs. It is impossible for me to go on while he does that. I am dealing with the very livelihood of people under this clause and with their homes which they have bought and paid for, and yet I have to hear such stupid nonsense from the hon. member. Mr. Chairman, I would like your ruling in this matter.

Order! The hon. member may proceed with his speech. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, am I or the hon. member for Cradock making this speech? I am endeavouring to continue my speech but despite your ruling, the hon. member for Cradock has not kept quiet as yet.

Mr. Chairman, I want to appeal to you on behalf of the hon. member. I think this is most unfair. I appeal to you, Sir, to ask other hon. members to give the hon. member a chance to make his speech without these continual interruptions. They may not like his point of view, but this is Parliament where he is entitled to a fair hearing. I appeal to you, Sir, to protect the hon. member.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Sir, I was saying that it is quite possible that you might get a case where a person occupying certain premises might apply to occupy premises in another area where he might also be disqualified, and that it might be more suitable for him to take occupation of the new premises. I can also foresee that he might then be told by the official administering this clause that he would have to vacate his present premises.

Order! That argument has been used over and over again.

I accept, Sir, that the argument has already been used, but the point I would like to establish is that where a matter such as this is left in the hands of an official who might not be as sympathetic as the hon. Minister himself would have liked to be, undue hardship can be suffered by the victims. I have already come across cases in my time where the action of officials has caused great hardship. I will quote one example which, I hope, will serve as a warning to the hon. Minister. The example I want to quote is of a case where a certain municipality had taken a decision and at the subsequent session of the Group Areas Board stood by their decision. After that a very highly placed official of the Group Areas Board visited that town and subsequent to that municipality changed it’s original decision. I ascribe that to this officials zeal and to his desire to see the Act being applied as he thought best. Nevertheless it caused great consternation to the people involved. That specific area has not yet been proclaimed and I do not know what the outcome will be.

What has that got to do with this clause?

It has this to do with it, namely that in all sections of officialdom you will find officials who do their duty to the best of their ability …

Order! But that is not under discussion.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister told the House this evening that the application of this clause will be left in the hands of an official and that there will be an appeal against the decisions of that official to another official and from this official to the Minister. What I am trying to point out to the hon. Minister, Sir, is that I have very grave doubts that if the matter is going to be left in the hands of an official, it will be administered in the way the hon. Minister said he wants to see it administered.

Mr. Chairman, great trepidation was expressed to-night in regard to the potentialities of this clause, but the only trouble which can result, I think, was clearly stated by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker), that where an applicant applies for a permit to occupy a certain site, the hon. the Minister can grant it on condition that the applicant abandons another site. The hon. member alleged that such a condition could be enforced. I differ from him and therefore I think it is necessary to have clarity on the matter. We must realize that a permit is a concession granted by the Minister. In cases where the granting of a permit is justified, it is issued, and in cases where it is not regarded as justified it is refused. The applicant for a permit cannot in any case demand a permit, with the result that the Minister is justified in refusing such a permit.

Then I want to point out further that if such an application is refused, the applicant concerned will not be in a worse position than he was in. That is what hon. members seem to expect to be the case. I want to put it this way to the hon. member for Germiston (District), that when an applicant applies to the Minister for a permit in respect of a certain site, he applies on the supposition that the permit he obtains will be unblemished, i.e. not subject to the condition that he should give up other sites. If the Minister then say he is prepared to grant the permit on condition that other sites are abandoned, from the very nature of the case that is an offer by the Minister to the applicant, and that offer is certainly not enforceable. If the applicant then feels that he would rather do without the permit than to accept the condition, he can refuse to accept the Minister’s offer. The hon. member for Germiston (District) will surely agree with me that this will be the interpretation placed by the courts on a provision of this nature. Surely it is the correct interpretation, and if he agrees with me here he must admit that no applicant for a permit can be worse off than his position was before applying. On the contrary, he can only improve his position.

The hon. Minister has intimated that the provisions of this clause would not be used to lever somebody out of business premises when he asked for a permit for residential purposes in another area, and vice versa. This is a very important aspect of this clause and, therefore, I would like to move as an amendment—

The only premises a person could be asked to vacate in exchange for new premises, would be premises on which he could reside only on the authority of a permit from the Minister. I would like the hon. Minister to indicate whether my amendment is acceptable to him. As a matter of fact, I am sure that he will accept it. Otherwise there is no limit to what can be specified as having to be vacated. Such premises could, as a matter of fact, be anywhere in the country. A person could even be asked to vacate his farm in the Free State so that he could have a permit to keep property in Woodstock.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

AYES—32: Barnett, C.; Bloomberg, A.;

Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Dur-rant, R. B.; Gay, L. C.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Holland, M. W.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Wood, L. F.

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

NOES—69: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H .T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.: Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotzé, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, T.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.: Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 21.

I rise to draw the attention of the hon. Minister to the operation of Section 24 of the Act which it is intended to amend by Clause 21 of this Bill. I do not propose to move any amendment but I would like to draw the attention of the hon. Minister to the fact that great difficulties encountered as a result of the operation of this section in respect of mortgages where there are sales in execution. It is, of course, necessary that a permit must be obtained if the lender falls under a group which differs from that of the borrower. This is especially the case now that the Government is proposing to build up Indian and Coloured townships and, as a matter of fact, also Native townships because the provisions of this section can just as well be applied to them. It is a well-known fact that in the vast majority of cases the mortgages in these townships belongs to a group other than the particular group living in that township. It does not, to a large extent, extend to mortgagees who are White unless they are in a disqualified area.

Order! The hon. member is not entitled to discuss Section 24 of the Act. He should confine himself to the amendment which is proposed in the clause now under consideration.

If that is so, Sir, and as I have already mentioned my difficulty to the Department, I will not take it any further at this stage. Perhaps the hon. Minister could indicate whether anything can be done to meet my difficulty.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 22,

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) intended to move an amendment to this clause, but unfortunately he could not be here to-night. I have been asked by him to move it on his behalf—

1. (b) The Minister shall cause a copy of every proclamation issued under paragraph (a) to be laid upon the Tables of both Houses of Parliament within 14 days after publication thereof if Parliament is then in ordinary session or if Parliament is not then in ordinary session within 14 days after the commencement of its next ensuing ordinary session.
2. (c) Every such proclamation shall cease to have the force of law 30 days after it has been laid upon the Tables of both Houses of Parliament unless before that date it has been approved by Act of Parliament.

I should like to draw the attention of the hon. Minister to the fact that he accepted a similar amendment from the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) last year in connection with the Bill to establish Coloured areas and I hope the hon. Minister will be prepared to accept such an amendment in this Bill also. The clause now under discussion is one of the most contentious clauses of the Bill. It deals with the establishment of management and consultative committees which by itself is not so serious as the proposed establishment by the new proposed Section 25 bis of local authorities which entails the carving out of local authorities from the areas of existing local authorities. This new section gives tremendous powers to the Minister which it is not necessary to discuss now because it was discussed during the second reading of the Bill. If this amendment is accepted, Sir, then at least this Bill will be brought into line with the measure about Coloured areas which was passed last year. It will also ensure that the prerogatives of Parliament will be preserved. The clause as it stands gives power to the hon. Minister to ride rough shod over the powers of existing local authorities and of provincial councils. If this amendment is accepted, however, he would have to come back to this House and report on any action he has taken. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Minister will be prepared to accept this amendment because the amendment incorporates a very necessary safeguard.

I should like to comment particularly on the proposed establishment of management and consultative committees.

Order! That is a principle which was accepted at the second reading of the Bill.

I agree, Sir, and that is not what I want to discuss. What I do want to discuss is the provision for consultation under this clause. It is laid down in this clause that the Minister need only consult with the administrator of the province concerned. My problem is that in a province such as the Cape which is so vast and embraces so many local authorities, the Administrator cannot be expected to know about every aspect of local government in every part of the province. I want to prove to the Minister that surely the local authority concerned, from which he will possibly excise an area, is the body more likely to know of the conditions which exist and under what conditions these consultative or management committees should be established. They will be the people best suited to advise him as to the best manner of setting up these new local authorities he envisages. I would suggest, then, that it is far more important that he should consult with the local authority concerned than with the Administrator. I do not mean by that he should not consult with the Administrator.

The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) quite correctly pointed out that last year in a different context a similar amendment was accepted. I just want to point out to him that the Interpretation Act provides that—

So it is really not necessary. But apart from that, I am quite prepared to accept the first part of the amendment, viz. (b), that the Minister should lay on the Table of both Houses a copy of every proclamation issued under sub-para. (a). But I am afraid I cannot accept (c). The reason is simply that I do not intend to come here to make laws as the result of these provisions. If regulations have to be made establishing such local authorities such as the management committees envisaged in 25bis, it must be done in consonance with the ordinances of the province. That brings me immediately to the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis), who pleaded that there should also be further consultation with local authorities. Of couse there must be. But I want to tell the hon. member that I do not intend, when I appoint that ad hoc committee, not to consult the local authority and that I shall probably give it representation on that committee. I think that is no more than right. What is more, in terms of 25 (4) it is provided that certain things can be done in terms of the regulations. I think it will facilitate the discussion if I say now that we are at the moment drafting a set of regulations. As soon as it is ready I will submit it to the four Executive Committees of the four provinces, and to the Administrators. But I shall go further. I shall also submit it to the four executives of the four Municipal Associations, and only after having submitted those regulations to them will I promulgate them. In other words, our intention is to co-operate as closely as possible with those people. We realize that we cannot make a success of this unless it is done with the goodwill and friendship of the Provincial Administrations and of the local authorities. [Interjection.] I shall do so before I promulgate the regulations. In regard to (c), I regret that I cannot accept it, because that implies that Parliament must introduce legislation, and that is not what we envisage. We envisage that through negotiation we will get the adaptation of ordinances in every province which will make these things possible and which will allow the Administrator to retain the initiative.

With leave of the Committee, I will withdraw para. (c) of my amendment, so that only the first portion of it will remain.

Proposed paragraph (c) of the amendment withdrawn.

There are other portions of this Clause 22 in respect of which some comment will have to be made. I particularly ask the Minister a question in regard to the new 25 (4). The position is that under 25 (1) the Minister after consultation with the Administrator may proclaim a consultative committee for any group area other than for a White group. But there is a provision that the area concerned must be within the area of jurisdiction of the local authority, so it cannot be for a White group; it must be in the area of what I might call an orthodox local authority. The Minister after consultation with the Administrator defines the area and sets up the consultative committee. That committee performs certain functions as the result of the regulations made and there is an obligation made on the local authority concerned to receive reports from the committee which it has to deal with in a certain manner. If the consultative committee does not submit reports to the local authority, the latter goes ahead. This position is clear-cut. Then the Minister in like manner can define an area in a group area other than for Whites for a management committee. Because the nomenclature is different in the different provinces, the management committee is not a local authority as defined in any provincial legislation. None of these local government ordinances in any of the provinces deal with a management committee. This is a new creation and it takes the place of the governing body which was in the original Act in the section now repealed. In sub-sec. (4) it says that this management committee shall within the area for which it has been established, i.e. in the orthodox local authority area, have such powers and duties of the local authority which has jurisdiction in respect of such area as may be conferred or imposed upon it by regulation and so exercise its powers and carry out its functions under the supervision and control of that local authority and subject to such conditions as the Administrator of the province may determine.

The first point I want to put to the Minister is this. The area is defined and the management committee is created by a proclamation of the Minister, but thereafter the functions are layed down under regulations made by the Administrator, not under regulations framed by the Minister. My first question is whether that is in fact the position? Then this management committee reminds me in many ways of the urban Bantu councils established under the legislation we had last year, where the position was virtually the same as this but where the whole thing was limited to a Bantu area. The second point I want to get clear is this. In respect of the regulations to be made by the Administrator and not by the Minister, what is the guarantee that this management committee, once having been established, can go forward to a certain development of its own area?

The third point is this. Does the Minister see the management committee ultimately having independence, apart from the parent body? I am trying to see what is in the Minister’s mind in regard to this body. Let me say at once that in the actual administration of this clause I can see a great difficulty. I can see difficulty stemming from the fact that in one area you will have two local authorities. One will be the orthodox authority created under the local Ordinance of the Province concerned, and the other will be rather like Eve carved out of Adam’s rib; it will be a bit taken out of the body politic of the existing local authority, and it will have regulations allowing it certain powers. It is not an advisory committee but a management committee with certain functions over which the Minister has no control. Now what is the destiny of such a body? Does the Minister see it developing into a separate local authority? It is true that there can be isolated areas all around the area of that local authority; they need not be contiguous and the Minister can bring them all together under one management committee. As long as he has one orthodox local authority, he can have a small area over here of Coloured folk and another area over there, not contiguous, and he can have three or four such areas and he can create a management committee to deal with all of them. They will all operate under regulations made by the Administrator. Where does the thing go from there? I do not immediately want to criticize the proposed set-up if the Minister can show that this is a workable proposition, but I see the greatest difficulty in administering this kind of set-up and therefore I view the proposal with the greatest alarm, because I can see a terrible conflict immediately developing between the new area with its management board and the parent body who will look upon this almost as a thorn in its side. I wonder whether the Minister will tell us precisely how he intends this clause to work in practice.

This clause, to my mind, is one of the most important provisions in the Bill. It is the prelude to the establishment by the Minister of new local authorities for the Coloured people. It is the commencement of the Government’s intention of creating a state within a state, and I think this clause merits very careful consideration before we pass it. As I read the clause, the Minister seeks to establish, in the first place, consultative and thereafter management committees, and thereafter the conversion of the management committee into separate local authorities for the Coloured people. I agree entirely with what the hon. member for South Coast has just said, that it will be very difficult to give practical effect to the provisions of this Bill, and I would like the Minister to bear with me whilst I deal with the matter step by step.

The Minsiter in the first place seeks to establish for any group area other than one for White people, or for any portion of a group area, either a consultative committee or a management committee to be constituted in terms of the regulations which he will promulgate. I want to take the position in regard to a place like Cape Town. The municipality of Cape Town covers a very large area and it includes a large section of people of different group areas. Just take the case of the Minister deciding to establish a consultative committee in Woodstock, assuming that is declared a group area for Coloureds, and he establishes another consultative committee in Athlone and another one for Wynberg-Retreat. You will then have the Municipality of Cape Town, which is the dominating local authority faced with this position. Before they can do anything in regard to these three areas I mentioned, they will have to consult with all these consultative committees. Can you imagine, Sir, how the work of the Municipality is going to be retarded? I mention this to show how impracticable this is going to be in a place like Cape Town. I suggest that it will be impracticable to give effect to any ultimate decision by the Municipality. But I do not want to end there. Assume that they can overcome that and that the Minister, in terms of the regulations, only defines small things on which the consultative committees can be consulted. If the Minister goes on to deal with sub-sec-section (3) (a) of the new Section 25, he will see that all he has provided for is that no local authority which exercises jurisdiction in an area in which a consultative committee has been established shall take any decision in regard to any matter unless it has consulted this committee and has given due consideration to any suggestions or comments which such committee may wish to make. I ask the Minister in all seriousness what kind of autonomy will this consultative committee have? What power will it have? I submit it is purely a mirage which is presented to them. They are presented with a consultative committee. They will be told that the Municipality must consult with the committee before they come to any decision, but the Minister will appreciate that the major municipality will be able to make any decision it likes in regard to those matters provided only that they consult with this committee. I suggest to the Minister that this really means nothing in so far as the consultative committee is concerned. If the Minister really wants to give autonomy to that committee, he should go further than this section and say that no local authority shall take any decision without the approval of the consultative committee. But the Minister does not go as far as that. Why? It is only consultative, and that means nothing. I suggest the Minister dare not go as far as I suggest he should go, because that would be the only way to vest true power in this consultative committee, and even the management committee.

Should they rather not be consulted?

The point is that the consultation means nothing. It is merely a sop thrown to the Coloured people, but it means nothing, because the major Municipality will be entitled in terms of this section, after consulting them, to do whatever they like, with a total disregard of the suggestions made by the committee. I made this point previously in the second reading, but it is crisp that I should make it now, because this is the opportunity that the Minister has of telling this Committee how he proposes to overcome this difficulty. If the Minister really wants to vest in this committee the power he has indicated that he intends vesting in the Coloured people in the establishment of self-government for them and the establishment of a state within a state, then he should vest in them real authority and not make it subject to the whim of the local authority.

But the matter does not end there. If you refer to sub-section (4) of the proposed new Section 25, you will see that in relation to the management committees they will be established and their functions and duties will be such as are granted to them by regulation, and they shall exercise their powers and carry out their functions and perform their duties under the supervision and control of that local authority and subject to such conditions as the Administrator may determine. What sort of autonomy is that? Here you establish management committees. You give them a nice title, but what autonomy will they have? They will only have the power to exercise such functions and perform such duties under the supervision and control of the local authority. [Interjections.] My point is that if you do this you must not tell these people that you are giving them self-government.

Are you making a second reading speech now? Why do you not read Section 25bis?

I will deal with that also. I am speaking against this clause and I say that this clause means absolutely nothing when analysed in the way I have done.

Do you think limited jurisdiction is worse than no jurisdiction at all?

I say they are satisfied with what they have got now, but you are trying to take that away from them. [Time limit.]

I should like to refer to 25 (c) (a), where it says that no local authority can take any decision without having consulted the consultative committee in regard to the matter. Then we come to (3) (b). In (3) (a) it is said that they cannot take a decision before having had consultation and before the proposals submitted to them have been considered. Then we come to (3) (b), and here I want to ask the Minister, where he says that the Committee, if it does not reply to the local authority within seven days, it is regarded that they have no comment to make. We very much want the local authority to co-operate with the consultative committee and we are convinced it will, but one can have a case where the local authority does not want to co-operate, and then it can always say that these people did not reply within seven days and use that as a loophole. Hon. members who know local authorities will realize that seven days is much too short a period in which to receive a reply from any body. Therefore I ask the Minister seriously to consider extending that period to 21 days.

In view of the fact that the Minister announced that before promulgating the regulations he would submit it to the Administrators and the Executive Committees of the Provinces, that again shows his goodwill, that he would like to co-operate, and I am convinced that it has never happened before that regulations are submitted for approval to local authorities. The hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) said it would be an impossible task if there were three consultative committees in the area of jurisdiction of the Cape Town City Council, and how would they co-operate? But we have the position on the Rand, where there is more than one occasion in a municipal area and where there have always been advisory committees, and it has worked very well and to the benefit of the non-White population. But if one does not want to co-operate, we know that one need not co-operate and then one can put obstacles in the way. But I think the hon. member is only raising bogies. I am convinced that the Minister is proceeding step by step here. He is commencing where the White people commenced in regard to local government, and I want to put this question to the hon. member for Peninsula: Are we as city councils really as independent as he thinks, or who is ruling us to-day still? Is it not the Administrator who is to-day still ruling what has actually become an autonomous body to-day? Has he not got the greatest say in all the city councils of any Province, and did we not begin as consultative committees also?

I am inclined to agree with the last speaker in one thing he said, that in this clause the Minister is proceeding step by step. But there my qualification ends, because I quite agree the Minister is moving step by step but it is step by step to take away from the Coloureds the existing rights they have at present in regard to the municipal franchise.

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss that now.

Then let us take Section 25bis (5). There it is laid down that the President may, by proclamation, repeal, alter or modify any law referring to any requirements to be complied with for becoming a member of any local authority, including the council of a municipality in the Cape Province in so far as it applies in respect of a local authority established in terms of sub-sec. (3). There we have a portion of the step-by-step progress the hon. member referred to. It alters the existing qualifications and imposes in their stead qualifications, the principles of which have been accepted in this Bill. Those qualifications in themselves completely alter the existing system of election for municipal government. I am afraid that as far as I am concerned, and we on this side of the House are concerned, we cannot subscribe to a doctrine which, whilst purporting, as the hon. member for Peninsula said, to give much wider powers of government, step by step via the consultative committees, the management committees and the local authorities, on the one hand, on the other hand takes away something of infinitely more value to the Coloured community.

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss that.

I want to deal with Section 25 (2). This lays down that the consultative or management committee shall consist wholly of members of the group for which such group area has been established. Whilst I can appreciate the Minister’s thoughts in laying that down, I think from an administrative point of view it contains some snags. I put these forward in all sincerity, because we in Durban have had experience of dealing with advisory boards which amount to very much the same thing as the consultative committee, so what I say here is based on our experience. The first thing we found was that it is well known that those bodies have had little or no experience in the administration of either their own or any other area, and I am going to suggest to the Minister that if he is going to stick to the terms of this clause, that only members of that group can be members of the consultative committee, he will run into trouble. These people have had no experience in local affairs in any capacity, and this is a body which has to consult with the local authority in which it exists. You will probably find such a committee consisting wholly of members of that type who might not even be in a position to consult with the local authority and give them any idea at all of the discussions they have had. They might not be able properly to convey to the local authority with whom they must consult the actual outcome of their discussions.

At 10.25 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave asked to sit again.

House to resume in Committee on 8 March.