I move—

I second.

What is the Minister’s intention, is he going to introduce a new Bill?

The reason why this procedure has been adopted lies in the fact that when my expert knowledge of Afrikaans was directed to the Afrikaans version of the Bill, I discovered a large number of discrepancies, and in consequence, rather than move them as 101 different amendments, it was decided to withdraw the Bill and introduce a new one.

You are not introducing a new principle?

No, the old principle is emphasised.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill withdrawn.

With leave, I desire to ask the Prime Minister:

The Government has taken this step because it cannot allow public servants to take part in a movement which admittedly aims at the overthrow of existing State institutions.

I move—

By Act No. 26 of 1897 (“The Kalk Bay Municipal Improvement Act, 1897”), certain land at Muizenberg was vested in the local authority, now the Municipality of Cape Town, subject to certain restrictions in respect of portion of the land so vested. Generally speaking, the land extended down to the high-water mark of the sea. By Act No. 17 of 1925 (“The City of Cape Town (Muizenberg Beach) Improvement Act, 1925”) certain other land being the seashore, i.e., the land between high and low-water marks along the beach front at Muizenberg, was also vested in the Municipality of Cape Town. Shortly after the passing of Act No. 17 of 1925, a surveyor of the Cape Town Municipality, in consultation with the Surveyor-General’s office, purported to mark down the landward boundary (i.e. high-water mark) of the land vested by the said Act. Owing to the difficulty in describing the landward boundary of this land and in view of the give-and-take boundary which has been tentatively agreed upon, the Council was asked by the Surveyor-General to sign an agreement accepting that boundary as final. The Council did not see its way to do so, pointing out that although this agreement would fix the boundary for all time as between the Government and the Council, it would nevertheless be open to interested or aggrieved parties to refuse to accept that boundary. The question of the boundary was submitted to the Law Advisers and a summary of their opinion amounts to this—

1. (1) that the landward boundary of the land vested by Act No. 17 of 1925 is the high-water mark of the sea as defined in section 1 (3) of the said Act, as it varies in position from time to time, i.e. the high-water mark to which the sea extends during ordinary winter storms. (It may be mentioned here that the most stormy period of the year along the False Bay coast does not occur during the winter months, but during the south-easter period which is during the summer time.)
2. (2) that the seaward boundary of the land vested by Act No. 26 of 1897 is also the high-water mark of the sea as it fluctuates from time to time but not the winter storm high-water mark; it is the high-water mark as determined by the Common Law, which high-water mark is defined in section 1 of the “Seashore Act, 1935” (No. 21 of 1935), i.e. the highest line reached by the sea during ordinary storms occurring during the most stormy period of the year, excluding exceptional or abnormal floods;
3. (3) that owing to the difference in definition between the high-water mark for the land described in Act No. 17 of 1925 and the high-water mark for the land described in Act No. 26 of 1897, there is a narrow strip of Crown land, which may vary in width from time to time, between the land granted in 1897 and that granted in 1925.

Why does it vary in width?

For this reason, that what in the first Act is described as the high-water mark in the winter season is not really the high-water mark.

It is only a legal variation.

It actually varies because it describes the high-water mark as occurring during the winter season. Actually the high-water mark is during the summer season when the south-easters are on and there is a wide strip of land about which they are not able to decide, and this Bill now desires to put it right and place it beyond doubt. In order to overcome this technical difficulty it is desired to introdce legislation to amend section one of “The City of Cape Town (Muizenberg Beach) Improvement Act, 1925” (No. 17 of 1925). The draft Bill has been submitted to the Law Advisers who remark as follows—

I want to add that this Bill has been referred to the S.C. on Crown Lands and has been sent back and further that the City Council of Cape Town has approved and is in agreement with this Bill.

If one reads this Bill superficially it gives one the impression that it will not do much harm. In ordinary circumstances one would not particularly study this Bill but one of my constituents has written to me on the question of whether this Bill does not affect certain shore rights, existing rights, and he has asked me to raise certain objections here. The Minister of Lands tried to explain that this Bill only gave effect to what was laid down in other laws, and that it cleared up certain matters. I want to point out that it first of all looks to me as if the object of this Bill clearly is to transfer part of the Crown Land to the Municipality of Cape Town. Land, which under a previous law was given to the Municipality of Cape Town, will be added to by this Bill. Now I feel it is the duty of this Parliament to look very carefully into matters when any Crown Land is being disposed of to a person or to a body, and secondly, I feel that where there are existing rights, good reasons must be shown before the private rights of those people are interfered with. It is the duty of Parliament to protect existing rights, and to see whether there is good cause for Crown Lands to be disposed of. I want to draw the attention of the Minister of Lands to the way in which this Bill is drafted. It seems to me that if the Bill is passed as it stands here it will have no effect. Clause 1 for instance says this—

I first of all want to point out that the Act referred to here is no longer in force. It was repealed by the Ordinance under which the Municipal area of the City of Cape Town was extended. Secondly, I should like to read to the Minister what is laid down in the Act in which local bodies are given control over that land. Clause 1 says this—

This Act clearly lays it down that the land which has been handed to the Municipality of Kalk Bay has been handed over under certain conditions. I have here the ordinance under which the Kalk Bay Municipality was cancelled, when the Corporation of the City of Cape Town was extended. That ordinance was confirmed on the 14th July, 1913. It provides that the Corporation of the City of Cape Town will take over the property of the Municipality of Cape Town. That Ordinance provides that the law to which this Bill refers is repealed. It is repealed in the first schedule, so that Act No. 26 of 1897 of the Cape is no longer in existence. Secondly, the position is that under that law the ownership of the land not vested in the Corporation of the City of Cape Town but in the Municipality of Kalk Bay. The clause clearly states—

I do not know how the Minister can argue now, seeing that this particular land was specially handed over to the Municipality of Kalk Bay in that Act, and seeing that that law no longer exists to-day, and the Municipality of Kalk Bay does not exist either, that this Bill can provide for the land which was transferred under the Act of 1897, now being transferred to the Municipality of Cape Town. If this question had to come before the Court the judge would say that there is no such land. Kalk Bay did not take transfer of its land and an attempt is now being made to give Cape Town transfer of the land. They want to pretend that they have that right under that clause but that is not so. Consequently, the Bill has no meaning in that respect. Now I want to draw the attention of the House to another question. The land which has been given to the Municipality of Kalk Bay is subject to the conditions of Clause 5 of the Act of 1897 under which private rights are protected. That clause, inter alia, says the following—

It is clear that this clause is intended to protect the existing rights of certain inhabitants of Kalk Bay. If this Bill is passed as it stands and the Corporation of Cape Town gets transfer of that land, what then becomes of the rights, for instance, of people who are entitled to catch fish there and to go out with their boats? To-day they are dealing with the Government and their existing rights are protected, but if the land is transferred to the Corporation of the City of Cape Town then the question is: Will they retain those rights? In the old law it is laid down that those rights “shall” be protected, but in this Bill it is laid down “and may include therein conditions having the effect of the provisions of section 5 of that Act.” We notice therefore that those rights can be protected, but it is not definitely stated that they shall be protected. Under clause 5 of the old Act the Municipality of Kalk Bay was compelled to do so, and the ground was vested in them subject to existing rights. Now the Government comes along and wants to give transfer to the Corporation of Cape Town without that protection for existing rights. It is contended that that land is not Crown Land. I know, however, that it is land belonging to the State, but if there were existing rights in 1897, and it was a good thing therefore to put in such a provision, then I say that it is now also the duty of Parliament to protect existing rights. Now I come to the Select Committee on Crown Lands. Why did not that Select Committee give anyone who wanted to raise objections the opportunity to ventilate their objections?

But who could have objected?

I have the 1925 Act here in which certain rights were given to the Corporation of Cape Town in connection with Muizenberg, and clause 2 (1) of that law says this:

Why cannot that be done here as well? The hon. member knows as well as I do that this House must do all in its power to protect people’s existing rights, and if the State deemed it necessary in 1925, when certain shore rights were given to the Municipality of Cape Town to especially provide that existing rights of fishermen and others were to be protected, why should it not be done in this case as well? At Muizenberg there were existing rights; at Kalk Bay the position is exactly the same; there are fishermen and other people living there. I say that it is not within the power of a Department of Lands to say that there are no objections. When the Select Committee is dealing with the alienation of Crown Lands it is its duty, according to the rules of the House, to properly advertise such a matter, and to give people who have existing rights and who have objections the opportunity to ventilate their grievances. That has not been done in this case. I understand that the Committee simply met; the Secretary for Lands declared that there were no existing rights in connection with the matter. The Select Committee accepted that statement and introduced this Bill without, in accordance with the rules of the House, properly advertising the matter and giving people the opportunity of handing in statements. I say that according to the rules of the House the Select Committee was compelled to do so. The reason why I oppose this Bill is because in the case of transfer of the land at Muizenberg special provision was made for the protection of existing rights, and in this case that has not been done. Land is being alienated and handed to the City Corporation of Cape Town without any protecting legislation being provided for, as was done by former legislation. Secondly, I say that this Bill is transferring land to the Corporation of the City of Cape Town, land which is mentioned in an Act which no longer exists. That Act was repealed as far back as 1913. Secondly, the old Act definitely provided for protection to be given to existing rights in respect of that particular land, and in this Bill it is laid down that protection may be given, but it does not say that it shall be given. For these reasons I feel I am entitled to ask that this Bill be referred back to the Select Committee. They should properly advertise the Bill so that the people concerned will have the opportunity of making objections, and furthermore, the Bill should be so drafted that it will actually give certain rights which it was intended to give, because this land was not granted to the Corporation of the City of Cape Town but to the Municipality of Kalk Bay, and the law under which the land was granted no longer exists because it was repealed by the Ordinance. I further want to point out that the law which granted the shore rights at Muizenberg to the Municipality specifically provided for the protection of existing rights. We are dealing here with the question of shore rights. The public has the right to use the shore within the limits of the existing laws, and if those rights are taken away we must go into all the facts in connection with them, and we must see to it that existing rights are protected. It was the Select Committee’s duty to have gone properly into the whole question. I take it that the Select Committee was misled by the fact that the Secretary for Land stated that there were no existing rights. What right had he to take it for granted that there were no existing rights? No statement to that effect has been made by anyone. The Committee simply accepted what the Department said. I challenge the Minister of Lands to tell me that the matter was properly advertised, and that no private rights are involved in this matter. He cannot say that. This procedure was laid down by the House so as to make it possible for private rights to be protected, and it was the Select Committee’s duty to make use of that procedure. I want to point out again that the law of 1897 and the law of 1925 make provision for the protection of existing rights, and that protection is now being taken away. I also want to point out that this Bill has been faultily drafted because it refers to the law of 1897 and to the Municipality of Kalk Bay, neither of which are in existence to-day. For these reasons I say that this Bill should be referred back to Select Committee so that they may enquire into both these points. So far as Muizenberg is concerned we know that representations were made at the time in regard to private rights, and those private rights are protected by special provision which I have read out to the House. Why was not the trouble taken in this particular instance to find out whether there were any private rights, and why is no provision made for the protection of those rights? If it was necessary to do so in the case of Muizenberg, I feel it is also necessary in the case of Kalk Bay. I say that this House has laid down certain special procedure to see to it that the Select Committee shall protect private rights, and that such private rights shall not be interfered with, and I feel the Select Committee has not done its duty. I further say that we should go very carefully into this matter before we alienate any Crown Land, and if we fail to do so then we are not doing our duty to the country. I further say that we should draft a Bill of this kind in clear terms. Objections have already been raised to there being too many lawyers in this House, and if this is the kind of work that is being done I can well understand those objections.

The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) assumes that under this enactment the rights and privileges of the inhabitants of Kalk Bay may be prejudiced. I understand that this Bill is introduced in agreement with the City Council of Cape Town, and personally I do not think that any rights of adjacent owners are in any way affected by this Bill, but I would like to ask the Minister whether the rights and privileges of the fishing folk in any of these areas are in any way affected?

No.

I am glad to have that assurance, because the trek fishermen are deeply concerned.

They are not affected.

The hon. member for Swellendam also pointed out that under the Ordinance of 1930 the Act of 1907 was repealed, and I do not really see how we can amend an Act which is not in existence. Otherwise, on behalf of the Municipality, I welcome this Bill. If there is any doubt whatever of the privileges of adjacent owners or fishermen being affected, I would like the Minister to see that these people have the opportunity of raising their grievances before a Select Committee.

On a perusal of the Bill, I am impressed with the fact that there seems to be no necessity for the Bill at all. Under the Seashore Act, all the seashore is vested in the Governor-General. I shall read section 4 (4)—

Section 5 goes on in sub-section (b)—

1. (b) transfer by deed of grant to any local authority any portion of the seashore of which he is by section 2 declared to be the owner for any of the purposes described in sub-paragraphs (1) (2) and (3) of paragraph (a).

Then there is this further provision in the proviso—

So that it seems to me that by virtue of the provisions of the Seashore Act the Governor-General may, by deed of grant, make over such Crown Lands as may be in the possession of the Governor-General to any local authority, and those people interested are invited by the same provision by notice in the Gazette to lodge their objections, and it further goes on to say that the Governor-General may set out such beacons as may be necessary at the expense of the local authorities. If that is the position, then there is no need for a Bill of this kind or to provide for things which are already provided for in the Seashore Act of 1933. The whole of this Act applies to every section of the coast, from Zululand down to the Cape. I may be mistaken in that, though, because I believe there is a special reservation in regard to the Cape coast which differs from the Natal coast. I think, applying the ordinary provisions of the Seashore Act, No. 21 of 1935, all the difficulties experienced by the Cape Town Municipality will be overcome.

Instead of the matter now becoming clearer and clearer, it is becoming more and more obscure. It is perfectly obvious that there was no necessity to bring this Bill before the House, except for the purpose of giving the Municipality rights of ownership. They had the ordinary rights, the rights they needed in the public interests —those rights they could get, but they did not have rights for the alienation of land or the sale of land. The Minister is only an infant so far as these things are concerned; he knows nothing about them, and I should now like to know from him whether he has ever asked himself what personal interests are at the back of the request made by the people who approached him? Is there no danger of the position being abused, of abuse creeping in? Has the Minister asked himself whether it is in the interest of the public to pass this Bill? Has he asked himself whether there are any other interests behind it which want to benefit in some way or other? The position is becoming more and more obscure. We have no idea at all why these people have asked for this Bill. That is why we want the Minister to tell us his reason for introducing this Bill. There must be other reasons. The hon. member over there showed that the Minister with one word could have obtained all the necessary powers from the Governor-General, powers which could have been transferred to the Municipality. That is not done, but legislation is introduced for the purpose of giving rights of ownership which go very much further than the rights of use. For that reason I agree with the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) that the Minister should withdraw the Bill, and should first of all get more clarity on this subject. We first of all want to be sure of the interests behind this Bill, what interests want to obtain rights from the Municipality. We know that there are people who are able to obtain rights from Municipalities which others, who may be more entitled to obtain them, cannot get. We know that things of that kind do go on, and that being so the Minister should give us an assurance that the people who approached him about this Bill had no ulterior motives in doing so. The Minister is so very innocent, and he is surprised at our drawing his attention to difficulties of this kind. These things never enter the Minister’s mind. Well, he is a farmer, and he should keep his eyes open for all kinds of emergencies. We ask the Minister first of all to make further enquiries, so that he may be able to give the House the assurance asked for.

I am very glad this Bill has been introduced, because I hope it is going to clear up a good deal of the trouble round about our coasts. We have various marks on the seashore, high water marks, springtide marks, and sometimes low water marks. In the south of the Peninsula land has been sold to private owners right down to the sea from low water mark, and the consequence is that fishermen and other people have very often been deprived of their rights. There was a case some years ago where a man bought property on the beach, he squatted, in fact, on the beach between high and low water marks, and actually built a house there. It became a bigger and bigger place, and then he claimed prescriptive right, and eventually got away with it. The Municipality could not remove him. When he first went there, there was no Municipality, but afterwards all the powers the Municipality had could not shift him, the man remained in possession, and ultimately got a very valuable piece of ground at a seaside place. I hope something is going to be done to clear up these cases in some way. I hope the Minister will take into consideration the fact that the Municipality takes sand from the beaches, very much to the detriment of the beaches, and I think something ought to be done to prevent that. I also think the Crown should retain the power to prevent, if necessary, Municipalities from building pavilions just anywhere. Sometimes these pavilions destroy the amenities of the beach tremendously, some of our most popular beaches having been spoilt. There is another point. I remember talking to an expert on tides once, and currents, and he told me that the currents round about our coasts are most mysterious, you never know what is going to happen when you interfere with sea water round these beaches. There was an instance at Muizenberg when they built a sort of breakwater near the station many years ago. That had the effect of moving the sand away from the beach and leaving a lot of rocks. A similar thing happened at Kalk Bay, where a breakwater was started, and the beach some distance away was detrimentally affected. These currents are most mysterious, and have to be treated with respect, otherwise you will have all sorts of damage done. I am not opposed to this Bill at all, but hope that the Minister will take these things into consideration. I hope that at some time or other a more comprehensive Bill will be introduced, and provision made so that an expert adviser is called in before Municipalities, or any other bodies, have the right to erect structures on the beaches, or leave to take away sand. I hope also the rights of the fisher folk will be respected. I hope any new Bill will entrench their rights, as well as the rights of casual fishermen who fish from the rocks. Whatever happens, I hope Municipalities are not going to be given the power to administer our beaches without any restrictions.

I would reply, in the first instance, to the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg). He asked me whether the vested rights created under the Ordinance of 1913 had been repealed. No, sir, they have not been repealed. I think that is an answer to my hon. friend over there as well.

It is no answer.

Vested rights under the Act of 1913 have not been repealed.

*The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) held forth at length on the subject of the various laws of 1925 and 1897 and also the Ordinance of 1913. I want to say at once that the vested rights under the Ordinance of 1913 are not taken away, they are not affected. I think the hon. member has confused the position which has led to it becoming very obscure, as the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) has stated. The hon. member for Swellendam said that we were engaged in giving away Crown Lands.

Yes.

And that the existing rights of private individuals were affected. Not in the least. We are not giving away any land. All this short Bill is doing is to create clarity in regard to what has already been done under the old laws. The grants of Crown Lands were made under the old laws of 1897 and 1925. The hon. member said that the old Municipal Council of Kalk Bay no longer exists, but that it is now the Corporation of the City of Cape Town. That is perfectly true. The Cape Town Corporation is the lawful successor of the Kalk Bay Municipality. The very same rights which existed under the old laws are being granted here. There is merely a difference in definitions so far as the line of demarkation is concerned. For instance, they said that the high water mark in the winter months would be that line, but unfortunately the high water mark so far as Kalk Bay is concerned is not as high in winter as it is in summer, when the south-easter blows.

Did Kalk Bay get any deeds of transfer.

No, but we are going to issue such deeds now, to give them ownership. They did not get them because the line could not be defined. They will now get their deeds in accordance with the intentions of the old laws. We now make it possible to fix the beacons and to say where the line is. That is all. I have tried to explain that there are two definitions in regard to the line, the high water mark, and there is uncertainty in that regard. So far as Kalk Bay is concerned it was found that the high water mark is not reached during the winter months but during the summer months.

But surely you are giving away more land under the new definition, you are putting it higher.

The intention of the original law was that the highest level reached by the water should be taken, but the mistake was made at the time of putting the definition in such a way that it was taken for the winter months, while the highest level is reached in summer so far as certain parts are concerned. We are now putting that right, that is all. The beacons can now be moved and the line can be laid down. So far as private interests and ulterior motives are concerned—I admit that I know very little about bribery—all we are doing is putting the old laws clearly. There is no question of private individuals getting any benefits.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—60:

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Oost, H.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford. R.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van d. Byl, P. V. G.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—39:

Badenhorst, A. L.

Bekker, G.

Boltman, F. H.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Rooth, E. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Swart, C. R.

Theron, P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan. Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: F. C. Erasmus and P. O. Sauer.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 5th March.

I move—

Since the passing of the Land Survey Act of 1927 it has become apparent that, in general practice, certain provisions present difficulties to surveyors and the public, as well as to the Surveyors-General. The intention of this Bill is largely to remove such difficulties and to simplify the procedure generally. There is one important matter which, in terms of the present law, has been found impracticable in practice, and that is the question of the re-survey or erven in towns and cities. In many of the older cities, Cape Town, for instance, the old surveys of erven were not very precise or accurate, especially in the case of adjoining pieces of land which were not surveyed simultaneously. The result is that, in course of time, the inaccuracies which then occurred were repeated whenever erven were transferred because it is impossible to rectify the particulars on any one diagram without rectifying the particulars on diagrams of all erven in the vicinity. In such cases, it happens, for instance, that a surveyor replaces an erf beacon which is in agreement with his client’s diagram, but which is in complete disagreement with the neighbour’s diagram. The result is endless confusion and uncertainty because, after a building has been erected on a boundary, a neighbour could possibly bring evidence that a beacon replaced in accordance with his diagram would have been more reliable. In addition, where pavements have been cemented or asphalted, beacons have been covered and endless difficulties are experienced in arriving at a proper decision in regard to the most reliable position for lost beacons. The only way in which diagrams of all the erven can be satisfactorily rectified, is to re-survey the whole town or particular sections thereof, and then prepare a new general plan on which particulars in regard to each erf can be reflected clearly and unmistakenly. This general plan would serve as a basis from which all the diagrams of erven or subdivisions of erven could be prepared. The only way in which permanency can be obtained is by means of reference marks. The present Act makes the placing of reference marks dependent on a re-survey. In this Bill the operations of re-survey and the establishment of reference marks have been separated. A concrete example of the impracticability of the present Act presented itself at Durban. Shortly after the passing of the present Act, the Durban City Council, with a view to the preparation of a general plan which would be accurate and beyond all doubt, applied to the Minister for a resurvey. In the course of investigation, it became clear that there were practical difficulties in the way for which the present Act makes no provision. For instance, the Council of Durban has in its employ a number of qualified surveyors and, naturally, the Council desired to make use of the services of these surveyors in doing the re-survey. According to law, however, the necessary surveyors had to be appointed by the Surveyor-General and, naturally, had to be paid by him. This would have meant that the surveyors employed by the Durban City Council would first have had to be dismissed and then re-appointed by the Surveyor-General in order to do the resurvey. In practice this was an insurmountable difficulty. Another difficulty is that the present Act is not clear as to who should fix the reference marks. The City Council of Durban held that it was the duty of the Government because these reference marks should really form part of the Trigonometrical Survey, designed for the country generally and which is a basis for the survey of farms. Although the department had to acknowledge the reasonableness of this view, the necessary costs could not legally be incurred because there is no provision in the Act therefor. The result was that the proposal to re-survey Durban fell away and, obviously, the same difficulty presents itself in connection with the re-survey of any other town or city. In this Bill the local authority of the town or city shall erect and maintain such reference marks at its own cost, and, thereafter, the survey necessary for determining the position of these reference marks shall be undertaken by the Government as a part of the Trigonometrical Survey. The Bill also makes it clear that any re-survey must be based on the reference marks so established. Naturally, no town or city is compelled to initiate a re-survey. The Bill provides only that, when any local authority applies for a resurvey, the Minister may approve thereof. All costs in connection with such survey must be borne by the local authority and provision is made whereby such authority may recover its costs from the registered owners within the area re-surveyed.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the hon. Minister entitled to read his speech to the House.

This is a very involved and technical Bill, Mr. Speaker, and I am perhaps making use of more copious notes than I would otherwise do.

The Minister, like any other member, should observe the rules.

I object to the hon. Minister reading his speech.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very small-minded on the part of the hon. member to refuse to allow me to read my notes, it is terribly small indeed. As already stated, the Bill makes provision for the removal of certain administrative difficulties. For instance, it has been found that unnecessary delay and costs are incurred in connection with surveys for the purposes of sub-division. The present Act provides that, when a piece of land is to be cut off a farm and one of the boundaries as found on the ground is not in agreement with the boundary as shown on the diagram, the adjoining owners are called upon to acknowledge or refute such boundary. The Act further provides, in such case, all the other corner beacons of the farm shown on the diagram of the portion concerned, shall at the same time also be acknowledged or refuted whether such beacons are right or wrong. To overcome this difficulty the Bill provides that the agreement in regard to beacons shall be necessary only in respect of boundaries which reflect a difference beyond the prescribed limits. A further administrative difficulty, for which provision is now made, has reference to the framing of regulations by the Survey Regulations Board. As the law at present stands, the board has actually to call a meeting in order to consider a proposed amendment or improvement of even the most uncontentious nature. It is considered that, for unimportant matters, the members of the board could agree to an amendment by correspondence and the costs involved in calling a meeting need not be incurred. Eight members out of the ten must agree before such an amendment is accepted. Except in connection with a survey for registration purposes, there is no provision in the existing Act for settling a dispute in connection with a beacon or boundary. Frequently, for instance, as a result of floods, doubt arises as to the exact course of a river forming the boundary of a farm in terms of its diagram. Section 18 (bis) in the Bill now invokes the provisions of Section 16, by virtue of which, if necessary, arbitrators can be appointed. Many cases also arise where the diagram does not state specifically which portion of a river forms the boundary—whether, for instance, it is the bank or the midstream. In terms of decisions of the court, river boundaries are, in certain cases, regarded as extending to the middle of the river. In terms of the law, however, when the new diagram seeks to clarify the position, the Surveyor-General may not approve a new diagram in cases of this nature without very laborious procedure being followed. This Bill simplifies this procedure and, should difficulties arise which cannot be solved by the relative owners, application may be made to the Surveyor-General that a clear description of the boundary be determined by a small commission which can be appointed from time to time for this purpose. It should be made clear that the decision of this commission affects only the verbal description of the boundary and has no bearing at all on the demarcation of the actual boundary on the ground. It may be stated that in general the purpose of the Bill is to remove administrative difficulties, promote efficient surveys and, in some instances, lessen the costs to owners. I want to emphasise this difficulty which arose in connection with curvelinear boundaries. There are many properties which are bounded by rivers and where the boundary has shifted as a result of floods, etc. There is always a question as to where the boundary is. We now make provision to solve that difficulty. If there is a dispute about a curvelinear boundary which bounds on rivers, it may not be a straight line as a result of a fence, railways or roads, and there is a dispute in regard to that boundary, then we make provision to appoint a Commission for the purpose of giving an interpretation of the diagram and of the language used in regard to that matter. If, after that interpretation, a decision is given by the Commission, and the owners adjoining those boundaries are not satisfied, they can go to law. But in the first instance we are trying to solve this difficulty of the curvelinear boundary.

It will cost a lot of money and it will cause grave difficulties.

There is one exception, and that is in the case of the Orange and Vaal Rivers. In that case the decision will not be legal until such time as the Minister has been consulted and has given an assurance that there is no question as to whether the boundaries should be in the middle of the rivers or on the banks. Usually the middle of the river is recognised as the boundary, but in the case of the Vaal River and the Orange River there have been certain judgments of the Supreme Court in which a different interpretation has been given, and for that reason those two rivers are excluded. Generally, for the rest, there is nothing in this Bill which differs essentially from the original Bill.

In the original Bill everything is put in the hands of the Minister.

The Minister has to see whether there is a decision given by the Supreme Court.

Yes, but is a decision left in the hands of the Minister?

The Minister will have to act in accordance with the decision of the Court. I think I have said that essentially this Bill does not differ from the Bill which was originally brought in, except for these two points which I have mentioned.

I have listened attentively to the Minister, and I was surprised to find that he had neglected his duty to this House. The House is entitled to expect that a Minister shall not only clearly explain the amendments he is proposing, but that he shall also give reasons for those amendments. This Bill contains 19 clauses. I believe I can say that each of these clauses deals with a different matter, but the Minister dealt with only two of those clauses. For the rest he told us nothing. I hold that the reason why he said nothing about them is that when, in accordance with the rules of the House, he was not allowed to read his statement, which has been drafted for him, he was unable to go on and explain the Bill. He was not conversant with the provisions of the Bill. He came to this House unprepared for his task, and the result is that the House is in a very difficult position because it does not know what are the reasons for the contents of this Bill. I admit it is not a very important Bill. It can be looked upon as something of very minor importance, and I am surprised at the Government coming along with a measure like this. I think we would much rather have seen the Government come forward with a Bill to regulate hire purchase in South Africa, instead of their coming forward with a Bill of this kind. Everybody is looking forward to a Bill to deal with hire purchase, with the exception, of course, of dishonest dealers. But I want to get back to the Bill before us, and I want to put a few questions to the Minister in connection with it. I hope the Minister will in the meantime be able to study his Department’s memorandum so that he may be able to answer me. Why is it necessary to give this special board the power never to meet? We are proposing an amendment here which the Minister has apparently not tumbled to yet, because I assume that he has not studied this Bill yet. In clause 1 it is laid down that this board is given the power to pass certain resolutions without meeting. It is a very far-reaching amendment. Under the existing law the board has to meet from time to time and act as a board. The Bill now proposes that the board need not meet in order to consider matters. My first question to the Minister is: “What is the reason for it?” I further notice that there is a provision here to the effect that no one can be a surveyor unless he is a British subject. A provision like that is unnecessary. Let us be content with the word “Union citizen.” The term “British subject” has become somewhat vague. We know more or less what it means to-day, but we do not know what it is going to mean ere long. If we listen to the Government’s information officer, then we do not know whether Poland may not possibly be included in the British Empire, and if we pass this amendment proposed by the Minister we may perhaps give the right to a million Poles to become surveyors in South Africa.

And perhaps also the followers of Haile Selassie.

Yes, and all these are things which we want to get some information about from the Minister. If we listen to the Government’s information officer, we get the impression that they think that even Germany will later on belong to the British Empire. I further notice that an amendment is introduced under clause 6. If a dispute arises between owners, it is the duty of the surveyor to place certain information before the board. If this clause is agreed to, it will be sufficient for the surveyor to provide certain details which he himself may consider necessary. The existing law is being amended in that respect, and I should like to know from the Minister why this alteration is considered necessary. I do not say it is not necessary, but I should like to know why. Clause 7 contains very far-reaching alterations. It is provided there that in certain circumstances the Surveyor-General will have the right to settle a dispute between owners on the ground of documents which may be in his office. Why should an owner who has a dispute about a beacon be subject to a decision of that kind? Clause 7 (c) provides that the Surveyor-General may arrive at a decision based solely on data and on documents available in his office. Why is the owner of the land being deprived of the right of also having a say? Then I come to clause 14, which provides that the Surveyor-General may, if a dispute arises between owners, and he is convinced that the owner concerned will not lose his rights, make a change without taking the steps laid down in the law. Why is it necessary to give those powers to that official? Now I come to clause 14 (d), which provides that when such a Survey Board has made a decision affecting the rights of a Union citizen, they can send him a registered letter, and if he fails to reply to that letter within thirty days, or does not object, then all his rights in connection with that dispute are confiscated. That appears to me to be wrong. Let us assume that an owner is overseas. Take the case of people who are engaged on restoring the throne of Abyssinia. Why should a man like that lose his rights because he is unable to reply to such a registered letter within thirty days? It may be a good thing to give this particular official greater powers, but before this House does a thing like that the Minister should give us good and well-founded reasons for doing so. There is one point I had forgotten, and which I should like to refer to now in regard to clause 4. Under the existing law the owner in the event of a dispute about a beacon has to give a month’s notice when he wants to come to a settlement. I notice that the period of a month is being further curtailed to a week. I contend that that is unreasonable. A month is not too long for the owner of a farm who may perhaps be 100 miles from the nearest dorp or town. I do not say that there is no reason for such a step being taken, but the Minister has not given us any reason. In the circumstances, I think the Minister should put off the second reading of this Bill. Let him take the Bill and one of his officials to his farm and study it properly there, so that he will be able to submit the second reading to us and give us an explanation showing that he understands the position.

The Minister, I believe, referred to the fact that the Durban City Council approached the Department on the question of a re-survey of the Durban City area. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that it was estimated that the cost would run into at least a quarter of a million pounds. I think the Minister will realise that that is a very large amount for a town to expend in a matter of this kind. I have been in the Estate business in Durban for a number of years, and I have never known that any encroachment has ever prevented the erection of new buildings, or has interfered with the progress of the town. I realise that there are certain discrepancies but they are very minor matters, and it seems to me that the Minister is giving very wide powers to municipalities to embark on such huge expenditure, and I would suggest that he (the Minister) should insert a proviso that before embarking on the re-survey of a city or a town, the municipality concerned should obtain the necessary authority by means of a referendum of the ratepayers. I think if that were done it would act as a safeguard and prevent any hasty decision on the part of a municipality to run a city into a large amount of expenditure. I submit that point for the Minister’s consideration. There is another point I want to refer to and that is the question of encroachments on some streets in some of our cities. I am not acquainted with all the places in South. Africa but I am acquainted with. Cape Town, and I have noticed that in many places stoeps encroach on public thoroughfares. It struck me as extraordinary that such a thing could be tolerated in a modern city and I would suggest to the Minister that he should embody something in this Bill to enable Cape Town and other cities where there are encroachments on public thoroughfares to overcome these difficulties by means of compensation. If he were to do that, it would serve a very-useful purpose. There was one point in the Minister’s remarks which I was glad to hear, and that is the question of reducing the cost of surveys. I do not know how he proposes to do that, and I hope he is not suggesting that surveyor’s fees should be reduced; as an ex-surveyor I hope he does not mean that. He would be deserving of thanks if he could introduce some means of reducing the costs. I have suggested three points which I hope the Minister will take note of.

I should like to have some explanation from the Minister in regard to the distinction which is being made between ordinary boundary lines and boundary lines along the Orange River and the Vaal River. There has been a great deal of trouble in regard to these two rivers in the past so far as ownership rights are concerned, and the Government has in a number of cases had the worst of the argument. Disputes have arisen in regard to beacons on farms along the river, and the question is whether a man’s farm goes to the middle of the river or only up to the side of the rivier. A commission will give a ruling in regard to other cases, but so far as these two rivers are concerned it will be left to the Minister to decide and the proposal as contained in the Bill must immediately give rise to considerable suspicion. Let me point out that very valuable ownership rights are at stake here; for instance, I may point out that some of the diamondiferous ground is involved. There have been a number of disputes between the Government and private owners, and the Government has not always come off on top when these cases have been taken to court, and if this provision in the Bill is intended to enable the Government to evade such court cases I can only say that it will be wrong to allow a thing like that to happen, and that it would be an abuse if Parliament were to give the Minister that power. The only object is to expropriate a man’s property and we cannot justify that sort of thing. I hope the Minister will be prepared to satisfy us on that point because to me it looks as if the Government is trying to get out of trouble in an unfair and dishonest way.

In regard to the remarks made by the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Acutt), the hon. member is afraid that if Durban had to be surveyed the cost would be quarter of a million pounds. I am informed that if Cape Town had to be surveyed it would cost at least £1,000,000. The hon. member asked for a restriction to be imposed and he expressed the hope that city councils and municipal councils should not be allowed to embark on this expenditure without a referendum taking place. I do not propose to enter into that. It is optional for them to say whether they want a survey or not. If they want a re-survey they have to make application to the Minister, and if the reference marks have been put right then they can go ahead. I take it that the ratepayers always have the right to protest but there is no doubt that in many cases it would be in the interest of municipalities to have a re-survey made. Here in Cape Town for instance you have diagrams which are 300 years old and they are wrong, and as a result all the subsequent diagrams have been wrong. Now, about the reduction of survey costs. I said that the intention was generally to cheapen the costs of survey.

There is nothing in the Bill to lead to that.

My hon. friend wanted to know why the Board never met. That is one of the ways of reducing costs.

That has nothing to do with the cost of survey.

The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) wants to know why a Commission should be able to decide in the case of ordinary boundary lines, while in the case of the Orange River and the Vaal River it is the Minister who will have to decide where the line will have to be. It is in no way going to be within the power of the Minister to do so.

Then why is it not to be dealt with in the same way as the other cases?

I explained that so far as the Orange River and the Vaal River are concerned there have been different rulings by the courts as to where the line runs—whether it is the middle of the river or the high-water mark. In some cases it is the middle of the river, in some cases it is the side of the river, and that being so we say that in the event of the dispute about a line on those two rivers the Minister should be referred to, and information will be given as to whether or not there is a court decision on the question. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Rooth) was not serious. From beginning to end he dealt with this matter in a jocular way and he even dragged in Abyssinia, Germany and Haile Selassie. I hope he will be more serious in future when he has to deal with the work of this House, and he will show that he realises his duty as a member of this House. He gave evidence here this afternoon of not having the slightest sense of his responsibilities. He asked why the Survey Board would not have to meet any more. That is a representation of the position. We have to make provision so that when unimportant matters are at issue …

The word unimportant does not appear in the Bill.

When unimportant matters are at issue it is unnecessary for the members of the Board to be brought together from various parts of the country in order to decide about such matters, and it is provided therefore that they can communicate their decision by post on a case of that kind. But at least eight of the ten must vote for such a change before it can be made.

There is nothing about posting or sending a decision by letter in the Bill.

I now come to the question of the provision that only British subjects can be surveyors in the Union. The reason for this is that in regard to the surveyor’s profession there is reciprocity with Rhodesia. Our surveyors can go to Rhodesia and they can come here; that is the only reason why we use the words “British subject.” We could have put in the words “Union citizen,” but if we had done so this reciprocity would have fallen away. My hon. friend spoke jocularly about Poland. As it happens we have the case of a Pole who was a qualified surveyor, having come to this country. He came here and settled here and practised here, and there was nothing to prevent him from doing so. By inserting the words “British subject” here we shall be protected in future against people coming from elsewhere and practising here as surveyors if they have the necessary qualifications. The hon. member also asked why the Surveyor-General should have the right to decide that certain information is not required although it used to be supplied in the past by the surveyor. Under the existing law surveyors are instructed when sending in their maps to add certain information. When that information is at the disposal of the Surveyor-General in his office, and when there is no need for surveyors to supply it, we say that it is unnecessary for them to do so unless the Surveyor-General asks for it. The Surveyor-General very often has the data containing the necessary details which the surveyors have to send under the existing law. The hon. member also spoke about a registered letter, the period of which is being curtailed from a month to a week. The reason for this curtailment is that when the Surveyor-General wants certain beacons to be defined on a farm in the event of a dispute, he has to get the signatures of the parties concerned-Now they may often hold him up for a month, which, of course, delays the work in his office considerably.

What happens if the man concerned is out of this country?

I am coming to that.

I spoke about an agreement, not about a letter.

This clause assumes that a month is too long if the person concerned is present. A week is quite long enough.

And if they are not here?

If they are not here then they can have more time. I am speaking subject to correction but I believe that in such cases they are given 60 days. The hon. member also asked why we are giving the Surveyor-General the right to approve of a map if he is convinced that the people concerned will not suffer any injury.

It is not a question of a map, but of a change of beacon.

When the survey is made. If the Surveyor-General is satisfied—the person concerned is not there or he refused to agree—if he is satisfied that such a person will not suffer any injury he has the power to approve of the map. I think I have answered all the questions put by my hon. friend.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 5th March.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid this Bill may have been rather heavy reading for those members who followed through section by section and checked them with the corresponding sections of the Acts which are now proposed to be amended. Section and sub-section chase themselves through this measure from start to finish. That form has been absolutely impossible to avoid, on account of the existing legislation and the proposed amendment which it is desired to introduce, and to make relevant a fresh principle. I hope to be able to explain very shortly indeed the single principle which underlies this Bill, and that principle, I hope, will commend itself to this House, and hon. members will be able to accept it without much difficulty. There is one principle and one principle only which underlies this Bill, with the exception of one section which is introduced on separate grounds—I refer to Section 5. With the exception of Section 5, which stands by itself as to its merits, the rest of this Bill is introduced for the purpose of meeting a difficulty which has arisen in years gone by. Legislation upon the lines on which this Bill is drawn has been promised by my predecessors for the last halfdozen years at any rate, but for one reason or another it has not been feasible to go on with it, and the matter has now become acute and has led to a certain amount of trading on proclaimed land going on without legal justification. And it has been in accordance with the undertaking by the Mines Department that they would not set the law in motion and disturb the trading which has taken place, and is still taking place, until remedial legislation was introduced that many traders are still carrying on their trading on mining ground. To make the principle underlying this Bill clear, I would just remind hon. members that under the law as it exists at present, trading on proclaimed ground cannot take place except under certain circumstances, and those circumstances, roughly, are these, either the land must be a stand which has been established as a stand under the existing terms of the Gold Law, or it must be a trading site as opposed to a stand which has been set apart under the Mine Trading Act. And the circumstances are to be dependent on whether the proclaimed land is held under mining title or not. If it is ground which is not held under mining title but which is proclaimed, the mining commissioner can grant a site to any white person and permit trading there to be carried on. This trading need not be restricted to any particular type of trading, but the mining commissioner has the power to prescribe in the licence which he gives the type of trading which is to be carried on. For the purpose of obtaining the right to trade on proclaimed ground held on a mining title, on the contrary, the law provides that the site when set aside and licensed by the mining commissioner, shall be put up to public auction, and those who wish to buy can bid against each other. Thereafter the winning bid confers the right to trade in certain respects, that is to say, a kaffir eating house or a general trader’s business. The right is confined to that. These are the general provisions of the law as they exist at the present time. Under the exigencies of modern mining the proclamation of several new farms in the Witwatersrand area has taken place, and on those farms it has been found that a good many traders had already been carrying on trade before the proclamation. Some of them had been established as traders there for a long time. Others, with a very bright eye to the prospect of a proclamation, have taken time by the forelock, have pushed in and have established a trading business just on the eve of proclamation taking place, and either in the one or the other form, have tried to carry on their business after proclamation. Under these circumstances, the carrying on of trade by these persons to whom I have referred has been entirely and utterly illegal. It has been claimed by them, and in some cases it has been claimed by the owner of the farm which has been proclaimed, that they were entitled to carry on their trading if their ground fell within what is called the owner’s reservation. Hon. members will remember that under the Gold Law, Section 23 I think it is, before proclamation takes place the owner has the right to set aside his homestead and his buildings and the land surrounding it, which are required for the operation of the rest of the premises. That is called an owner’s reservation, and it has been claimed that all land which fell within this selective area by the owner, called the owner’s reservation, was free from the prohibition under the Gold Law, of carrying on trading there without fulfilling the conditions to which I have referred. Well, now, the opinion of the Mines Department is that that contention could not be upheld. I may intimate that I am of opinion that the position taken up by the Mines Department in times past has been the correct one, but I must inform the House that this matter has not been decided in the courts, and that contrary opinions have been held, and therefore the matter is to that extent open. In these circumstances my predecessors in office, from time-to time as far back in the first instance as 1935, came to the conclusion that these traders who got their rights not under the Gold Law but from the owner of the land, and in some instances claimed that their rights were covered by the owner’s reservation, would require special legislation to be introduced. When I took up office about eighteen months ago I found that this was one of the pressing questions waiting for settlement. I went into this matter personally as thoroughly as I could, I received deputations from those who were interested and listened to the legal arguments put forward by their counsel, and I came to the conclusion that the position could best be dealt with by legislation. The question then was on what lines this legislation should take place. There were only two methods in principle that were open, the one was to introduce legislation which would catalogue the number of traders who had been in existence under this indefinite, but still a promise, that some sort of legislation would deal in some way with the position, and that their trading was to be recognised and established under a law, or we must have legislation which dealt with the position on a question of principle by a method which made the exemtions to be granted, in so far as they were to be granted or ex post facto the operation of the law, referable to this ascertained principle. Well, sir, I must say I am very much against having legislation ad hominum, simply conferring rights on particular unnamed individuals. I did not think that this was either right or proper or necessary. I found, on investigation, that the case of those whom I thought were deserving of consideration would be met if we introduced this modification in principles underlying both the Gold Law and mine trading rights. If we were to say that the owner of land on which, before proclamation, traders had been carrying on trade with his consent for a period of years before proclamation took place; if we were to say that we would confer upon them, if the owner so desired it, the right to continue to trade after proclamation, that that would meet the case. Well, now, I think there is a good deal to be said for that in principle. The House will remember that when applying the Transvaal Gold Law in principle to the Free State, we made one great modification, and that was that the trading rights were to be given to the owner of the land. Well, now, it is not feasible or possible to make that modification as far as the Transvaal is concerned. At this hour in our mining history, to go back upon the principle which we have adopted hitherto and to confer the trading rights throughout the Rand upon the owner, would be to create a position of intolerable chaos. But I do think we can properly take a step in that direction, and that is the step which I am proposing to take in the Bill I am now introducing. It is this, that the owner of the land, before proclamation, who has had upon his land a number of traders trading under a lease or agreement with him, or where he has been trading upon his own account, shall not be disturbed, and he shall not be disturbed in carrying on that trade which is permitted by the Gold Law on mining property, that is to say, the trade or business of a kaffir eating house or general trader. He shall have, and those holding trading sites under him shall have the right to continue so to trade and have that right placed upon a compulsory basis if a request be made within a given specified length of time. That is really the principle which underlies this Bill. If that principle is adopted and made retrospective to cases which have arisen before the 1st January, 1940, it will meet all the cases, the outstanding cases which have occasioned this legislation to be introduced, and which have concerned both my predecessors in office and myself. I say it will meet the legitimate cases where there has been agreement, it does not meet other cases in which such trading has been taking place, and I tell the House quite definitely that with these other cases I have no sympathy whatever. The principle, if made retrospective in the way I have indicated, will meet the cases of all those traders who have been established legitimately if they were established there before proclamation took place. But in certain cases traders were not content with that. They had sought to steal a march upon some of their competitors, and after proclamation have left the places at which they were trading, and migrated to land nearer the compound, or land which offered them, in their opinion, better facilities for getting a higher percentage of trade. Now with the man who has done that I confess I have no sympathy, and I hope this House will have no sympathy either.

It is very human.

It may be very human, lots of things are human which are quite rightly characterised as offences, and lots of things are human which are very unsocial, and I am sure my hon. friend would be the last to claim that all instincts which are human should be gratified, still less should be sanctioned by legislative enactment. No, sir, these cases I say quite frankly are not covered by this Bill, and I hope the House will agree with me that there is no justification for covering them within the terms of this Bill. Well, now, for the machinery by which this principle is to be enshrined. If the House will take it from me that with the exception of section 5, to which I will refer presently, this principle is the principle which it is sought to be established, it will simplify matters, and the House will be in a position to record its conviction on the second reading whether they approve of the principle or whether they do not. I trust the House will approve. When we get to the committee stage, it will be right and proper to deal with each section as it arises, but perhaps I might mention very briefly what the machinery is by which this is to be achieved. In clause 1 I seek to make it abundantly clear that the owner’s reservation and the right to trade on an owner’s reservation is subject to the whole of the provisions of section 96, and is not independent thereof. It does that in categorical terms. Clause 2 is a proviso to be added to section 18 of the Gold Law, and is designed to apply to land which is not held under mining title. There it enables a landowner on whose land this trade or business is being carried on to get that protection for his trade after proclamation for a sufficient length of time to enable him to make the application for a grant in the terms I have referred to and outlined. Clause 3 is really a re-enactment with certain alterations of section 96 of the Gold Law. I am proposing to repeal and re-enact the whole of section 96 for the purpose of clarity. It would make it very confusing to have all the alterations in it piecemeal, and hon. members will remember that a great deal of section 96 has been rendered historically obsolete by the fact that many of the provisions of chapter 10 of the Gold Law, to which section 96 refers, have already been repealed. [No quorum.] Section 96 has become to some extent antiquated by a repeal of a number of its provisions, and therefore the recasting of section 96 is necessary for the purpose of keeping our law in a condition in which its provisions can be understood. Further, it is necessary to introduce a proviso there to enable the modification of the Gold Law to which I have referred to be introduced; that is, conferring upon the owner and those who hold under him this further right to trade if they have been trading in the past. Section 4 is intended to make clear that the prohibition against trading under the Trading on Mines Land Regulation Act is not to apply in the case of land which is held on mining title, on which there is a township, or where again validation is being sought under the modification which I am proposing in this Bill. Section 5 I will refer to in a moment. Clause 6 of the Bill is the most important of the whole Bill, and this contains the substantive amendment which I have outlined, and which I don’t think it is necessary for me to read. It does it in two halves: the one is dealing with the future, the other is the actification of the trading which has taken place in the past. Clause 7 is necessary to determine by whom the cost of preparing the necessary diagrams, and the erection of beacons, is to be borne, and under this Bill the expenses are to be borne by the person who benefits. I think that covers the whole of this Bill with the exception of clause 5. I will say this about clause 5: it is an amendment of section 3 of the Trading on Mines Regulation Act, and this amendment is introduced for this purpose. Under that Act it is provided that where a person had purchased a trading site and the mining company removed the compound or the population living in that compound to another site, the owner of the trading site should apply for a removal of his trading site to another one. Where that new trading site was to be was not specified. It was in doubt as to whether the site could be moved to where the native labourers had been taken, or whether it was independent of that. A decision has lately been given by one of the judges of the Supreme Court that the Department was not in any way concerned, nor was any applicant concerned, where the natives were removed to, but that a new site might be given anywhere, anywhere in the country—at least, that is as far as I understand the judgment. There is nothing to prevent trading sites being given in Springs if the natives from a compound on the Crown Mines in the middle of Johannesburg had gradually been removed, not necessarily to any compound, but to a whole series of compounds. Until we had this interpretation of the regulation, it was possible for the Mines Department, or for me as Minister of Mines, to give a direction which would defeat the whole principle of the Act, which provides that where there is an opportunity of creating a fresh trading site on ground held under mining title, that that site should be put up to public auction and should be knocked down to the highest bidder. In these circumstances the Minister of Mines is placed in a very unenviable position. I feel my own inability to administer the law in these circumstances, and therefore I ask Parliament to make the position quite clear by accepting section 5. That section makes it clear, first of all, that any site which is to be granted in the alternative by the Minister of Mines or the Mining Commissioner, is to be on the same mining property on which the native inhabitants have been changed from one compound to another. And it also makes it clear that in making the change the trader is subject to the condition that he must be in close proximity to the place where the native labourers are removed to. This, I think, will meet the legitimate case of a trader who finds that for some reason or other, due to the administration of the mine, the whole of his clientele has been taken from his doorstep and removed to another part of the mine, and he is left high and dry. This will permit him to make application for the removal of his trading store to a place where he can still follow up his old clientele, but it will not permit that very wide discretion which, in my opinion, should not be vested in the Minister of Mines or the Mining Commissioner, of granting a new trading site in any part of the Witwatersrand. That is the reason, that is the principle underlying section 5 and the amendment thereunder. This is a simple principle under the main portion of the Act, and I hope that that will commend itself to this House, and that the reason for the amendment to section 5 will also commend itself to this House; as I say, I apologise for the complications of sections and sub-sections chasing each other, but it is impossible in the present state of the law to avoid it, and I hope the House will find this a simple and attractive measure.

I must thank the Minister not only for the lucid manner in which he has introduced the Bill but for the general review of the mine trading position which I think most of us here value very much. The Minister is quite right—I have often thought on referring to some of these Bills how difficult it was to follow them; they are impossible, and this is one of the most impossible ones. I spent some time on the Bill, and after a time I left it alone. I am only going to express an opinion on a point or two and then leave it. I agree with the Minister’s outline. I agree that this Bill is necessary and desirable, and what I have gathered from the earlier clauses of the Bill gives me the impression that they will put the position of mine trading on a very satisfactory basis. One should remember that the mine trading position on the Rand until a few years ago caused a tremendous amount of trouble to the mine owners, the Government and everyone else, but I think even the Minister will agree that during the past few years the position has been much more satisfactory, and the country will be even more glad now to see this Bill come forward to fill up these vacant spots, if there are any vacant spots left. My object in speaking to the Bill at all is to draw the Minister’s attention to clause 5 because I think clause 5 will not work. I think it is ill-considered. Let us review the position. Up to now, when a location has moved, the mining commissioner has the option of the whole of the fileds for the selection of a trading site to give to the man who is being ousted, but what does the Bill do. Clause 5 limits it so tremendously that it will make it impossible. It hits all the other traders. Let me illustrate. Say you have three or four mine stores on a property. They are in all probability doing quite well and able to hold their own. Now you put on another mine store, because the location has moved and you put that other store up against two or three of these mine trading stores. You bring about the position that some of these traders are unable to carry on their business honestly. That is what is going to happen. If anything goes wrong with a trading store—many of those people go in for selling liquor, and it has often been the case that owing to a location being shifted they have got into trouble. Now, instead of having the whole area to put a man who has been ousted, whose location has disappeared, the Bill will carry him after the location. I think something better could have been done, and that is the only objection I have to the Bill, but there are other features associated with this provision in clause 5. The owner of this mine trading stand has had his run, he has bought it with all the risks which he has to carry. Now the Department of Mines will come along and say “No, we shall relieve you.” Surely the man took that stand on his own responsibility. I think this is an unwise feature and it should be amended. If this Bill is carried out I am afraid it will have an effect on the whole of the sales of these mine trading stands. If an owner feels that he may be relieved at any time because the value of these stores is the continuous trade he has, he can carry on, but if an owner feels that he may be relieved at any time he is in a totally different position. After all, the owner used his own judgment when he got the store, and he has had his run of trade, and it is too much to say “We shall pick you up and carry you along without any loss to yourself.” That I feel is the weakness of this Bill and I think some other means should be found. Do not let us disturb the present position. We shall be doing an injustice to the traders whom you are putting the others up against. You will be doing no injustice to the man you leave there. That stand on which you are going to put that trader is in all probability worth £10,000 or £12,000. That is fairly well within the region of stands. Clause 5 will take the trader and put him on that stand without it costing him anything. By this clause 5 you are giving that trader this very valuable Government asset for which he will pay nothing at all. Apart from that I welcome the Bill. I think it is wanted and I think it is an excellent measure and I think the Minister’s way of introducing this Bill has been an education to us. I support the Bill very heartily and I leave my suggestion with the Minister to endeavour to make such changes in clause 5 as will make it more just and reasonable.

I welcome the Bill, and I think that all members whose constituencies are affected by it will also welcome it. But I am disappointed that the Minister has not taken this opportunity of introducing a consolidating measure. To-day, I think, there are four or five Acts scattered throughout our Statute Books which deal with mine trading, and it is with the utmost difficulty that any lawyer, apart from the ordinary man in the street, can find out what the law is. I am therefore disappointed that the Minister has not taken the opportunity of introducing a consolidating measure. The Minister has said that there is a simple principle running throughout this Bill. I agree with him, but I want to put it to him that there are other principles which are bound up with this question of mine trading which could and should have been introduced into this Bill. In 1935 a commission was appointed to go into the whole question of Trading on Mining Ground. It was a very representative Commission, the chairman of which was Mr. Page, and if I may say so, the commission made very valuable recommendations after sitting for some considerable time. I would have thought that this would be the opportunity for the Minister to incorporate in this Bill at least some of the more important recommendations of that commission. First of all I want to touch on a matter which vitally affects certain interests, more particularly on the West and the East Rand. I am going to deal with the question of the authorised sale of agricultural produce to mine clubs and to natives in mine compounds. Under Act 19 of 1917 the sale of agricultural products to mine clubs and natives in mine compounds was authorised. The case was put up at the time that here would be an avenue for the primary producer to dispose of surplus produce for the native population, and this Act of 1917 was passed in consequence. Under this Act agricultural produce included fruit, vegetables, nuts, sugar reed and cane and milk, grown or produced in South Africa. A licence to sell these was to be issued to a producer himself, his agent or a combination of these, and the manager of the mine where trading was permitted was to be consulted on the suitability of an applicant for a licence. Under Act 36 of 1934 (Trading on Mining Ground Regulation Act) which we are now seeking to amend certain substantial amendments were introduced to the Act of 1917 to which I have referred by sections 50 to 54. These dealt with the existing rights of persons to sell agricultural produce on mining property. In effect, these sections added to the list of articles that could be sold poultry, eggs, leaf tobacco and honey. Another vital amendment was that the licence to sell these products was in future only to be given to miners’ phthisis beneficiaries. They were to be recommended by the Miners’ Phthisis Board and in certain exceptional cases licences would also be given to mining employees who had sustained an accident in the course of their employment which prevented their reemployment. Before the Act of 1934 was passed it was referred to a Select Committee of this House, and on that Select Committee this very question of the sale of agricultural produce was fully considered. The chairman of the Select Committee was Sir Patrick Duncan, now Governor-General of the Union of South Africa, then Minister of Mines, and he moved that agricultural produce should be extended to include fruit, nuts, vegetables, tobacco, eggs, poultry, honey, biscuits and cakes, and dairy produce provided such articles were manufactured or produced in the Union. An amendment was moved to the effect to delete certain of these items and unfortunately the proposal of the chairman was lost by one vote. So in the Act of 1934 we still find that there was a limited and very restricted definition of agricultural produce. Now I want to put in a plea for these miners’ phthisis beneficiaries, these men to whom this little privilege has been granted. I need not go through all the difficulties and disabilities from which these miners’ phthisis beneficiaries suffer. They are well known to this House. This is a small privilege which is given to these men to start a little business when they get their little bit of compensation so that they can earn a living. Usually they are incapacitated from pursuing any form of work and they are given a licence to trade in the compounds. They are allowed to run what are commonly called fruit stalls. To-day the trouble is that these unfortunate licencees cannot compete because of the food which is given to the natives in, I should say, ninety-nine per cent. of the compounds on the Reef. For instance, such commodities as bread, cakes, mealie meal, cut tobacco, cigarettes, sugar, tinned milk, boermeal, beef, biltong, are all excluded from the list, and it is impossible for these unfortunates to make a living. We find to-day that the rations of natives have been increased to such an extent that such articles as tomatoes, sweet potatoes, green mealies, oranges and orange juice are all included in the rations. You can appreciate that the trade of the unfortunate fruit stall holder in the compound is almost completely cut away. Then we have the further hardship that is inflicted on the fruit stall trader. These traders on Trading Stands and Sites, to whom the Minister has referred, have the habit of encouraging natives to come to their stores to buy by giving them a present, a bonsella, free. That is the custom to-day, so the result, through a combination of circumstances—firstly, the increase in the native rations and secondly, the bonsellas given by the traders to natives—is that we have the lamentable position that the living —a meagre one at that—of these miners’ phthisis people has been practically taken away, and I urge very strongly on the Minister that he should take this opportunity of rectifying the matter. Here in the Bill before the House he has the opportunity of extending the list of articles which these people can sell in the compounds. He should take this opportunity, and I urge upon him the necessity of doing so. Now I want to come to a few further points. I want to deal with two questions which are implicit in this Bill. The first is the setting apart of a site, and the second the selection of an occupier for that site. Under the gold law of 1908 a board was created to deal with renewals or transfers of certificates granted for trading sites, and for cancellation of certificates. Act No. 13 of 1910, that is the Trading on Mining Ground Act of the Transvaal, effected a change to the extent that it abolished this Board and it said that in future the powers possessed by this Board would be transferred to the Mining Commissioner. So under the existing legislation not only does the ultimate decision, whether a site has to be set aside or not, rest with the Minister, in other words, with the Mining Commissioner—the Minister acts on the recommendation of the Mining Commissioner—but it lies with him too to initiate the proceedings. No one else can make application for a trading site. The power to initiate the proceedings rests with the Minister, and if he does not move no one else can.

He can always ask.

There is no provision in the Act for applications. Section 5 (3) of the Act of 1910 provides that the Mining Commissioner having by direction of the Minister provisionally set apart a site and thereafter having held an enquiry, shall decide whether or not the site shall finally be set aside. It is also provided further that in discharging his functions the Mining Commissioner shall act in accordance with instructions from the Minister who may confirm, vary or reverse any decision of the Mining Commissioner. This power of reversal which vests in the Minister has in the past been extensively exercised so in practice and in theory the decision to set aside a site rests with the Minister. And one of the questions investigated by this Commission to which I have referred was whether this function should remain with the Minister, or should be vested in some other authority. That is one of the vital questions investigated by this Commission. They recommended that the powers exercised by the Minister should be vested in a board consisting of the magistrate of Johannesburg, the chief Native Commissioner of the Witwatersrand, and the Mining Commissioner of the mining district of Johannesburg. Their reasons were shortly these—which I wholeheartedly subscribe to. First of all they say it entails the exercise of a personal discretion and the delegation by the Minister of such a function is undesirable if not actually improper. The function is quasi judicial and not administrative. Secondly, the Statute should prescribe conditions under which it may be demanded that a site is set apart. I do not think that the conditions should be attached to the certificate. The Statute should prescribe under what conditions this certificate will be issued. Further, the Board should decide— if you have a Board—whether such conditions exist, and there should be no room for discretion, the Board must use its own judgment. That is a Board as against the Minister. Then it is held that the Minister is not as well equipped for the discharge of such a function as a properly constituted Board would be. His time is too fully occupied to hear evidence, and he has to go on statements made by various parties—in other words, he has to depend on ex parte statements. There is no time for the Minister to make inspections without which he cannot arrive at a true appreciation of the situation. All the Minister has before him is the record of an enquiry made by the Mining Commissioner, and it has been remarked by courts of appeal that the perusal of such a record is an insufficient substitute and cannot be compared with the actual hearing of oral evidence. In other words, the Minister merely sits as a judge of appeal. He receives a record which is put before him by the Mining Commissioner and he simply sits as a court of appeal. A further point is that changes of portfolio are not infrequent and tend inevitably to lead to lack of uniformity in decisions. I submit that the Board will have none of these difficulties. The decision of a Board, for instance, will be final and not subject to review by the Minister. The Minister is so placed that in the discharge of this function he is open to reproach by persons or bodies who may be able to exert no little political influence, and I submit that that is a very bad thing. The usual practice is this, that people send individuals or deputations to the Minister to secure a reversal of a decision made by the Mining Commissioner, and I submit that decisions in these cases should be entirely above political influence or personal approach. A Board can refuse to listen to ex parte representations. I strongly submit that this Commission of 1935 presented a complete case for the substitution of a Board in place of the Minister, and I hope that when we come to the Committee stage of this Bill the Minister will seriously consider accepting amendments to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee. I should like to point out to the House that these trading sites are of great value. Sometimes you find that sales take place for ten or twelve thousand pounds just for the right to trade on a particular site. Hon. members will realise that these sites are of very great value indeed. As a matter of fact they are more valuable than most liquor licences, and yet under the liquor licensing Act you have a Board set up under the chairmanship of the magistrate, while here the matter is left to the sole discretion of the Minister. I submit, sir, that it is wrong and indefensible. There are questions of transfers of sites, and there are questions of renewals and cancellation of certificates which have to be dealt with by the Minister. I want also to touch briefly on the question of the selection of the occupier, that is the person to whom the site is sold. There are two alternatives, either you make a selection on merit or you sell it by auction to the highest bidder. I admit that the first method is impracticable, because you may have half a dozen applicants who are all suitable, and it would be most invidious to decide whose offer should be accepted. I say, therefore, that the second method is preferable. I would like to draw the attention of the House and of the Minister to a recommendation of this commission, which to my mind is most important, and to which effect has not been given in this Bill. That recommendation is found in two places in this report, first of all on page 30. There it says—

If hon. members will refer to the Bill before the House, they will find that under Clause 6, in line 66, there is a proviso to the effect that the said right shall not be sold to any person unless he is a white person of the age of 21 or more, and has been approved of by the Minister. Now here we have a recommendation of the commisssion that the holder must not only be a white person of 21 or upwards, but also a Union National. On page 33, under paragraph 199, there is a similar recommendation. It is recommended that sales by auction should be continued to the highest bidder, provided that he be white and a Union National. I submit that this is a recommendation of first-class importance, namely, that this valuable privilege, which is the property of the Government, should only be given to a Union National, and the report says the reasons for that are obvious and cogent. I think they are to the House. I hope that at the Committee stage the Minister will seriously consider an amendment giving effect to that recommendation. I would now like to refer to Clause 6, subsection (5), which says—

I would like to ask the Minister whether he cannot accept the recommendation of the majority of the commission in regard to the division of the licence moneys. On page 18 of the Commission’s report we find this—

The reasons are stated in full in this report, and I think hon. members should read them. The majority report then proceeds to recommend—

The minority, consisting of the chairman and Mr. Fernhead, held on the contrary, that all the revenue should accrue to the State alone, and no share in it should be conceded to the freehold owner. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say on this majority recommendation. In dealing with trading sites, I make the suggestion that the Minister might consider conditions of tenure under certificates on trading sites being incorporated in this Bill. At the moment the practice is, I understand, that a certificate is issued, and the conditions of tenure are embodied in that certificate. I submit that it might be better if the House, by legislation in this Bill, lays down the conditions under which these certificates should be issued. I believe that on page 37 of this commission, certain recommendations are made regarding the conditions under which these trading sites should be held. Some of these conditions are very important. For instance, the occupier shall have no right to sublet his right of occupation of a trading site, and may transfer it only to a person having the qualifications already stipulated. Again, neither the occupier nor any partner of the occupier, shall be or become interested in any business carried on on any other trading stand or trading site. We find combines on the Rand today owning half a dozen trading sites, they buy up these trading sites when the owners get into difficulties, and the commission recommends that that practice shall be stopped. A further recommendation prohibits the tying up of stores, prohibits the entering into any agreement whereby the trader binds himself to purchase goods from any person to the exclusion, whether wholly or in part, of any other seller of such or similar goods. In other words, they recommend that ties shall be prohibited. They also recommend that the occupier shall personally manage the business and not entrust it to any manager or other person for a period of more than one month, without the consent of the chairman of the board, if a board is to be appointed. There are about ten conditions of tenure which are recommended by this commission, and my submission is that those conditions should be included in this Bill, so that we have a measure of control over trading sites. My last point is one which is also touched on by this commission. I refer to the proviso in sub-paragraph (3) on page 578. The commission draws attention to a defect in the existing law, which the hon. Minister has only partly sought to remedy under this amendment of his. I am reading now from page 32, paragraph 191—

In other words, the point made is that this statutory notice, which is mentioned in the section I have read, only refers to objections to the transfer and renewal of the certificate. There is nothing about the application itself. I submit, for the consideration of the Minister, that this is a point that he might well take into consideration at the committee stage. I thought it my duty to bring all these matters to the notice of the Minister. The recommendations of the Commission, to my mind, are fair and valuable, and I suggest that the Minister, before the committee stage, should go into the points I have raised, and I hope it may be possible for him to meet some of them.

This Bill is more or less trying to solve a knotty problem, and I am going to make an appeal to the Minister on behalf of those who are going to be deprived, by this Bill, of what we may term vested interests. The people I have in mind are those who have been carrying on a store on some of the mines for a certain number of years, and they will find overnight that the business is entirely taken away by shifting of the natives to another part of the mine. I hope the Minister, at the committee stage, will make some provision for these unfortunate people who find themselves in that position. Some have been carrying on the business for 20 or 25 years, and it might be said that they have been in business long enough to have compensated themselves for their capital outlay. But that does not occur in every case. What happens sometimes is that the man in possession gets wind of what is likely to take place, and effects a sale of his business before the transfer of the compound is effected. The new man comes along and finds, in a very little while, that his business has entirely left him, and that after he has paid one of the large sums which have been mentioned as having been paid for these trading rights. And it is not only a case of losing the business, but there are the buildings which, in such a case, become useless. Under the provisions of this Bill such a man is absolutely unprovided for. I want to support the appeal which has been made by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) on behalf of the phthisis men. I know that an effort is being made to get these men into small businesses, but the process has not gone far enough, and I don’t think many of these men have been able to carry on much business. I would ask the Minister to give these men all the consideration that he possibly can. They have made great sacrifices for the mining industry, and when a man has this fatal disease, his life is not so very long, and he should at least be given an opportunity to make a livelihood for a few more years.

May I express my gratification at the general approval given to the terms of this Bill. The main criticism has been that it has not gone very much further than it purported to do, and that I have not devoted my attention to making the terms of the Bill so comprehensive as to cover the recommendations of the Commission. Let me say at once in answer to the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) that the purpose of this Bill was not a comprehensive alteration of the terms of the Trading on Mining Ground Regulation Act, but to meet cases which had arisen and which have been handed down to me over the last six years, cases in which trading was going on illegally and emergency legislation had to be introduced to deal with the situation. I have set myself, in this particular Bill, to meet that difficulty, and that difficulty alone. I quite agree with the case made out by the hon. member for Brakpan for the consolidation of the Gold Law, and the Trading on Mining Ground Regulation Act. It is very difficult to find our way about these two different sets of Acts, because they are sets of Acts, and I should have introduced such legislation this year had it been feasible to do so. But to introduce that legislation required very much greater enquiry, very much greater attention by the Commission, and greater attention by the Parliamentary draughtsman, and it has not been possible to do that. So I am going to ask my hon. friend to have patience and not to suggest, at this stage, that I should overload this Bill by introducing a number of matters which I have not given any attention to. I cannot possibly accept the responsibility, at this stage, to attempt to deal with all the recommendations of the Commission. I agree that they are very important, and subject matter for amending legislation, though I wish to raise a caveat against being supposed to accept all the recommendations. I understand that my predecessors could not do so, and I will not commit myself to all of them? But I do admit, quite frankly, that the time is ripe for an amending, consolidating Act dealing with the trading on mining ground, and with the regulations under the gold law. But the time has not come for that, and that is not the proposal which is being put before the House. The only proposal I am making is designed to meet this case of illegal trading, which has been going on for the last half dozen years. In addition, there is this one clause to simplify the Trading Act, to which the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Henderson) has drawn attention, and has taken exception to. I hope to introduce a consolidating measure at a later period, but certainly that cannot be done this session. But it is a measure which will have to be so carefully considered that I cannot pledge myself, at this stage, to do it in the next session. With regard to the sale of agricultural products in mine compounds, the only amendment the hon. member for Brakpan asked for is that the list of what can be sold in this way should be increased. Well, that may be granted when the time comes. With regard to the phthisis men, all I want to say is that those who are suffering from phthisis are given a preference in getting licences to carry on trade in the compounds. I think that is right. Reverting to the sale of produce, all I can say is that as long as I have been in office, I have had no suggestion made to me that there should be any enlargement of the categories of produce in which they may trade. It may be that the list may be at a later stage increased with advantage. With regard to the hon. member’s desire to transfer the functions of the mining commissioner and the Minister to a board, well, that is a matter which will be considered with all the other recommendations of the commission when the time comes. But at the present moment there is no right to choose a winner in the Minister. All the Minister can do is to say whether a person is a fit and proper person to be allowed to pay the winning price at auction, and I do think with all modesty that either the Minister or the mining commissioner is a proper person to make such a decision. For the rest, the matter is left to free competition, and whoever ever can give the largest amount to the consolidated revenue.

Why should not the purchaser be a Union National?

That again is a matter which might be introduced at the right time, but to put it in this particular legislation is to go outside the purpose of the Bill.

Why not?

I am not saying anything against it.

Will you accept such an amendment?

No, I am just pointing out why I cannot accept that as an amendment, it would distort this particular piece of legislation. I would, in order to introduce such an amendment, have to search through the whole of these laws. I am prepared to consider this matter with the rest in the consolidating Act which I hope to bring in later on. I am not saying anything against the principle. With regard to paying half of the money to the owner, instead of paying it all to the consolidated revenue fund, I am certainly not prepared to accept that. The consolidated revenue fund requires all the support we can possibly give it, nor can I see any particular claim that the owner would have to the half share. The prevention of creating tied houses, as far as trading stores are concerned, is also a matter to be considered when the consolidating Act is introduced. It is entirely foreign to the principle of this Bill, and is going right outside its purport. I am confining myself to the one subject which requires immediate legislation, and leave the other matters for the comprehensive legislation later on. The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Bawden) put in a plea for the Miners’ Phthisis men. I think I have answered that sufficiently, that the phthisis men at present have a priviliged position in connection with the sale of agricultural produce at these compounds. The question of increasing the number of articles which they may sell is one which is not a pressing one. I cannot consider it a pressing one because I have not had any representation on the subject, and the increase of this category will also be considered when the mining legislation comes about. The hon. member for Langlaagte raised one further question, and that was, he said, that people who had a trading site woke up one fine morning and found out that overnight their business had been taken away from them. I am at a loss to understand what the hon. member means. That is exactly what the present Trading Regulation Act does not permit, or rather what it is made provision meeting. If a compound is moved or if the natives are removed by the mine owner from one place to another then provision is made under section 3 of the Act for another site to be given. That section I am proposing to amend under this Bill for the purpose of securing that the giving of the new site shall not be on too wide a discretion—that it shall be confined to the same property and I think I have met the whole point raised by the hon. member there when I say that if section 5 is accepted there will be full opportunity for another trading site being found on the same property if there is an opportunity for it being done. Now I come to the hon. member for Hospital Hill (Mr. Henderson). He dealt with the same section, but his criticism was from a distant angle. He desired that the case which the hon. member for Langlaagte wanted to protect should be absolutely removed and taken away.

He does not represent a mining division.

I wish to answer every argument used and every criticism from whichever point it comes. The hon. member for Hospital suggested that there was no justification at all when the clientele of a mine trader was removed from a particular site to another site, for giving him any consideration. That, I think, is going too far. I would not support legislation of that kind. I was a member of the Select Committee which was responsible for introducing clause 3 of the Trading on Mining Ground Regulation Act which I am now seeking to amend. With the principle underlying that section I am in agreement, and it has had the considered approval of Parliament after the question was thrashed out in Select Committee, and I am not proposing to amend the principle arrived at, but what I am proposing is to circumscribe the very wide opportunity of defeating another principle of the Regulation of Trading Act, where it will allow the Minister of Mines in giving another site to go right outside the mining property on which the original site is placed and give another site anywhere from Springs to Randfontein.

Will not the change make it worse?

No, because the new site can only be granted if it is not to the detriment of other traders—subject to the provision of clause 4. Sub-clause 4 of clause 5 of the Trading on Mining Ground Regulation Act provides that no ground shall finally be set aside for a trading site unless the Mining Commissioner is satisfied, having regard to the number of persons residing or employed in the neighbourhood, having regard to the number of traders and so on, that there is no public interest for additional trading facilities. So that that already is the law which is applicable to a transfer of this kind, and if clause 5 of this Bill is accepted it will in express terms be subject to the wording of that clause. It therefore prevents the mischief which the hon. member contemplates. For these reasons I hope the House will now accept the second reading of the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

As I do not see my way to accept any amendment extending the scope of this Bill, I hope there will be no objection to taking the committee stage now. I move—

I object.

House to go into Committee on the Bill on 5th March.

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name, as appearing on the Order Paper. I move—

1. (ii) by the deletion of paragraph (b).

This is in accordance with an undertaking which I gave to remove that clause altogether. That is the clause where the board has to determine from time to time on transportation on any route. I just want to say that I accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for North-East Rand (Mr. Heyns). In regard to the amendment by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren), I do not think we should lay down the cost of a certificate in this Bill. That is a matter for the regulations, and I have asked the chairman of the board to go carefully into the cost of these certificates and to keep them as low as possible, but I want to point out that if we keep the cost of certificates too low it will mean that the service will be bad. For instance, the hon. member is proposing to later on move an amendment asking that the number plates should be given in fourteen days. That will only be possible if we have a big staff. But that costs money, so all the time you have to strike a mien between the service and the amount you have to pay for it. I suggest that we leave the question of costs to the regulations, and do not lay it down in the Bill. I have already dealt with the question of a monopoly, and I hope the hon. member will not expect me to accept his amendment. I accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Egeland), which is a consequential amendment.

I can well understand that the Minister does not want the cost of the certificate to be laid down in the Act itself, and I am also glad that he has told me that he is prepared to refer the matter back to the Road Transportation Board to see what concessions can be made, but I should like the Minister to understand that the amounts these people have to pay are very high. A bus for instance has to pay £4 per year. An ordinary carrier lorry £3. If a temporary exemption is asked for they have to pay 10s. for every 24 hours or 20s. per month but then they have to make application every month. If I want to transport a mealie crop and it takes me two months, I have to make application each month. Hon. members know what happens with grapes; we start pressing in February, and we keep on transporting until November. The transporting of the grapes themselves takes place during February, March and April. Then the pressing is stopped. If a carrier gets an exemption certificate it costs him 20s. per month; in other words, £3 for three months, and he has to make application every month. We now find, for instance, in the report of the Central Road Transportation Board that they have an added income of £35,000 from the poor lorry drivers. I again want to assure the Minister, and I think he knows himself, that most of those people live from hand to mouth, yet an amount of £35,000 has been collected from them while their expenses have amounted to £30,000. There, naturally, are certain fees which the Railways would have to pay; they keep those separate, but they should have been added, and that brings the income to £35,000, while the expenditure was £30,000, which means that the Railways benefited to an amount of £5,000 at the expense of these carriers. My argument is, rightly or wrongly, that if the Government wants to protect its Railways it should be able to pay the expenditure of the Road Transportation Board. If the Railways advertise, or if they do anything else to extend their business, they pay for it themselves. Here we find, however, that the lorry drivers have to pay for the protection which is afforded to the Railways. I fail to see why the carriers should have to pay the expenses of the Road Transportation Board, because the Road Transportation Board has been brought into being in order to assist the Railways. The lorry drivers pay the provincial authorities certain licence moneys which vary from £13 to £85. Besides that this tax is collected from them, because I cannot regard it as anything but a tax. They are already taxed up to the very hilt on petrol, tyres and tubes, and all the various parts they require. In addition to that they have to pay this tax to the Road Transportation Board in order to pay the officials of that Board and the inspectors of that Board. I say that that is not right because those people are there to protect the Railways, and I therefore take up the attitude that the Railways themselves should pay for that. I want to mention the case of a lorry driver in my own constituency. He got a certificate to carry milk in the district to a tinned milk factory. The people of Montague asked him also to carry the milk of their district. Now he had to go to the Road Transportation Board again and he has to pay a further £1 2s. 6d. to obtain the right to carry that milk. Is that fair? I feel that this Road Transportation Board has been put there to protect the Railways. The Railways should pay the costs, yet those people might be called upon to pay 2s. 6d. or 5s. for such a licence. It should merely be a formal thing so that control can be exercised over the applications which are made. If people have to apply in order that control may be maintained, then I want to ask why, in addition, they should still have to pay a further tax of £4, £3, £1 2s. 6d. and 10s. and £1 for temporary applications? It is an additional burden which is imposed upon them and it is unfair. I think the Minister will agree that the scale is wrong, and seeing that his Railways are going to make very large profits this year, I think we are justified in asking that the Railways should bear the expense, and I want to say that it is definitely unfair that the lorry drivers should have to contribute this £30,000. What will the position be if the Road Transportation Board appoints a number of inspectors? Will the lorry drivers then have to pay all the expense on behalf of the Railways? Will they have to pay the people who on behalf of the Railways will act as detectives? If the staff is extended they will increase the taxes from time to time. That sort of thing seems to be very unfair. I do not think that originally it was the idea that the lorry drivers should pay additional taxes in order to cover the costs of the staff of the Road Transportation Board. If I could speak to the Minister as a private business man I am convinced he would realise the unfairness of the position, and he would realise that my amendment is fair. I only want to say this, that the fact that he admits that the scales must be reviewed proves that there is something wrong. The position is such that these people have to keep books, and they are even expected to keep consignment notes and all the rest of it, and to issue such notes, a sort of transportation system such as the Railways have. This is done to exercie control over the transportation business, but we should not be so unfair as to tax them in order to cover the costs of the Road Transportation Board. If we remember that the Railways will be benefiting to the extent of £2,000,000 as a result of this law, and if we realise the tremendous surplus there is going to be, then it seems to me that the Railways are quite able to bear this small amount themselves—a small amount to them, but a large amount to the lorry drivers who find it difficult to come out on the little they earn.

I cannot but associate myself with the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) in pleading the cause of the lorry drivers. We cannot get away from the fact that generally speaking they do not belong to the more privileged classes, and generally speaking they are dependent entirely on the income they make out of their lorries. We also find that they constitute that section of the community which is more seriously affected by the war condition than almost any other section. The price of petrol has gone up, the cost of spare parts has gone up, the provincial council have increased their licences, and this House has increased the tax on petrol, on tyres and tubes—on practically everything they require, and now we find that the Minister of. Railways is not prepared to grant any concessions to those poor people. I know that it is not the Minister’s intention but he wants his department to flourish as much as possible, even though he has no intention of doing anything against the lorry drivers personally; but apart from what his intentions are it amounts to this, that the lorry drivers are being very heavily taxed and their financial position is a very difficult one. That being so I appeal to the Minister to grant them this small concession which the hon. member for Swellendam is asking for in the amendment he has moved. Let him meet the lorry drivers in this respect. I want to plead with the Minister in all seriousness to accept this amendment.

I just want to explain that the amendment standing in my name is a purely consequental one, following on an amendment to the previous clause, and as the Minister declined to accept the latter I am not moving the further amendment. I would like to take the opportunity of saying that the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Egeland) who is unavoidably absent to-day has asked me at the report stage to move two amendments to clause 4 and to this clause of which, I understand, notice has been given to the Hon. the Minister who has agreed to accept them.

I do not want to delay the House but I want to explain my other amendments. I move the deletion of the words “in its discretion.” The clause at the moment reads—

A certificate is issued and the suspension of that certificate is entirely within the discretion of the Transportation Board. I apply to the local Road Transportation Board for a certificate; it is issued to me and one fine day I find that the certificate is suspended or cancelled. To-day I can appeal to the Central Road Transportation Board. They meet, I submit my case to them, and it may happen that the chairman shrugs his shoulders and says that the local Transportation Board can act in its discretion, and consequently the Central Transportation Board cannot go into the question of whether they have acted rightly or wrongly. So long as I am unable to prove that they have acted beyond their powers, or have acted mala fides I am completely in the hands of the local board. If we delete the words “in its discretion” the Board still has the right to cancel the certificate, but I have the opportunity then of appealing, and of placing my case before the Central Board, and of properly supporting it. At the moment the Central Board Transportation Board simply says that the local board has used its discretion and the Central Board cannot therefore go into the matter. We are giving the local board the power to do just as it pleases. If it has the right to suspend why insert the words “in its discretion?” I had another amendment to follow (d) but as this amendment has already been tested in connection with the previous clause, and the House wants to give the Transportation Board the power to create monopolies I do not propose insisting on my amendment. It has been defeated in a division on a previous occasion, but I do move my other amendment.

I just want to explain to the hon. member that although the words “in its discretion” might apply in the case of a Supreme Court or Appeal Court, they do not really apply in this case at all. It is not a question of law, it is a question of all sorts of facts and other considerations, and as a matter of fact the Central Board has over and over over-ruled the Local Board which has exercised its discretion.

My experience has been different.

The hon. member can rely with complete safety on the Central Transportation Board.

The amendments proposed by the Minister of Railways and Harbours, Mr. Heyns and Mr. Egeland put and agreed to, and the amendments proposed by Mr. Warren put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Business suspended at 6 p.m., and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

I move the following amendment—

This Bill contains a new provision, and it is to this effect, that these people must always have the certificate on them, and if the certificate is destroyed or is torn or gets dirty they can get a new one. I feel that a duplicate should be given to him free of charge, and I think I am entitled to ask the Minister to accept this amendment. The Minister has put an amendment in the Order Paper in which he proposes that if an application is refused 75 per cent. of the amount already paid will be returned. I am prepared to accept the Minister’s amendment and to withdraw the second part of my amendment, provided the Minister’s amendment is passed, and he accepts my suggestion that duplicates of the certificate be supplied free of charge.

I beg to move the amendment standing in my name—

As to the complaint of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren), the amendment meets his point so far as temporary certificates are concerned. So far as the application for permanent certificates is concerned, if he does not get that certificate two-thirds of the money is refunded to him. My amendment gives a refund of all the money in the case of a temporary application which is not granted. The other is already provided for. With regard to lost or damaged certificates being replaced free of charge, I think it would be putting a premium on carelessness. There is a danger in issuing too many new or duplicate certificates, because they can be used by other people. You might have a trade started in these things.

You get the old certificates handed in.

Yes, but if the certificate is lost, I think it is reasonable to make a charge of 2s. 6d., which is not excessive and tends to make the holder of the certificate a little more careful.

I do not think the Minister understands what the position is. A new provision is being made here to the effect that if the letters and figures on the certificate become illegible, a new certificate is to be obtained. It provides that the letters and the figures must be clearly legible, and if a certificate is damaged or is no longer clearly legible it has to be replaced by a duplicate. Those people have to carry their certificate wherever they go. I am prepared to agree if the Minister says that a first duplicate will be provided free of charge, but it should be understood that those people who have to carry their certificates with them have to shift bags and barrels and all sorts of things, and put them on their lorries, and the certificate may easily become illegible or damaged. It seems to me that a new obligation is being imposed on lorry drivers, and I feel, therefore, that my request for a duplicate to be supplied free of charge is a reasonable one. I am asking for this in view of the further obligations being put on these people. I am prepared to withdraw the second part of my amendment.

This is really a matter for regulation. I will tell you what I will undertake to do. In the regulations it shall be provided that if a certificate becomes illegible, or some part of it is destroyed, and if that certificate is brought in, a new one will be issued free of charge. If the certificate is lost, the man must pay a fee of 2s. 6d. This need not be done in the Bill.

I am satisfied, and I withdraw the other part of my amendment.

With leave of the Committee, the amendments proposed by Mr. Warren were withdrawn.

The Amendment proposed by the Minister of Railways and Harbours put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

I want to explain what the position is. The Minister said, and I believe that also appears in the memorandum, that they found there might be a good route by train but that in some cases it went so much out of its way that it was much cheaper to send the goods by lorry. Now this amendment is being proposed to the original Act:

but then they add—

I do not want to detain this House, but I want to move this amendment of which I have given notice, namely, the deletion of the words contained in my amendment. I am doing this because one may perhaps have a Road Transportation Board to-day which is friendly disposed, and a friendly disposed Ceneral Transportation Board, but one may get people who are prepared to go out of their way to put obstacles in the way of the carrying of farming products. One puts a stick in the hands of those people. They will say, “Well, there is a reasonable opportunity there.” Then the question arises, what is reasonable and what is not, and it will lead to endless trouble. The clause itself provides for everything, and there does not seem to be any need, so far as I am concerned, to add that part of the clause. The Local Transportation Board and the Central Road Transportation Board, have the right under this clause to do certain things, but they are not compelled to do them, and by adding these words one only creates fresh difficulties for the farmers. I fail to see why this addition is required. I also move the deletion of sub-clause (4). That subclause reads as follows:

1. (4) The following new sub-section is hereby added at the end of the said section:

A man who does this if he has not got a certificate commits a fraud. Why is this provision then required in the Bill? When he advertises he may be on the point of obtaining a certificate. Why should he be interfered with in this way; it is unnecessary. I want to ask the Minister as a business man whether he would make any provision of that kind in connection with business? Would he, for instance, tell Garlicks that they are not to advertise a particular article if they have not got it? I really do not see the need for it. Why should people be hindered in their business in this way? A man is not allowed to advertise unless he has a certificate. Why cannot a man advertise and then get someone else who has a certificate to transport the goods? I think this is an unnecessary interference, and I fail to see the necessity for it.

In the case of both of these amendments, the hon. member indicates that the board already has the power, and he considers the warning superfluous in both cases. If that is so, it seems to me he need not worry very much about it.

You are only looking for trouble in the future.

It may be true that the board has power enough, but this does put the onus on the Railway company, and other bus owners, and people affected, to prove that there are reasonable facilities already there. Then it is up to the board to decide whether the facilities are sufficiently reasonable or not to justify an exemption. I think the clause is all the clearer for indicating the grounds upon which the board may have to consider an exemption. This clause only affects exemptions, and I think it is all the better as it is. The onus is then upon the Railways or existing motor bus services to come along and prove that reasonable facilities exist. I don’t wish to accept the amendment. In regard to the second amendment, it is of course illegal now that we have passed the earlier stage of this Bill, to carry people of this kind for rewards, and if they do advertise they are committing an offence. I think there is no harm in warning people that this is an offence unless they have an exemption certificate. There is no intention of interfering with this class of traffic beyond requiring them to get an exemption. We are now, as you know, controlling taxis for very good reasons, and here you will be making it possible to have a serious evasion of the Act unless we control this situation. I think it is all the better to have this warning, otherwise people may do it and then find themselves in trouble. I think for these reasons the hon. member should not press his two amendments.

I see that the Minister sympathises with me. He now says that it is a crime to advertise because the man himself cannot convey the goods, but I ask him why it should be put in here? He knows that there are agencies for the convenience of the public which do not have a certificate themselves, but which get other people to convey the goods. He now cuts them out altogether. Take Messrs. Cooks, for instance. One will not be able to go to them and say: “See that this is despatched for me.” They are not allowed to advertise because they cannot carry the goods themselves. I do not see the need for this.

Cooks get an exemption or a certificate.

But Cooks do not do the conveying themselves, they hire other people to carry the goods. I think the Minister is looking for trouble now. I have warned him before that he will get into trouble. Under this clause anyone can come along and say that there are ample facilities and everything can be cut out. The Minister is only going to cause trouble for the Road Transportation Board, because objections of all kinds will be raised by people who will say that there are ample facilities. I do not see my way to withdraw my amendments.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Warren put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On clause 9,

This clause contains the following—

I want to move an amendment here, not to this Bill, but to the original Act. I want to move—

This is the original clause of the Act. Hon. members who have the Minister’s memorandum can look at paragraph 9, and they will see that it is provided there that these distinguishing marks must be carried. In other words, if an application is made for a licence, people are given a distinguishing mark and they have to carry it, but the trouble is that the people do not get the distinguishing marks immediately they apply. There are people who have applied early in December, and who have not yet got their distinguishing marks. They have got a receipt from the Road Transportation Board stating that they have made a deposit and that they have made application early in December, but they have not yet got their distinguishing mark, and under this clause such a person will be prevented from going on with his transportation business. In other words, the man will be prevented, even though he has paid his money. If he has made application on the 15th December and has paid his money, it is not fair to prevent him from carrying on his work in the New Year because he has not yet got the distinguishing mark. This clause clearly states that if the local board has not yet given it to him, he cannot carry on with his work. That being so, I ask that these words be added, as appearing in my amendment, to the effect that a distinguishing mark must be issued within fourteen days after application. If the transport rider is expected to carry a distinguishing mark, then the Road Transportation Board must supply it within that time so as to enable him to carry it.

The difficulty is purely one of the mechanics of the situation. It is quite impossible to hand out all these distinguishing marks within fourteen days. If that were to be possible, we would need very largely to increase the staff of the Central Road Transportation Board, and then we would very largely have to augment the fees which my hon. friends would have to pay.

You must then allow them to go on until they get their distinguishing marks.

Of course they are allowed to. Their receipt is an absolute acquittance until they get their distinguishing mark.

No fear.

No one has been prosecuted by the Road Transportation Board if he had a receipt, even if he did not have a distinguishing mark. The inspectors are instructed not to worry people who have a receipt.

We have not got inspectors, we have the police, and they run them in.

The hon. member cannot give me one case; I am instructed that no such case has occurred. But the fact is that it cannot be done. These things take time, and at the beginning of a year when there is a heavy rush on it needs the employment of a large staff, and it cannot be done. For these reasons I do not think the hon. member should press his amendment.

I do not mind if the Minister gives me the assurance that he will see to it that the police will not prosecute those people. The law clearly states that they must carry the distinguishing mark. Now the Minister says that the police and the inspectors will get instructions not to prosecute those people. I suggest that he should make the Act read so that if the man can show his receipt he cannot be prosecuted. The prosecution does not rest with the Transportation Board, which instructs the police. It is part of the law, and if the police do not prosecute any transport rider is at liberty to report to the police, and the police will then have to prosecute the man who is not carrying a distinguishing mark. It is no use telling me that the inspector will be instructed not to prosecute the people if they have a receipt. It must be put in the law, because as the law now reads, even if the Transportation Board does not want to prosecute, any transport rider can still go and report another man to the police. The law should be amended so that a man can carry on with his receipt until he gets his distinguishing mark.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Warren put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

I beg to move the following amendment—

This clause deals with certain presumptions which are made, and the farmer is put in the position of having to appear before the court, and the onus rests on him to prove that the presumption is unfounded. I feel that this is unfair and that it is not right, and I therefore ask that people who carry goods not falling within the scope of this Bill should not be subject to this presumption. It should not be necessary for the farmer to go and prove that he is not guilty if he carries goods not falling within the scope of this Act. This clause says this—

If a farmer who has the right to transport his own goods conveys those goods to the town and he is sued by a constable, the he has to appear before a court and the onus rests upon him to prove that he is not guilty, notwithstanding the fact that those goods fall outside the scope of this Bill. I feel I am entitled to ask the Minister of Railways to accept this amendment. The farmer is summoned because he carries his own goods and he has to go to court and prove that he is innocent. The Minister will say that he may perhaps also carry other people’s goods. If that is so then he does not fall under my amendment, because I only exclude him if he carries goods not falling within the scope of this Bill. And the goods of another man do fall within the scope of the Bill. I do not want the man who carries his own goods to be subject to this provision under which he has to go to court and prove his innocence. If the Minister takes up the attitude that the farmer must not have any protection and that he must go to court to prove his innocence, then the Minister must take the responsibility, and life will have to account for it. It is true that certain things are excluded under this Bill, but none the less the farmer may be prosecuted in respect of those particular things, and he will have to be tried before the court, and the onus will rest on him. Then a few other presumptions follow from which it appears to me that if I am summoned and brought before a court I am immediately regarded as being guilty although I am not guilty. Even if there is a presumption against me, I must none the less be able to prove that those presumptions are wrong… Sub-section (3) says that—

This means that if I have sold a motor lorry 14 days are allowed for registration under the Cape Ordinance before any offence has been committed. In those fourteen days the owner of the lorry contravenes the Act. He does something wrong and he is sued and found guilty. I cannot prove that I am not guilty. I understand that this clause is intended for the hire purchase system. If that is so, let them exclude it and mention it specifically in the law, but don’t make the law so that if a man buys a motor car from me and if it is not yet registered in his name I am to be held responsible because the motor car is looked upon as being my property. That is going too far, but if I sell a lorry I have fourteen days in which registration should be made, and if the purchaser drives without a certificate or a licence, if he commits an offence in that way, then under this presumption I am regarded as being guilty; that does not seem fair to me. I think I should be allowed to prove that I am not guilty. If the intention of this is to cover the hire purchase system by all means let them do so and let them say so in the law, and if the man is sued, give him the opportunity of proving that he is not guilty.

With regard to the first amendment the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) knows perfectly well, because he is a lawyer as well as a farmer, that no conviction is ever possible under any Act, unless the onus can be put on the accused to show that he is not breaking the law. That happens in thousands of cases. All that is required to discharge that onus is for the man to go into the witness box and declare that the car and the goods belong to him. Even if that were not in the Act he could still be prosecuted. There is nothing to prevent a prosecution, even if all appearances were in his favour. All that is required now is for the farmer to go into the witness box on oath and declare the simple facts and thus discharge the onus. The hon. member knows that all this is in the interest of good government and also in the interest of good transportation. There is a class of man on the road whom we do want to stop, and it is as much in the interest of the hon. member for Swellendam as it is in the interest of the Railways that we should do so, and he should not make it unduly difficult for us to stop these illegitimate activities. In regard to the second point, I find it more difficult to understand what the hon. member is actually getting at. Actually if you accept his amendment it seems to me that you are going to put the farmers into a difficult position because many farmers do not own their cars, they have bought them under a hire-purchase agreement.

Cars, not lorries.

And lorries, too. They are therefore not the owners of the lorries although they are the registered licencees.

That is their livelihood.

Now the point is that if they are deemed to be the owners and the contrary is proved they may find themselves in a very serious position because they are then breaking the Road Transportation Act in carrying their produce in other people’s cars.

Why not say it?

This says that the person in whose name the car is registered is deemed to be the owner. The fact remains that if I accept the hon. member’s amendment, large numbers of farmers would immediately be committing an illegal act. Let me emphasise this, that there is nothing to prosecute an owner for anything. The owner is not prosecuted, but the man in charge of a vehicle, if he does anything he should not do on the road, can be prosecuted. There is nothing to prosecute the owner under this, and therefore I think the hon. member’s fears are groundless; I think he has misread the clause and I shall relieve him of the rather terrible consequences which would follow by not accepting his amendment.

It is now admitted that this clause is inserted in regard to motor cars bought under the hire-purchase system. The Motor Transportation Act assumes that the owner of such a lorry is in actual fact the owner. Why don’t they say so then? Why pass a clause in order to achieve that object in such a roundabout way. I moved my amendment in order to test the matter because I suspected that it aimed at the hire-purchase system. I fail to understand why the clause does not say so clearly and why people should be got into trouble when they have nothing to do with it. I want to repeat again that if I sell a lorry, under the Cape Ordinance, fourteen days are allowed for registration. If that man commits an offence within those fourteen days I am sued as the guilty person because I am looked upon as the owner. That is my objection. I also want to say something in regard to another matter. The Minister wants me to help him. I want to help him, but he should realise what he is doing here. The Minister tells us that if a farmer is sued in the circumstances I have described then, so the Minister says, all he has to do is to go to court and say that the goods transported are his goods. He knows that the farmers are not lawyers, and a man like that is brought before court on a criminal summons. The farmer will be compelled to go to an attorney and he will have to pay his own costs, even if he wins the case. In view of the fact that a farmer is excluded from carrying his own goods in his own lorry, provision should also be made in this presumption to exclude him when he carries goods not falling within the scope of this Act. I fail to see how that can cause any trouble. We should also remember that the onus rests on the farmer to prove that he is not guilty. In all other crimes the accused person is held to be innocent until he is proved guilty. Here the presumption is that he is guilty. If necessary I am prepared to withdraw my first amendment. I still think it is wrong, and the Minister must see that it will give rise to trouble, but so far as my first amendment is concerned, I want the Minister to accept it. If he refuses to do so he must not come and tell us that he wants to do something for the farmer. I again want to urge that the Minister should exclude the farmer from this presumption if the farmer carries goods not falling within the scope of this Act.

With leave of the Committee, the second amendment proposed by Mr. Warren was withdrawn.

The first amendment proposed by Mr. Warren was put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On clause 11,

I want to move the amendment standing in my name—

The reason for that is that we want to give the same protection to private motor owners as well as to municipalities and other people. We are adding “motor buses” in order to cover all forms of motor transportation.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On clause 12,

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name—

1. (h) regulating the construction, dimensions, weight and use of motor vehicles in relation to any particular class of motor transportation in any area in which a local authority has hot been empowered by any law to make such regulations or in which a local authority having such power has not made such regulations or has made regulations which in the opinion of the Board are inadequate.

It seeks to give certain additional powers to the Board to make regulations—regulations regarding the construction, dimensions, weight and use of motor vehicles in respect of any particular class of motor vehicle. Most local authorities have these powers, and I think that even from a general point of view it is advisable that outside the area of jurisdiction of local authorities, the Board, subject to the consent of the Governor-General, should have the power to regulate the dimensions, weight, etc., of vehicles licensed by it. I think all of us have had the experience of being driven off the road by vehicles which are unreasonably wide—or by vehicles which make an unreasonable use of the road, in consequence of their size or weight. So apart from the special provision of the Act it seems to me that these are reasonable powers to vest in the Board. When it licenses a vehicle it should be able to licence according to the regulations framed on these lines by it. Various amendments have been made to the Act by the Minister. Under the provision of the first clause of the Act, a motor vehicle is now defined as any vehicle designed or intended for propulsion or haulage. Those words “or haulage” have now been put in, so one can easily conceive the case of a Board licensing a vehicle which draws other vehicles for the purpose of collecting produce or other purposes. Under the provisions of section 7 of the Act, in the event of that vehicle becoming for some reason or another useless, the licensee is entitled to substitute it by another vehicle, and that vehicle can actually be 20 per cent. of greater or lesser power than the licensed vehicle. Now, the country has embarked on an important programme of road construction, and it seems to me that these haulage vehicles should be limited in their weight, and controlled in their construction and dimensions under regulation by the Board.

What about caravans?

Yes, I do not even go quite as far as a caravan, but I can picture the case of a tractor which has rubber wheels being substituted by a different kind of tractor which for the time being has steel wheels with the most disastrous effect to the country roads, and therefore it seems to me reasonable that we should confer this authority on the Board. It may be argued that in order to administer a provision of this nature additional costs would be incurred, but I cannot see why that must necessarily be so. It seems to me that the Board will simply proclaim the regulations, and in the event of the licensee not conforming to the regulations proclaimed by it, the licensee is liable to prosecution, and liable to have his licence cancelled. It may also be argued that this is really a matter for a Ministry of Transport.

What about the local authorities?

Of course, we should have a Ministry of Transport, but in the meantime there is no reason why the absence of a Ministry of Transport should not be mitigated by conferring upon the existing authority power to control matters which should be controlled in the circumstances of the country. I therefore ask the Minister to accept this amendment, which is a reasonable amendment, and which I feel to be in the interest of the country, and which, by virtue of our road development, is very necessary.

I want to appeal to the Minister not to accept this amendment. This clause will cause the farmer a lot of trouble. In the past the farmer used to use his wagon for the transportation of his goods, but in the area surrounding Cape Town especially the wagon has now given way to faster transport and the farmers have been compelled to transport goods such as hay and so on, by means of lorries. These are goods which weigh very little, and it would be very difficult to have them loaded up on to lorries within certain limits. For that reason particularly I want to ask the Minister not to accept the amendment. It would cause the farmer very great inconvenience. We know that ordinary transport has been to all intents and purposes substituted by faster transport. If we have to put our mule wagons back on the roads, fast transportation services would be very greatly interfered with. The farmer uses motor lorries to-day, and I therefore want to appeal to the Minister not to accept this amendment.

I can sympathise with what members have in view in suggesting this amendment, but I would suggest to them in the first place that it is quite unnecessary to do it. When a certificate is issued it is issued in respect of a vehicle. It is competent for the Roads Board at any time to refuse to certify a vehicle, and it is obvious that if a vehicle is not suitable for transportation, if it is not suitable for the road, the Board will not issue a certificate. It is not necessary to issue regulations controlling these matters. It would involve them in work which they are not cut out for. That is work for the licensing authority which they are not. They are merely a certifying authority. They certify and they lay down that a particular route shall be followed. They have complete power either to refuse a certificate, or if a certificate is issued for one year, to withdraw it next year, if it is found that the vehicle is unsuitable. So it is not necessary to move this amendment. I rather object to the amendment because it implies that the Board is in possession of much more machinery than it is—it would mean costs going up and the farmer would have to pay higher fees for his exemption and so on. So I would suggest to the hon. member that he should not press his amendment.

In reply to the hon. member on the opposite side, this Act does not apply to ox wagons at all, and he need not be disturbed about that, he need not worry about the position of the farmer. I would like to point out to the Minister that Section 7 (1) (d) of the Act says that any motor carrier certificate issued by the board shall specify the particular motor vehicle which shall be identified in such manner as may be prescribed by regulation, in respect whereof it is issued, provided that in the event of any such motor vehicle being temporarily withdrawn from use, another similar motor vehicle may be substituted therefor for such period as the motor vehicle specified in such certificate is withdrawn from all use. During that period the substituted vehicle can simply be “similar.” The regulation should make it compulsory to specify the weight and character of the vehicle. In its present form the clause is dangerous.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Davis, put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses and the title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments; amendments to be considered on 5th March.