May I, with the leave of the House, make the following statement:

May I with the leave of the House, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, be allowed to put a question arising out of the statement of the hon. the Minister: Is it correct that there was a sick European in the camp who as a result of a previous warning escaped any attack? If that is so, is there any evidence of a premeditated attack of which at least information was available to one European before this took place?

I have no evidence as yet to substantiate these and other rumours.

When we adjourned yesterday I dealt for a moment or two with the general position concerning this Bill, and may I say at once here this afternoon that we on this side of the House have to look at this Bill very carefully in the light of statements that had been made by hon. Ministers and other hon. members on that side, indicating some kind of political development for the Coloured people which is going to lead them along the line of Colouredstans towards independence and self-government, the paralle1 development that we have heard about. I want to say at once that we have examined this Bill in that light but quite frankly we see nothing of that character here whatever. I want to make that point quite clear because when once we have ruled out the political implication of the Bill of this kind we are left only with certain practical matters, and those practical matters in the main, we believe, are in the interests of the Coloured people, and for that reason we will support this Bill.

Before I move on to deal with some of the aspects of this Bill, I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister a particular point and a particular community. The Bill in the main deals with the Cape Province and the Coloured people of the Cape Province, but those are not the Coloured people of South Africa and this Bill is not limited so far as I can read it, to dealing only with the Cape; it is a Bill which can be applied to the other provinces, and it does apply to the other provinces in respect to certain laws which are being repealed and so on. In particular I would quote Clause 4 (1) (b) where particular reference is made to the powers of the State President to declare an area to be reserved for occupation and ownership of Coloured persons where it is occupied or owned mainly by Coloured persons at the present time. I make that point because the crisp issue I want to put to the Minister is the question of Dunn Coloured people in Zululand and I hope that when he replies he will tell the House what the position is. I think it is 20 years or more since Parliament passed an Act providing for title deeds to be issued to these people. They have never had their title deeds. The surveys were carried out and diagrams prepared but they have never had their title deeds. Various difficulties have cropped up, for which I am not blaming this Minister nor even this Government. There is a long history before this Government came into power, a history which sheds no credit on any government that we have had. But now, as the years have gone by, efforts have been made and promises have been given—promises were given in my presence to the Coloured people concerned—concerning their title deeds which they are to obtain. An Act has been passed by Parliament and surveys have been undertaken and all that is necessary is for those title deeds to be issued, and yet for more than 20 years they have been waiting and nothing gets done. I hope the Minister will tell us precisely what the position of the Dunn’s is, what their destiny is, what they can hope for and what they can expect. I know that the Minister has had difficulties and I know that these difficulties are not of his making. I am not going to make excuses for this Minister where I think he should be criticized; I am prepared to be harsh in my criticism of him but I do want to say here that he has had to deal with his colleagues in other Departments and I know some of his difficulties. I may not know all of them. I hope that the Minister is going to be frank not only with the House but with these people who have been patiently waiting and who have been law abiding people prepared to accept the word of the official Government representatives who met them from time to time. Their history of recent years is strewn with broken promises. Let us try to redeem the issue as well as we can at this late hour.

With regard to the practical benefits that the Coloured people are to enjoy under this Bill, I said yesterday that although the Minister has not said so we might say that this Bill in a sense was a Bill giving a new deal to the Coloured people. There have been in respect of mission stations and in other areas, mainly inhabited by the Coloured people sub-divisions where title has not passed, where groups of people are living as the Bill puts it here, by usage on certain areas of land. There have been mixed relationships, mixed dealing in land, which have never been registered year after year and generation after generation until to-day there is the most absolute confusion in some of these areas. I am going to say at once having had some little experience of this. that while it may be argued in some quarters that the Minister is taking drastic powers to deal with some of those issues, I do not see very well how he can do otherwise. There are one or two points that we will naturally go into to see whether matters cannot be put onto a rather better basis than set out in the Bill, but in the main the confusion that has arisen is going to require a strong hand. The result is that it is shown throughout this Bill how the Minister now has to make regulations and how he has to take power to determine this matter and to determine that matter. References to the power of the Minister are innumerable throughout the Bill. I now come to the point that I made yesterday before I sat down and that is that I hope the Minister is going to have second thoughts about delegating his powers under this Bill, as to the majority of those powers and as to the effective powers—effective as far as administration is concerned—to a person who is a civil servant. Again I realize that the Minister has the Group Areas Act and other things for which he is responsible and that this is going to be an added burden, but in the interests of the people concerned we want to be able to come to this House as a last court of appeal. Here may I digress for a moment and point out that we on this side of the House—and I think the Minister will agree with us—see no particular political implication behind this Bill. It is a do-good Bill for a group of people who have lagged behind in the economic life of the country. This is intended to bring them forward, to give them a fresh impulse. That being so, we must point out in regard to the Coloured people, who have their Coloured’s representatives sitting in this House but who in the main are still represented by ordinary Members of Parliament, that Coloured people merely because they are coloured do not necessarily go to the Coloured’s representatives, and when you move away from the Cape they have not got the Coloured’s representatives so they must necessarily come to those of us who are ordinary Members of Parliament. As I remarked here in connection with another Bill, it does not matter to us what the colour of the skin is of a man who comes to us as a Member of Parliament if he has a grievance or if he has a case to make. We sit and we listen to the Bantu and we take their case: we take the case of the Coloured people and we take the case of the Indian. Repeatedly that point of view is expressed in this House, and these Coloured people in these areas are still going to look to Members of Parliament, that is to say, to us assembled here in Parliament. and we want to be able to look to the Minister. We do not want to be told that in regard to this case or that case it would be well if we were to discuss the matter with the civil servant concerned, however good and conscientious and able he may be. However efficiently and effectively he may exercise the powers delegated to him by the Minister, we want to know that we can deal with the Minister here in the House and that this is the last court of appeal, and if there are troubles which have not been satisfactorily dealt with then we want to deal with them here. I want to say at once that in a measure of this kind which in a sense is breaking new ground, if it is breaking shackles of the past and opening a new road for the development of the Coloured people, difficulties are going to be experienced, the sort of difficulties that always confront those who break a new trail. In legislative matters, as in other affairs, the trail-breaker always has to deal with all sorts of difficulties that were not foreseen. We realize that and that is why I say that we hope that the Minister, at any rate for some time to come, will not exercise these powers under Clause 54 but will keep the reins, in the main in his own hands so that we shall have plenty of opportunity of putting to him any difficulties that may arise. Sir, this policy that we have here is really, with modifications, the policy of the United Party which we had designed for the Bantu people. The Government are introducing it now for the Coloured people. There are qualifications and modifications here and there but in the main this is the United Party policy. It is not the policy that we would have adopted for and we do not think it is altogether suited to the Coloured people in this form, but we are willing to give it a try. Sir, I say there are no political implications in this Bill and I want to say a once to the Minister that I hope that neither he nor anybody else on that side of the House is going to suggest that this policy is taking us along a road that is going to lead to a political objective, because we are satisfied that there is no point of no return on the path that this Bill is taking the Minister and the Government. This Bill can be carried out and can function effectively it can go to its predetermined end of success, it can bring the Coloured people forward to whatever their destiny may be but there is no point of no return so far as we on this side are concerned. We want the Coloured people to go forward. Their final government by the people of the Republic as part of the people of the Republic is not interfered with in any shape or form by this Bill; they will fit into their place when a wise future United Party government take over, and no harm will be done to the position because of this Bill.

When will that be?

Sir, the hon. member is still a young man.

Order! The hon. member need not reply.

May I suggest that the hon. member give written notice of his question.

I now come to one or two of the clauses and I am going to deal with them very briefly. There is a number of other members who wish to speak on this Bill. I want to touch upon Clause 15 which deals with registered land title and so forth, and Clause 30 which deals with regulations which may be published. Clause 15 deals with land titles, mortgages and so on. This is a question of notice to the people concerned, and quite frankly we are not quite happy about the provisions which are made here. There is, for example, the case of the mortgagee or the disqualified owner of lands who cannot be found. Well, that is a practical difficulty and we have had to deal with it before to-day. But it goes further and says that if on account of the number of persons who had registered rights in respect of the land the Minister is satisfied that the service of notices is not practicable then the Minister can take a certain course. While I do not think that it can fairly be said that the rights of an individual or a small group of individuals are any less rights than in the case of a large group, I do say that I think it is not quite fair where a large group of people are concerned to say that because they are a large group and not a small group they are not going to get that individual service which a smaller group would have received. Where mortgages are concerned and titles to land, particularly where the person is a disqualified person and is going to lose his land …

Which clause is that?

It is Clause 15, and 15 (2) deals with the notices. Then in regard to Clause 30, while I am on the question of notices, there is the matter of notice in regard to regulations. Sir, this question of notice in regard to regulations has an affinity with Clause 37 which deals with the matter of rates and the collection of rates. This matter of regulations, notices and the collection of rates are rather tied up together. With regard to rates, provision is made here that anyone in default with his rates, under the conditions laid down, shall be guilty of a criminal offence. The Minister can perhaps tell us whether that is not something new in our legislation. I cannot recall any statute, provincial ordinance or parliamentary law which makes non-payment of rates a criminal offence. In this regard I know the Minister’s difficulties very well indeed. I know he wonders where he is going to get the power to make people pay rates under the circumstances which he is likely to face.

What sanction will he have?

I am asked what sanctions he will have. The man can be taken to court and punished as a criminal under the criminal law and thereafter the Minister can proceed against moveable assets. In most cases a local authority, for example, proceeds against the person concerned against his fixed assets as well as his moveable assets. A man who does not pay his rates under local government ordinances in the four provinces can have his property sold out to defray his rates, if he is in arrear with them, after a certain time and under certain circumstances when the proper procedure has been carried out. But, Sir, this makes it a criminal offence, and the point I want to make here in regard to this matter of notices and so forth is this: We are dealing here with communities—the Coloured folk concerned—who probably for the first time are going to be brought under an impelling and fairly rigid discipline in regard to the conduct of their own affairs in the areas which will be proclaimed for them by the State President, a discipline rigid in terms of what they have been used to, a discipline that they are not accustomed to have, and while they may in the main be controlled by people of their own choice, of their own selection, we must realize that these people are all interrelated; they have always lived together; they are a group of people who have grown up as a group for decades and now we are imposing a burden on those who will be selected to run the board. We are imposing a burden on them to take steps to institute criminal proceedings against people who have not paid their rates and then to sell up their moveable property. Sir, I am going to leave it to others to deal more fully with that matter but I do want to say this to the Minister: Is that really the way in which we are going to create harmony in these communities, because if I think, from the point of view of a White community of what happened even at the present time when for some reason or other people fall on evil times, and a municipality decides that it is going to start enforcing the payment of rates and come down hard on people, the first thing that happens is that all the members of the local authority lose their seats at the next election, which is the constitutional, democratic way for the electorate to show their disapproval of what has been done by those in authority. But, Sir, that does not help to get the money for the local authority. The next people elected have still got to deal with the financial position of that local authority. You can sack the board but you still do not get the revenue. Somebody sooner or later has to tackle that aspect of the matter, and I am not sure that the Minister on reflection, if he goes further into this matter, cannot find a better way of dealing with this than is suggested here, because this is likely to arouse all sorts of hostile feeling in the community and it may lead to an undoing of the spirit which I hope will be manifested in everyone of these areas, a spirit of co-operation and willingness to assist and of getting together to go forward in harmony. In passing I would ask the Minister if when he replies he will perhaps deal with Clause 25, which provides—

But I cannot find any further reference to the officers; he seems to be a bit of an orphan; it may be that I have missed something. I can see a position in the Bill where an officer is appointed for certain purposes but it does not seem to be linked up with that particular clause and if that is the officer then I can understand the position but at the moment that clause seems to be standing quite alone.

Then there is one last point—and I am sure that all the people interested in provincial affairs will be interested in this—and that is Clause 38 which says—

But if the other authority have not levied any dog tax, then what can the board do? If there is a “leemte” should we not make it quite clear what the board can do and what its powers are? It may be that the board may decide, as has been done by other people, that it wants to levy an extremely high tax because it wants to get rid of what is a nuisance, to put it quite mildly, and one way of doing it was to tax the people concerned and to say “if you are going to keep an animal which is a nuisance then you have to pay for it"; quite frankly I would like to see the powers of the board put there in plainer language without being made to hinge upon somebody else’s powers. As I say, we give this Bill our support and in the Committee Stage we will deal with some of these points at greater length.

My colleagues and I support the general principles of this Bill. We do so because a large proportion of the Bill now before the House consolidates existing laws and, in some respects, laws going back as far as 1909 with regard to mission stations and communal reserves. We are of the opinion that this Bill is an improvement on the old laws, particularly in that it consolidates in one measure the laws with regard to the control, improvement and development of rural Coloured areas. Previously the Coloured people who were affected by the laws had to delve into quite a number of statutes to see what their rights and obligations were in respect of these communal areas, and inasmuch as this measure now consolidates in one Act the existing laws we feel that it is an improvement. But there is another reason why we support the Bill and that is because of another improvement in the general principles of the Bill, that is the general improvement in the provision concerning the property rights of Coloured people in these rural areas. We agree with the hon. the Minister who said yesterday that careful planning will have to take place with regard to these rural areas. We feel that it is high time that the unsatisfactory features which existed in the old laws are eliminated. There is no doubt about it, Sir, that this Bill does eliminate many of the unsatisfactory aspects of planning and control which existed previously.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has drawn attention to various aspects which arise from this Bill, and except for one, with which I shall deal presently, most of them unfortunately are contained in existing laws. That was one of the points raised by him. We feel, however, that generally speaking this Bill is an improvement on the existing position. There are one or two new provisions in this Bill with which my colleagues will deal during the Committee Stage. We feel that we will have a better opportunity to deal with those during that stage. There is one aspect with which I want to deal during the course of the second reading, however, because an important principle is involved in this matter. This point was also raised by the hon. member for South Coast. I refer to Clause 37 of the Bill which in effect prescribes the steps that can be taken by the authorities for the recovery of rates payable by these Coloured people in respect of these Coloured rural areas. If you refer to Clause 37, Sir, you will see that the first provision is that any rates unpaid after 30 April in any year shall be deemed to be rates in arrear and interest shall be claimed and recovered by the board at the rate of seven per cent per annum calculated from 1 May in that year. One can have no objection to that provision because it is a provision which obtains in regard to our municipal laws throughout the country. If your rates are in arrear after the stipulated period, interest shall be payable by the ratepayer. But a new principle is now introduced in sub-section (2) of Clause 37 and it is this: The board shall … serve on every person who has failed to pay his rates on or before 30 April in each year or a date on which he has agreed with the board to pay his rates, a notice calling upon him to pay the amount due within one month from the date of that notice, and any person who fails to pay his rates accordingly shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding 25 rand or in default of payment to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months. Now, Sir, this is a new principle which I think the hon. the Minister will be well advised to reconsider before the Bill goes to the Committee Stage. We think that this is an unnecessary harsh provision. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has been urged by some of these boards—and if he has I hope he will tell us—to impose these penal consequences as the only means by which these arrear rates can be recovered. We think that this is a retrogressive step. We have virtually abolished civil imprisonment in this country, Sir, and this step whereby you endeavour to recover rates by imprisoning people, is to my mind a resuscitation of this civil imprisonment aspect. I strongly feel, Sir, that the hon. the Minister and the Government will be very well advised to reconsider their attitude in regard to this aspect. I am talking from experience, Sir, when I say that no person will wilfully refuse or neglect to pay his rates particularly if he knows that his immoveable property can be attached and that his movable property can also be attached. The hon. the Minister smiles …

I am smiling at your colleague who knows better.

I know that there will be some recalcitrant ratepayers who will take advantage of the situation and will not pay their rates. But I feel that to impose on our Statute Book a provision whereby a man can be sent to gaol for not paying his rates, is a retrogressive step. I feel that sub-section (2) should be deleted and a provision substituted, as is the common law at the moment, that a man’s immovable property, and if necessary his movable property, can be attached. If you have that right of attaching a man’s immovable and movable property what more can be got from the man by sending him to gaol? It will be a case of trying to get blood out of a stone. I think that this is a provision of which we cannot approve. I suggest to the hon. the Minister that incalculable harm will be done if only one Coloured man is sent to gaol for failing to pay his rates. This clause, to my mind, is unnecessary and it will not achieve the object which the Minister has in mind of recovering those arrear rates. I speak for myself, but I think my colleagues will agree with me, when I say that I am totally opposed to this provision. I think it is quite unnecessary to introduce these drastic penal consequences and I trust the Minister will delete this provision in the Committee Stage. I think the provisions in our law with regard to the civil recovery of debts should provide ample safeguards to the board to recover arrear rates. There are other matters, Sir, as I have indicated, which we will raise in Committee but this is an important aspect of the matter. A new principle is being introduced, and as such I thought I would raise it at this stage to give the hon. the Minister and his Department an opportunity of considering that aspect before we reach the Committee Stage. Apart from that we feel that it is in the interests of the Coloured people that a proper basis for the development of Coloured towns and farming communities should be created. We see in this Bill the possibility of bringing about those improvements. For those reasons, Sir, we are prepared to give this Bill our wholehearted support.

I should like to endorse the statement by the hon. member for Natal (South Coast) (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) that this is an important piece of legislation which holds definite advantages for the Coloured people and since that is so we should not like to deprive the Coloureds of those privileges. The Bill seeks to create opportunities for development and progress; to create order out of chaos and this side of the House will therefore give this legislation the necessary support.

In speaking about the Coloured. Mr. Speaker, one really speaks of the Cape to a large extent because I believe that about 80 per cent of the Coloured people are settled in the Cape. Because the advantages contained in this legislation for the Coloureds are embodied in legislation which flows from the Central Government, it does not mean, of course, that the Cape does not want to give them similar benefits. It does not mean that we here in the Cape have not been sympathetically disposed towards these people in the past, nor does it mean that we would not have done far more for these people than we have done had we been in the fortunate position of having the financial resources of the Central Government behind us. As we know, most of the Coloureds are concentrated in the Cape. The Cape is as it were their traditional homeland and the Cape has done its level best to educate the Coloureds. They have lived here amongst us and we have learned to know them far more intimately perhaps than hon. members from the other provinces have had the opportunity of getting to know them. I want to say in passing, Mr. Speaker, that I derive some measure of satisfaction from the fact that the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs is from the Cape. I feel that he does perhaps have a softer spot in his heart for these people—I say this with respect —than hon. members from the other provinces have for them. The question that occurs to me is this: Against this Cape background of intimate knowledge of these people, the fact that they have always had our sympathy in the Cape, the fact that we have shown our goodwill towards them in all respects, why is the hon. the Minister now assuming powers which in my opinion could have been handled by the Cape Province? I cannot believe that the hon. the Minister lacks confidence in the ability of the Cape Provincial Administration and that for that reason he refuses to allow them to do any of the things for which this legislation makes provision. Under this new set-up we are going to have townships and Coloured areas over which in the normal course of events the Provincial Administration would have exercised administrative control. It seems to me that the Minister is now going to do these things on his own. I cannot believe that the Province asked for these things, nor can I believe that the Coloureds asked to be allowed to come under the Central Government in regard to these matters instead of under the Provincial Council.

It was never in their hands.

The point that I want to make is this: There are very few things provided for in this legislation which cannot be undertaken by the Cape Provincial Administration. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that if the Cape has the necessary finances to do these things it will be able to do just as much for the Coloureds as the Central Government can. The Coloured is intimately associated with the Cape; he lives here amongst us. The effect of this legislation will be to remove the Coloured from the Cape to some extent. If the Cape Province has the right to control matters which intimately affect it then I believe that the Coloureds of the Cape would also like to have the right to do those things for which this legislation makes provision. If the Coloured were to be asked whether he would prefer to have his townships and rural areas controlled either by the Central Government or by the Province, I believe he would choose the Province.

They would all choose the Central Government.

If one makes the stipulation that all the benefits contained in this legislation will also accrue to him under provincial control, I do not think that one Cape Coloured would choose the Central Government. I believe that there is an affinity between the Coloured of the Cape and the White inhabitant of the Cape. I think it would be a mistake to push these people aside and place them under the Central Government and to break those definite bonds with the Cape. The hon. member over there said that I should not discuss the educational aspect of this matter. I do not want to do so, of course, but I should like to put this question to him: Just as in the case of education, has any Coloured person asked for this? Has any province asked that these powers which the province can exercise just as easily as the Central Government should be transferred to the Central Government? More than 50 per cent of the people in the Cape will now fall under the Central Government in respect of a large number of facets of our Cape life. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will not consider entrusting these matters to the Cape Provincial Administration, giving them the assurance that if they need money, the Central Government will be only too pleased to place the resources of the Treasury at their disposal?

I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has introduced this Bill. I am pleased that an effort is at last being made to restore order out of the chaos which we have had for such a long time in many of the Coloured townships where squatting was rife, where there was no proper sub-division of the land and where no assistance was given to these people. I think that the hon. the Minister will readily agree that he can go a little further. It may perhaps not be entirely his fault; circumstances may have prevented him from going all the way. Let us take the definition of the word “Coloured,” for example. My position is this: I know, and have been told repeatedly, that the Government intends giving the Coloured community exactly what it demands for the White people and for any other race group. That is all very well but under the definition of “Coloured” it is stated that where a White person has married a Coloured prior to a certain date, he or she is accepted as a Coloured for the purposes of this Bill. That may be so but it is not only the ordinary Cape Coloured who is mentioned here. Reference is also made to Malays. I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to a matter about which I feel very strongly. You know, Sir, that the Malays are all Mohammedans. The Indian community is divided up into two sections, the Hindus and the Mohammedan Indians. It is a well known fact to the hon. the Minister and his whole Department that in the Cape, let us say, 50 per cent of the Indians who are Mohommedans are married to Malays. I know of one particular case of an Indian who has nothing but goodwill for the White man, and who is married to the daughter of an old traditional Malay family. He finds himself in this strange position to-day that he cannot obtain occupation rights in a Malay area. He is a Mohammedan, his wife is a Malay, but he is classified as an Indian. In terms of this legislation that person and his children will be precluded from inheriting from the children’s grandfather on the maternal side. I wondered whether the hon. the Minister would not give consideration at a later stage to the question of removing this inconsistency which exists in the law at the moment and which he is repeating here. I know that what the hon. the Minister wants to say is that the White people whom he mentions here only refer to existing cases, but there will be more of these people. South Africa will not come to an end because of the Nationalist Government; it will go on there will be more of these cases. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister apparently agrees with me. People do not all share this view; some people say that South Africa will come to an end under this Government but that is their affair. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will reconsider that aspect?

I want to mention Clause 4. This is not a new clause; it is already contained in the existing Act. Let me say at once that I have not risen to make political capital of it—far from it—but I mention Clause 4 which has been taken over from the existing legislation. I am thinking particularly of the case which we had a year or so ago, the Elandskloof case. I hope that the hon. the Minister will take advantage of this opportunity to make a statement in connection with the Elandskloof case.

That has nothing to do with this matter.

It has to do with it. It has this to do with it that in terms of Clause 4 “the State President may by proclamation in the Gazelle, and subject to such reservations and conditions as he may deem fit, declare any rural area defined in the proclamation (a) which consists of State land” … (that is not relevant here) … and (b) “which has at any time prior to 28 April 1961” (and this was the position exactly in the case of Elandskloof) “been granted, transferred or set aside for occupation or ownership of Coloured persons”, to be reserved for occupation and ownership of Coloureds. I do not expect the hon. the Minister to reopen that matter; I do not expect him to declare Elandskloof to be a Coloured area under this clause. There has been sufficient trouble in that connection, trouble which I do not think we should discuss. But because Elandskloof is so fresh in our minds, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will not give us the assurance that although he will not use this clause, he will find some other method of doing right by the inhabitants of Elandskloof.

There is another point that I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister and that is in connection with Clause 10. The position at present is not completely clear to me. Mention is made here of “a disqualified person”. I take it that this means a White person. It reads as follows—

That sounds very fine. Mr. Speaker, and no one has any objection to it as it stands here. But I want to say in all honesty and fairness towards the Coloureds that we have quite a few cases where White persons with some capital start businesses in Coloured areas with the result that the Coloureds themselves cannot start businesses there. What will be the position if the Coloureds approach the hon. the Minister and ask that the opposite also be permitted, that, for example, a Coloured be given the right to start a business in a White area? I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister will not allow it. In this particular case—and I believe that the hon. the Minister will do it—the hon. the Minister empowered, with a view to the financial assistance which has been made available to the Coloureds through the medium of other legislation, rather to say: If there are Coloureds who want to provide that necessary service for the Coloured community, we will assist him to render that service by means of the Development Corporation or otherwise. But it appears to me to be somewhat unfair to say that a disqualified person, namely, a White person, or a person of another race group, will now have the right to start a business in that Coloured area and by so doing keep the Coloured out of his own community for a very long time. I do not think that that is the intention of the hon. the Minister but I am afraid that if this clause is applied, it will have that effect.

I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the fact that in Clause 21 and in subsequent clauses he is restoring order where previously there was chaos. I am particularly pleased that he is now making provision whereby those registered owners will be able to leave their land to their children. I think that this is something for which we must be grateful to the hon. the Minister. Those of us who have experience in this connection, experience which we have gained in court cases or otherwise, know the expense which Coloureds incur in this connection.

In Clause 33 we have the position where the White man is again being discriminated against. Here the hon. the Minister is making provision whereby those lands can be valued by a body other than, for example, the Divisional Council —I am speaking now only of the Cape. The owner will then pay rates on that valuation. I understand that the present position is that the lessees of that land pay rates of 4s. per annum. I believe that if we treat the Coloured as an equal and true part of the White man he will have to make the same contribution to the Divisional Council of the Cape; in any case, the same as the White person makes. If he lives in a Coloured community or township, or in a Coloured rural area, his obligations towards that community are no less binding than those of a White person living close by under similar circumstances. I think that it will only be fair towards the Divisional Councils, which in any case render those necessary services in the Cape, for the Colour eds to pay the same rates as the White man. I do not see why the White man should be discriminated against in these areas.

There is another aspect in which a discrimination is made. I do not want to deal again with the criminal aspect of the non-payment of rates; I think that the hon. the Minister is aware of the feelings of most people in this regard and I think that the previous speaker dealt adequately with the matter. Let us take Clause 39 where the Minister in turn discriminates against the Coloureds. Here he retains the right to approve and grant trading licences. Why should he have that right? I believe that the Coloured councils which will be chosen or appointed will consist of responsible persons. I can see no reason why they should be discriminated against in comparison with a village management board in a municipal area which allocates these trading licences. We all know of cases where, as the saying goes, “kissing has been gained by favour ”. I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister puts himself in the position where he alone will have the right to grant or refuse a trading licence. If he has confidence in his management board, I think that he can quite easily leave the matter in the hands of his local management boards as all licences in the Cape are left at the moment in the hands of the municipalities. In the Cape the position at the moment is that the Administrator does have the power to grant a licence but only in the Cape in a case where such licence has been refused by a local board and not vice versa. I think that the hon. the Minister will be acting wisely to give the same power to those boards which he is now creating.

There is another aspect which I want to discuss with the hon. the Minister at this stage. I refer to Clause 50. I am pleased that he is giving management boards the right to purchase fixed property but I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will not go a little further? I assure the hon. the Minister that in this connection I am speaking only for myself. This may be something on which many hon. members will agree with me but I feel fairly strongly about it. The Coloured on the smallholding, the Coloured who tries to make a living from cultivating vegetables or running a small poultry farm experiences his greatest difficulty in regard to the question of expensive implements. I wonder whether the hon the Minister cannot go a little further here and give those boards the power to purchase, either co-operatively or jointly, articles such as tractors and other expensive farming implements so that these can be made available to the whole rural community. I think that this will eliminate a great deal of trouble. If the hon. the Minister goes to Elim and other places he will see the difficulties under which the small-scale farmer operates. The position at the moment is that the wealthier Coloured is exploiting the small-scale farmer because the wealthier Coloured is the only person who has a tractor and the small-scale farmer does not have the money to buy a tractor. I wondered whether some method could not be derived at by means of which the small-scale Coloured farmer could be assisted co-operatively—by that I mean, assisted jointly, so that such farmer would perhaps be able to hire a tractor from his board to do work which he could otherwise not afford to do.

There is one other point in connection with which I do not want to pass criticism but would like some information. In Clause 51 (3) the hon. the Minister makes the following provision—

No one may prospect without the permission of the hon. the Minister and subject to the conditions which he determines or prescribes. At first glance it does not appear too serious but I understand that there are some areas to-day—I do not know whether this is correct— where the mineral rights at the moment belong to the Coloured community. Will the effect of this clause be that, notwithstanding any other provision in any law, the Minister will now practically become the owner, that is to say the State, of the mineral rights on land which at present belong to the Coloureds? Is that so and is that the intention? If that is so, I do not think that it is fair of the hon. the Minister to assume rights which do not belong to him at the moment and for which he is going to pay no compensation.

Before I resume my seat I want to tell the hon. the Minister that, notwithstanding the few questions which I have put to him—which do not actually constitute criticism—we on this side of the House and I myself in particular as a person who does perhaps have some experience of Coloured settlers, are grateful for the introduction of this Bill.

Many speakers on our side of the House have indicated their support of this Bill, and obviously one must be grateful where there are improvements. Many Coloured people themselves have welcomed these provisions. We must also be grateful for the fact that these measures are consolidated. There is, however, one thing that concerns me, and I just want to raise it shortly. We know that during this Session we are going to have the Transkeian Constitution Bill before us and we know that the Government feel that under that Bill they will be creating a separate freedom for the Xhosas, and that we shall have in that Bill a vital corner-stone in the vision that the Government have for the Xhosa people as far as the future is concerned. Indeed we know that this is being done, because it is said that all the various race groups here must have everything that we claim for ourselves. Now I have always understood that it is not contemplated by the Government that there shall be Colouredstans, anything on the lines of the Bantustans, and I equally have always understood that it was the intention of every member on that side to do for the Coloureds at least as much as they would do for the Bantu. Now we know that the measures announced so far for the Coloured people certainly do not place them in that same favourable position in which the Xhosa people will be placed this year. But, as I say, I have always understood that it is the intention of the Government to do at least as much for the Coloured people. What worries me is this, that this particular Bill is brought forward so close in point of time to this Transkeian Constitution Bill, and I am wondering whether, intentionally or unintentionally, the Government are not creating the impression that in this particular measure they are doing something of so great importance for the Coloured people that it must be regarded as a very important step forward. All I say is that I think it is capable, in view of the juxtaposition of this Bill with the Transkeian Bill, that Government people may seek to create the impression that what is being done for the Coloured people in this Bill is comparable in some way with what is going to be done in the Transkeian Constitution Bill. All I ask is that the hon. the Minister should dissociate himself completely from that attitude so that it should not be said and held against the Government that they are in any way desirous of creating that impression. I hope that the hon. the Minister will take up this point, and that he will also give us his recent thinking of the future place of the Coloured people in our country.

I share the views of this side that this Bill is really a good measure. When we deal with the rural Coloured, however, there is one group of Coloured people to whom we should look, particularly at the present moment, and that is why I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) has just said, and those are the 17,000 rural Coloureds who are at the present moment living in the Transkei and who do not know what the future has in store for them. The hon. the Minister is probably also a regular reader of the journal the Barrier in which letters, sometimes heartrending letters, appear from Coloured people who do not know what awaits them under the new policy of the Government. I have here, for example, such a letter from a certain Bestbier in which he complains about what is happening in the Transkei. He says that particularly in certain areas the hints and threats by the Bantu have become a thorn in the flesh of the Coloureds. He says—

In other words, there is already talk about taking away the land of the Coloureds who are living there at the moment. He says further—

Then you find these words in this letter, Sir, which I also want to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister—

Mr. Speaker, if this Bill will in any way lighten the burden of that very important group of 17,000 Coloureds in the Eastern Cape, whose future is very black to-day and who do not know what is to become of them, I should very much like the Minister to tell us that. It is also important that the Government sees to the welfare of those Coloureds. Those are landless people and they are facing the future with troubled minds. Something must be done for them and I should like to know what is indeed being done for them in this particular Bill.

I do not want to detain the House long, but I do want to make one or two remarks on this Bill. The first one is that I think that when introducing this Bill, the hon. the Minister could have given us a lot more information. This Bill has come early in the Session, to start with. It is a combination of consolidating some six Acts, with additional clauses added to it to provide for what the Minister wants to do. I personally believe that it is a good Bill, but I believe that our task could have been simplified, and I think it was the duty of the hon. the Minister to give us a lot more information in his introductory speech. You see, Sir, whilst I admit that some half of the 57 clauses in this Bill are clauses from previous legislation, it is a long job to go through all of those clauses and find out which is the consolidating portion and which is not.

Then the hon. the Minister has introduced certain new aspects. He has not said anything to us at all about what he has in his mind in implementing them. I accept we can deal with these clauses in the Committee Stage, but without such information it makes it very difficult. I have in mind one aspect which was touched on by the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) and that is the question as to why the hon. the Minister has not only imposed penalties for the non-payment of rates but has also made it a criminal offence? I know that we have the example of certain Bantu areas where rates have got so far behind that they have become a big problem, and I know the Minister must take positive steps to obviate that. I also accept that in rating these settlement areas, the Minister is taking a good step because he is going to put them on an economic basis, and I believe it is good that the Coloured people should realize that if they are going to have advantages such as I believe this Bill will give to them, they must accept the responsibilities that go with them and they must see that they pay their rates. I believe that the hon. the Minister could have given us that information when introducing the Bill.

There is another aspect. In some of the legislation which is being transcribed in this Bill, and I now refer to Clause 31 in particular, it says that a levy of R4 shall be paid in respect of each separate erf or property allotted in the board area. Now I understand that the previous arrangement was that each adult male on such an erf had to pay the R4. This obviously is an easing of that position, if that in fact is so. But is it the Minister’s intention, Sir, to do away with this levy of R4 when that property becomes rateable? I would like the hon. the Minister to give that information when he is replying to this debate.

In addition to the rating, I see that the hon. the Minister has provided for a health rate which shall not exceed half the ordinary rate. That might in many cases impose quite a hardship on the people of a township, because a management board is obviously going to assess its rates, and those will be the rates which the people think they will have to pay. But if then at a later stage a health rate is added of up to 50 per cent of the rates already imposed, that could be a real hardship. And unless the hon. the Minister has some particular scheme in mind, that might impose a burden. I don’t know whether he is doing this with the fact in mind that certain health areas, such as these will probably become, are subject to a Government subsidy of up to 80 per cent. Here again, I think the hon. Minister could have given us more information.

Then I come to the question of water. Clause 27 (c) provides that these local authorities shall have power—

This too is something on which we should have a little more information. The Minister must have cases where he will run into difficulties because the water supply in such areas might come from areas zoned for entirely different usage. I for one am not sure how he is going to provide for these people to acquire and to augment the water supply necessary in the area which they are serving.

I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us too how under the regulations (which generally speaking are good) a commonage is to be set aside for certain purposes which might be in conflict with the public health authorities, especially if he wants a subsidy from them, because one of these purposes is “to provide for the dumping of night-soil”, and later on to use it for the extension of the actual township itself. I think these are details that we can look into in Committee.

Then J would like the hon. the Minister to tell us why the appeals on valuations are just to the Minister and not to anybody else. I have always been under the impression (I am not a legal man) that in all cases of appeals on valuations those went to an appeal court, but for some reason which I am not aware of, the Minister has here constituted himself as the final appeal on valuation. He probably has a good explanation for that, but I would like to hear it. These are some of the matters which I think the hon. the Minister should have dealt with. His reply may save us a lot of time in Committee and will probably give us some lines along which to work in dealing with these clauses when we come to the Committee Stage.

I wish to thank the hon. Coloured Representatives for the very reasonable attitude they have adopted towards this Bill. These areas are included in the constituencies of some of them and they have spoken from experience and I am convinced that they will agree with me when I say that this is a forward step. Many thanks therefore for your attitude. I also wish to thank the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) for the attitude which he has adopted on behalf of his party in connection with this matter. Unfortunately some hon. members have asked questions which are really not relevant and they should not hold it against me if I do not deal with all of them in detail. I want to give you one example, Sir. The last hon. member who spoke will be well advised if he leaves these matters to those people who know what they talk about when these areas are discussed. He made a plea in connection with Clause 31 and he even quoted it. The clause says—

The hon. member now asks whether it is my intention to make that applicable to every area in spite of the provision laid down in Clause 34. Had the hon. member read Clause 34 he would have seen what is stated there—

“May.”

In other words, it is an alternative system and surely you will not provide an alternative system if it is not your intention to apply it in that way. I want to give another example. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) has also made his contribution. We are dealing here with traditionally Coloured areas, areas which have either been incorporated or which are existing Coloured areas governed under the 1909 Act. The matter raised by the hon. member has nothing whatsoever to do with the whole matter. He should raise it on the right occasion under the Vote of the Minister. We are not dealing with incorporated or existing areas when we discuss the matter which he has raised.

The hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) raised the problem of Elandskloof. That has nothing to do with this either. I shall be glad to give all the facts to those two hon. members at the right time. Why do they raise those matters here in an attempt to throw a haze of suspicion over a good measure.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) raised the matter of the Dunn’s land. I think the hon. member is fully acquainted with the facts and I do not want to say too much here this afternoon because we are in consultation with the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development trying to find a solution of this whole matter, which is a difficult one. As he knows the difficulty is the question of compensation, finding land to compensate for land that is at present being used by Bantu people. The difficulty is to get compensating land that they will accept. The moment we succeed in giving them the compensating land we will be able to act under this Bill to develop that land.

Parliament agreed to the compensating land, both Houses, and then the Bantu said “No, we are not satisfied ”.

That is the difficulty. Of course the hon. member knows that I cannot do anything unless we have the compensating land.

I know your difficulties

I can assure the hon. member that we are very anxious to take the necessary steps, and also to apply this Bill.

The hon. member also referred to the delegation of powers. What is referred to here is the delegation of powers purely for administrative purposes. A number of steps should be taken in all these various areas administratively and the Minister cannot deal with these matters. It is usually these powers that he delegates to the official concerned. Either the Secretary of the Department or the Deputy Secretary or the Under-Secretary, or officials who deal specifically with these areas, and the right of delegation was granted in the 1909 Act. We are only repeating that provision here. But I can assure the hon. member also that there is a right of appeal to the Minister and the Minister can repeal the powers so delegated to an official. The Minister remains responsible for every act as long as he is the responsible Minister.

There is an appeal to the Minister in every case?

Yes. Then there is the question of the “official” in Clause 25 to which the hon. member referred. The position is that we appoint superintendents in every one of these rural areas and where we have a superintendent we usually appoint him as the chairman of the local committee. He acts in that capacity, and he is usually an official of the Department. In some cases the superintendents are Coloured people at present, but their powers and duties were not laid down in the existing Acts, and what we are doing now is to make sure that we can by regulation prescribe their powers and their duties as superintendents. They are representing the Department in these areas and they are usually civil servants, either Europeans or non-Europeans.

Usually the magistrate?

No, superintendents who are fully in the service of the Department of Coloured Affairs. We keep them there as superintendents in the specific areas.

Hon. members raised the question of the non-payment of taxes and the stringent action which is provided for here. I said in my introductory speech that this measure was submitted to the Union Coloured Affairs Board and, like us, they also realized that it was an exceptional measure, but this measure is really the result of a request by a number of boards of management themselves who have had this problem. They say that simply to sell a person's movable property under the existing system, after a certain procedure has been followed, is of no avail, because what you are really doing is to harm the wife and children, and the husband gets away with it. If hon. members would look at the clause, they will find that this step is only taken after that person has neglected to pay his taxes, and secondly that step is only taken after a very serious warning has been sent to him that he has not paid his tax. In other words, you are then dealing with the indifferent payer and the person who deliberately does not pay. These boards will not take action against a person who is really in difficulties. Nobody will tell me that. But the fact of the matter is that if you wish to create a new basis for these people, if you wish to create a proper basis on which those people can be forced to be orderly, to assume responsibility, to realize that they cannot just always receive, but that they must plough something back into their community, you have to be “cruel to be kind ”.

But it goes too far.

I can understand the hon. member saying that, but the boards of management in the hon. member’s own constituency are in favour of this provision. They have to deal with this problem every day, and they have asked for this provision. But what happened? Five boards of management met, they had a conference, and of their own accord they asked for this provision, and when the other boards of management learnt about that, they immediately came together and said that they supported the request of the other five.

Particularly in the constituency of the hon. member.

Yes, the voters of the hon. member have themselves asked for it.

I know; I shall deal with that in the Committee Stage.

I admit that it is a harsh measure, but I maintain that it is necessary to have it in the interests of those people; I say “you must be cruel to be kind” in this case. That is the only way in which we will teach those people a sense of responsibility towards their own community.

Only one point remains, and that is the question of trade licences. The question was put to me why I provided on the one hand that an unqualified person could remain there and on the other hand I nevertheless wanted to have the right myself to screen trade licences before they were granted. My reply to that is this: You may have the position where an unqualified person performs an essential service to the community because of the business which he conducts there and, in that case, I think it is necessary that that person should be allowed to remain there until the transition stage has been passed and a qualified person can perform that service. On the other hand it sometimes happens that a person is struggling to get on to his feet with a business in one of these areas and that somebody has a business across the border, somebody who has obtained hawker’s rights, and that he conducts his hawker business in this area and thus suppress that young business whose owner is struggling to get on to his feet. You must also prevent that, Sir. That is the reason why we are introducing these stringent measures.

I just want to say this in conclusion. I want to correct one wrong impression which has been created. The impression has been created that we are only now introducing a new basis for these people, whereas over the past two or three years step after step has been taken in this House on the initiative of the Government to make the measures possible which are incorporated in this legislation. In other words, this is a process which this Government has been planning over the past three or four years; a process which has now been given final shape. I wish to correct the wrong impression which has been created that we were only starting now. Many of those areas have developed to such an extent that it is possible to-day to carry on with many of these things. A second impression has been created which I also wish to remove, and that is the impression created by the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman). We must get away from the idea of thinking that the Coloureds belong to the Cape only. The Coloured community belong to the Republic of South Africa as a whole; it is not only a question of the Cape. The burdens we have to carry in connection with the Coloured people have to be carried by the whole Republic and the benefits which are derived from the Coloured people are enjoyed by the whole Republic. It is wrong and we must get away from the idea that because the Minister comes from the Cape Province he is closer to the Coloured people than other Minister. That is why I wish to tell the hon. member that the suggestion that the province should control these Coloured areas is totally ineffective and our forefathers who started this State of ours, realized that. That was why even in the 1909 Act it was not left in the hands of the province. In their wisdom they already realized that it should be done differently and that was why it was placed in the hands of the Central Government. The province is not capable of carrying out this rehabilitation and developmental work, except for the fact that the province comes into the picture in regard to matters which affect it. For the rest it is the duty of the Government to bring about this development.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill was introduced in the Other Place last year and all sides supported it there. Thereafter it was referred to this House where there was no objection to the principle but where two members of the Opposition, the hon. members for Gardens (Mr. Connan) and Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) had certain doubts, amongst others, about the fact that the Bill was introduced at such a late stage in the session. They felt that it did not give them sufficient opportunity to study it properly and possibly to get in touch with interested people who might be affected by it. The other point was the fact that it was to some extent a technically involved Bill. A third point raised by them was that it did indeed encroach on established rights.

I just want to say that it is not my intention to explain either the principle or the clauses of the Bill in broad detail. I must just add that before the Bill was introduced last year my Department had already tried to get in touch with and to consult practically every body, who in our opinion, was concerned with this Bill, amongst others, the S.A. Nurserymen’s Association, who supported the Bill except for Clause 24 to which they objected, the K.W.V., the Deciduous Fruit Board, the Citrus Board, the Registrar of Patents and the S.A. Agricultural Union. We also considered and took into account the comments of the S.A. Institute of Patent Agents very carefully. A memorandum of the S.A. Institute of Patent Agents was submitted to the then Departmental Commission of Inquiry, which I had appointed to go into the question of patents and breeders’ rights. They paid careful attention to the points raised in that memorandum. On 5 May last year I forwarded a typed copy of the Bill to the S.A. Institute of Patent Agents. Their comments and objections were again considered and as a result of that Clauses 27 and 36 (2) were inserted.

The fact that I could not in principle accept the objections raised by the S.A. Nurserymen’s Association to Clause 24, does not mean in the least that there has not been consultation. In view of the fact, therefore, that both inside and outside Parliament there is no objection to the broad principles of the Bill but mainly to one clause alone, and because I admit that certain rights which certain people had under the former legislation may be affected, it is my intention to refer this Bill to a Select Committee after the House has accepted the principle and passed its second reading to hear evidence on all its broad aspects from any body which wishes to give such evidence and secondly to consider the various clauses, particularly those in respect of which doubts have been expressed. I think this will have fruitful results.

I feel that a Select Committee will have more time to go into the implications of the various clauses in detail. That is why I want to make my intention known that after its second reading this Bill will be referred to a Select Committee.

My Department feels that the time has arrived when our own plant breeders in the Department can no longer undertake all the breeding work as they practically did in the past, particularly as far as garden plants were concerned. Private breeders are also beginning to show much greater interest in the breeding of garden plants and we consequently feel that they should be encouraged. We feel further that there is a great defect in the Patents Act in that it does not make any provision for the patenting of plants, other than those which are vegetatively propagated—in other words, plants which are also propagated by means of seeds—and that breeders should have the right, as is provided for in this Bill, to register new plants which they breed, vegetatively or from seed.

We are further convinced that the Act dealing with industrial patents is not the right place for the patenting of plants and the Registrar of Patents supports this view of ours. Various European countries which are members of the Paris Convention in respect of patents nonetheless found it necessary in December 1961 to call a new separate Convention of Paris for the Protection of New Plant Products. The British commission of inquiry into plant breeders’ rights which reported in 1960 and which had made a comparative legal study of the patenting of plants in various other countries, did precisely the same. We too want to follow that pattern and that is why we really do two things in this Bill. Firstly, separate provision is made in a special Act to protect plant breeders’ rights and to confer upon them the right of registration and to create and introduce the necessary machinery; and secondly, to make it possible to confer such right also in respect of plants which are propagated vegetatively and/or from seed.

Mr. Speaker, in the circumstances I do not think it is necessary for me to explain this Bill further and I move.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill came before the House a year ago and a debate was started then. I am very glad indeed to hear from the hon. the Minister that it is now intended that we will have a law which is of a very much wider scope than the one at present before the House. It is quite obvious that in the circumstances of the modern world, where it is absolutely essential that there shall be the development of new and improved varieties, the country can only progress as fast as it should be able to if it is in the fortunate position of having an adequate law to protect the rights of those who have, in many cases, put a good deal of their life into the study of the breeding of the various varieties and their propagation. I am particularly pleased that apart from covering plants which are propagated vegetatively, further consideration will be given to plants which are propagated from seed, and I believe that that can only be to our advantage.

The hon. the Minister has referred to the steps taken in other countries, in Britain and Europe. Of course we know that in America there has already been a great deal of research into what the form of the legislation should be. I believe the Minister has taken the right step and I can assure him that as far as this side of the House in concerned we welcome the announcement that he has made and we will do everything possible to ensure that the most effective piece of legislation possible is placed on the Statute Book. The step now taken will obviously ensure to the Minister a very simple passing of the second reading, but I am sure there are other hon. members who would like to put their thoughts before the House. Having discussed the matter thoroughly last year, I do not propose to take up any more time of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to convey our appreciation to the hon. the Minister for understanding that this Bill will be referred to a Select Committee. We in this House agreed unanimously last session with the principle of this Bill. We realize that plant breeders have progressed a great deal in this country and that we must give them the necessary protection. We realize that under the present Patents Act they have no protection at all, and any protection they may have had was too extensive, but we do feel that we would like the Minister to have more evidence so that this Bill can be of a more comprehensive nature. Perhaps we may have to give some recognition to people who are developing plants and seeds from imported articles, and that should be allowed, and the greatest consideration possible should be given to it so that this legislation will be flawless. It can be such. I think it is excellently drafted. We appreciate the way in which the Minister has presented it to the House and to the Other Place. We know how necessary it is and we realize what has been achieved. The Minister told us last session that all the wheat varieties sown in the Western Province have been developed through his Department, and that alone is a great achievement and an example to us what can be done by our own plant breeders if we give them the necessary encouragement and protection. I agree with the procedure proposed and I also agree with the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) that when the Bill comes back to this House it will no doubt be put through expeditiously.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.