I want to move the amendment appearing in my name on the Order Paper—

I do not think it is necessary to say much about this.

I accept the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I have an amendment here which I wish to move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

On this clause I wish to move the amendment appearing in my name on page 804 of the Order Paper—

The clause as it is at present reads as follows—

I now propose to insert “who shall be Union nationals and” after “members”. The intention is clear and I do not think it necessary to go into details. It is also possible that the Minister may at once accept it. As we are dealing here with an institution which is being created mainly for the purpose of promoting our industries and science as far as our Union research can contribute thereto, I think that we can assume that a person who is not a Union national can hardly be a fit member of the council. In saying that, I do not want to suggest that men who might possibly be appointed, although not being Union nationals, would not give their services loyally to this country. That I do not want to suggest for a single moment. I do not want to question for a single moment the good faith of scientists. But it is here a matter of the sound principle that the body which will have control over research work in the Union, especially in regard to the promotion of our industries, should consist of Union nationals who in the first place have the best knowledge of circumstances in the Union. The clause furthemore provides that these people will all have to be well equipped as far as their scientific knowledge or their knowledge of industries is concerned. We want to get the assurance that those people will also* be competent in other respects, and I think we should have the additional assurance that those people shall have no other interests at heart than the furtherance of the interests of the Union. That is the reason why I move this amendment. I cannot imagine anybody raising the objection that a sufficient number of well equipped men cannot be found in the Union. In view of the number of people who are today engaged in scientific work and of the large number of prominént industrialists who are also well equipped with knowledge of their particular field of activities, it would mean ignoring the talent we possess in South Africa and an underestimation of our own people.

I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendment. I believe it would be a pity to incorporate something of that nature in a Bill dealing with science. The hon. member will agree that in practice the point is of very little importance. It is most unlikely that we will appoint a person who is not a Union national, but let us consider a possible case. Take for instance a person like the late Sir Arnold Theiler. I think he was a Swiss. I take it that he was naturalised but supposing that this had not been the case, would we then have refused to appoint such a person on this body before he would have been naturalised? I think it would be a pity to insert this provision, and although I do not think that there will be another case like that, I believe that it is better not to incorporate it in the Bill. I therefore hope that the hon. member will not take it amiss if I do not accept his amendment.

I do not want to take up the time of the House by asking for a division on this point, but still I am sorry that the Minister takes up the attitude he did. I think it amounts to an underestimation of our own citizens who are available and qualified. It is not necessary that such a person who is to be appointed should be a Union-born national, but when somebody is appointed to such an important post, where he enjoys the confidence of the Government and the State in the undertaking of such important work, I think it would be a test for his interests in and his obedience and loyalty to his new fatherland whether he has lived here for many years and has not taken steps to become a Union national. I think it is a pity that the Minister does not want to accept this amendment. It would not be unreasonable if the suspicion were aroused by this refusal that one could have doubts in anticipation about the direction in which this institute will proceed. To me it seems a great pity that a body such as this should not be put above all doubt.

May I venture to express the hope that the hon. member will not press the amendment.

I have said that I will not accept it.

I merely want to express the hope that the hon. member will withdraw the amendment and not press it with the object of limiting the scope of this Act.

He is not pressing it to a division.

By his amendment he would be setting out to claim that the only brains trust that should be considered would be one consisting of Union nationals and that is absurd.

It is only the Board I referred to.

The Board will lay down the programme and will decide on the future of scientific research in this country. I hope the hon. member will not destroy the effective working of this Act by limiting the choice of the Council to Union nationals.

I would like to ask the Minister, under this section, if he can comment on the representations made by the Association of Scientific Workers who, I understand, have submitted representations somewhat along these lines—

It appears to me that the representation made by the Association of Scientific Workers is a perfectly reasonable one. I think it is true to believe that they would have a lot more confidence in the Council if they were given a democratic right, as an institution of persons primarily concerned, to elect, or to submit nominations of representatives from their particular organisation in the same way as other technical bodies can submit a nomination of a person whom they feel would be most fitted and suitable for appointment to the Council. It would be a means of securing the active co-operation and goodwill of the institutions most primarily concerned in the success of the Council to be set up, and I would like to hear from the Minister whether he has given consideration to the representations by the Association of Scientific Workers, and in what way he proposes, if not at this stage but later, to comply with their request and to see that some consideration is given to the names submitted by them.

The hon. member has referred to certain representations by certain scientific bodies in connection with this clause. May I say that the scientific organisations are not unanimous in supporting these representations, but in any case I have given consideration to them. I do not however feel that we should limit ourselves in this Bill by laying down a system of election for the constitution of the council. It is not the council of a professional body like the Medical Council, with disciplinary powers. It has quite a different object, and it seems to me that it is much better to leave the appointments to the Governor-General. The aspects which my hon. friend has in mind will of course be considered in making the nominations, but I think it would be unfortunate to lay down definitely the elective basis for the composition of this council, and it would also be very difficult to find such a basis. It would lead to complications in the drafting of this Bill, to lay down who is entitled to vote and to prescribe machinery for election. I would therefore urge that this matter be left to us with the assurance that we will take into consideration all these aspects.

Can the hon. the Minister indicate in what way there is disagreement amongst the scientific workers? Assuming that the proper association makes representations in the direction that represents their wishes ….

What I mean is this. I received a telegram in which the names of the bodies who were supposed to be sponsoring this proposal were given, including the South African Association for the Advancement of Science and I subsequently received a telegram from that body disassociating themselves from the suggestion. That is what I meant.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 1.0,

I have an amendment to add certain subsections to this clause, replacing sub-section (2). The effect of that will be that more specific provision will be made for the pension privileges of these officers by linking them up with the pension fund under the Higher Education Act, and that will therefore not make it necessary to make provision by way of regulation. We shall make that provision in the Act itself. I move—

1. (2) The president and other full-time officers of the council occupying posts approved by the Minister shall become members of and shall contribute to the Provident Fund established under Section 12 of the Higher Education Additional Provision Act, 1917 (Act No. 20 of 1917) in the same manner and subject to the same conditions as if they were members of the teaching or administrative staff of a college or university as defined by Section 1 of the said Act, and the council shall for all purposes of the said Provident Fund be regarded as a college or university as so defined.
2. (3) The council shall be deemed to be a “council” as defined by the regulations governing the said Provident Fund and shall, anything to the contrary notwithstanding, pay to the said Provident Fund the contributions that would otherwise have been payable by the Government in respect of the president and officers of the council who become members of the said Provident Fund.
3. (4) For the purposes of Sections 26 and 27 of the Government Service Pensions Act, 1936 (Act No. 32 of 1936), as amended, the council shall be deemed to be an institution of higher education.
4. (5) The Minister may on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission second any officer in the public service to the service of the council. Such officer shall while so seconded remain in all respects subject to the laws governing the public service.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

During the second reading debate on this Bill I asked the Minister to give his attention to the implications of the Bill. We appoint a body to perform scientific and technical work and we grant extensive rights and powers to that body In this case we grant the council also the right to keep the proprietary rights of all inventions-. We furthermore grant the council the right in sub-section (3) to patent any right or discovery, and thereby to use such discovery or invention for the financial benefit of the council. I think it rather strange that we should create a body which possibly might collect large sums of money. Surely our idea about this council is not that it should accumulate large funds. In spite of that, such rights and powers are granted to the new body, and the only control the Government will have over the use of such rights is contained in the provision that the funds will be used in accordance with regulations to be issued by the Governor-General. The Government’s sole power is to exercise control by means of regulations. Of course nobody wants to restrict the liberty of a scientific council too much, but still it seems to me that the Minister who will be charged with the responsibility of the putting into effect of this measure, should retain a measure of control, and in order to have a further safeguard we ought to stipulate that the powers shall be exercised “in consultation with the Minister”. After the word “regulations” I should like to see the words “in consultation with the Minister” inserted. The Minister who will be responsible for the application of the Act, will, in that case also be responsible for the manner in which the patent rights and other rights will be granted and used.

I realise the importance of the point raised by the hon. member that the use of the patents and rights should take place “in consultation with the Minister”. I should like to consider this point more fully and if necessary I shall move an amendment to that effect in Another Place.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 14,

I move—

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 15,

1 move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The remaining Clauses and the Title having been agreed to

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments.

Amendments considered.

Amendments in Clauses 3, 4, 10, 14 and 15 put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

This Bill had such a good reception in the House and went through so smoothly that I do not want to cause any further delay in regard thereto. In fact the object of the Bill is so lofty and the prospects in regard to the possibilities of this measure are of such a nature that it can be of great benefit to the people of our country, and for that reason we welcome it wholeheartedly and wish it good luck. In view of world happenings in the past and in our present days and in view of the tension existing amongst the nations today, humanity and every section of it should to the best of its ability concentrate man’s brains on the discovery of those factors in life which may elevate man above the passions that govern animals. Humanity is sick of the destruction which was partly due to the application of man’s intelligence and inventive power. By the creation of this research council and its duties our Afrikaners also obtain the opportunity to contribute further to scientific knowledge. May their contribution aim at better objectives for applying scientific knowledge. With these expectations and these possibilities I think that South Africa too will be able in future to contribute a share to the material welfare of humanity and to the greater happiness of its own population as a whole, who are in great want and in whose life there is much misery, especially among certain sections of the population. For that reason we cherish great hopes of this Bill and its objects and we assume that the Government of today which is responsible for seeing that the council fulfil its duties towards South Africa, will grant the assistance which is necessary to exert all its strength for the objects of the research council and that it will take care that the activities of those people will be guided in a direction which will be of the greatest benefit to all, and that this responsible body will have no reason to complain that its activities are hampered by insufficient funds. I am sorry that the Minister was unable to accept our amendment in regard to the composition of the research council. I think the people of South Africa are entitled to assume that there are at least a hundred persons in our country possessing the necessary qualifications to take upon their shoulders the management of such an organisation. It is a blot—not a reflection—on the capabilities of so many Afrikaners that they will not have the right to undertake alone the control of an institution of this kind. In no case do I want to bind myself as far as the future is concerned; it may take a long time or it may take a short time, but the direction which the Minister is going to follow in the composition of this board will definitely receive the attention of members on this side. In anticipation I assume that the Minister will appoint Union nationals and for that reason I do not want to go further into this matter. Furthermore in regard to Clause 11 there are still the responsibilities of the council. I want to say that the Minister should consider to closely link up this aspect with the Government itself, so that the question of the use of rights in regard to inventions and patents will be subject to consultation with the Minister concerned.

Once more I want to express my thanks for the manner in which this Bill has been received and also my appreciation for the assistance in regard thereto which I received from the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) and other hon. members. I share his expectations that the passing of this Bill will be of great benefit to the future of our country.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

I have already made a second reading speech on this Bill and hon. members will remember that the Bill was referred to a Select Committee before second reading. The Select Committee enquired into it and effected one or two small alterations. The report submitted by the Committee is a unanimous report and I therefore now move the second reading.

According to the report of the Select Committee no objection exists against this measure, but I should like to have some information from the Minister. In this Bill we find a proviso that the proclamation will not be issued before the other country concerned has provided for a similar recognition of this jurisdiction. From the proceedings of the Select Committee I noticed that a cable was sent to the High Commissioner in London and that a reply was received. We should like to know whether arrangements have been made for mutual recognition, for if that should not be the case, then this Bill will be of no use. There is still one point which does not seem quite correct, namely Clause 2 (3) (b).

There it is laid down that if a woman who is married to a foreigner resides with her husband in his country for any period—it may be even a day—she will lose her rights under this Bill. Perhaps she goes along with him and at once feels that her position there is made impossible. Then she comes back but cannot enjoy the advantages of this Bill. I do not know whether the Select Committee went into this aspect and we should like to have more clarity in this matter from the Minister.

We cannot make arrangements with other countries before this Bill has been passed. That would bind us too much in regard to any changes which we might want to effect. There is little doubt that a mutual arrangement will be come to. The second point raised by the hon. member was considered by the Select Committee. The inention is that if a wife goes to the country of domicile of her husband and not only to another country, she will lose her rights under this Bill. This Bill has been introduced to give the court jurisdiction in cases where the wife has not yet left for the country of domicile of her husband. Once she has gone there we can no longer give her the benefit of this Bill, for that would hamper the question of reciprocity. Another point is that it would be difficult to determine a period. I can assure the hon. member that the Select Committee considered that point.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill now.

House in Committee:

On Clause 2,

It is quite feasable that the wife would go with her husband and that her position would then be made intolerable. Take a case such as this. The husband goes back to his country and his wife follows him somewhat later. When she arrives there he wants to have nothing to do with her, or her position is made impossible, with the result that she wants to return as soon as possible. Then this legislation cannot be of assistance to her and she will have to go back to England before she can take action. I should like to know whether the Select Committee has given consideration to such a possibility.

What the hon. member has suggested might of course happen, but it would be the exception. Once the wife has gone to the country of domicile of her husband it is her duty to institute proceedings there. The intention is to assist people who do not go there. This point has already been widely discussed. We go further than the English Act. According to the English Act if a wife goes to America, let us suppose she goes to California whereas her husband lives in New York, she loses the advantages of such a law and she has to institute proceedings there. In our case she has to go to New York before she loses the right to issue summons here. We therefore go further than the English Act, but if we accept the suggestion of the hon. member we will lose reciprocity.

I now see here that it says reside together. Therefore it seems clear.

Clause, as printed put and agreed to.

The remaining Clauses and the Title of the Bill, having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

The contractual conveyance of ocean mails between the Union of South Africa and the United Kingdom has been undertaken by the Union-Castle Mail Steamship Co. Ltd., for many years. Prior to the establishment of Union in 1910, the Union-Castle Co. were under contract with the Government of the Cape Colony, and were paid an annual subsidy of £135,000 for the mail service. This payment was increased to £171.000 in 1908, but £21,000 of the total amount was in respect of the extension of the mailboat service from Table Bay to Port Natal. After the formation of Union, the Union Government re-negotiated a contract with the Union-Castle Co. in 1912. This contract was to run for 10 years, and provided for a regular weekly mailboat sailing from and to the Union, and also for the conveyance of Union fruit and perishable products to the United Kingdom in cold chambers at prescribed rates of freight. The payment remained at £171,000 per annum. Simultaneously with the signature of the 1912 Ocean Mail Contract, two other agreements were concluded, relative to the conveyance of Union Government cargo from the United Kingdom and certain European ports and to the conveyance of specified Union products to the United Kingdom and certain European ports. These Freight Agreements were to run for five years until 1917, but they were suspended during 1915 as a result of war conditions, and lapsed in 1917. The future of the Ocean Mail Contract was discussed between the Union Government and the Union-Castle Mail Steamship Co. in 1922 but no finality could be reached at that time, and it was accordingly agreed to let the contract run on for another two years. The annual payment was, however, increased to £198,000 in respect of the mail service between the United Kingdom and Table Bay, and £27,000 in respect of the extension of the service to Durban, that is, a total of £225,000. Further discussions took place between the Union Government and the Union-Castle Co. during 1924-’25, but as it was again impossible to reach agreement regarding a long-term contract, it was arranged that the 1912 contract; as amended, should continue in operation on a year to year basis. In 1936 the contractors agreed to shorten the voyage of the mailships between Table Bay and Southampton to a period of 13 days 14 hours instead of the former 17 days, and the contract was thereupon extended for a further period of 10 years. The current contract will, therefore, now expire on the 31st December, 1946. In 1922 a new Government Outward Freight Agreement was also concluded to replace the one which had lapsed in 1917, and provision was made for the conveyance to the United Kingdom of Union products other than perishables at specified rates of freight. These agreements were superseded by a new Freight Agreement concluded in 1928, which provided for the conveyance of Government cargo to the Union and for the carriage of Union perishables and other products to the United Kingdom and certain European ports. This agreement was for five years, and when it expired in 1934 it was replaced by a further agreement which is still operative but which will now also expire on the 31st December, 1946. During the war the British Ministry of War Transport requisitioned most of the larger vessels which the Union-Castle Co. operated on the Union mail services. Some of these vessels have been lost as a result of enemy action. In view of the need for undertaking new construction in replacement of such vessels if they are to be able to resume the full weekly mailboat service at an early date after the end of the war, the Union-Castle Co. some time ago indicated their desire to discuss the future of the Ocean Mail Contract with the Union Government. The present contract requires 18 months’ notice by either party of intention to withdraw therefrom, that is, notice would have been required not later than 30th June of this year if it had been desired to terminate the present contract by the end of 1946, or to effect any major alterations thereto. It was, therefore, necessary to undertake early discussions to plan for the future, especially as the construction of new mailships will take a long time and the company was not prepared to place orders for such expensive new mailships unless and until they were certain that they would be able to find employment for them over a period of years in the regular mail service to the Union. These discussions accordingly took place some weeks ago and the new Ocean Mail Service Contract now before the House resulted therefrom. Hon. members will, no doubt, have studied the terms of the new contract, and I need not, therefore, go into great detail regarding the different provisions. The new contract is for a minimum period of 10 years as from 1st January, 1947, and provides that the contractors shall, during this period, provide a sufficient number of suitable mailships to enable regular weekly sailings to be maintained from Table Bay to Southampton, and from Southampton to Table Bay. There are detailed provisions for the safe custody of the mails, responsibility for loss or damage, etc. The voyage between Table Bay and Southampton and vice versa must not exceed 14 days. This is the present provision, but a new clause has been added which provides that all new mailships which may be built will have a reserve engine power to enable them to perform the voyage in a shorter period if and when an acceleration of the mail service shall be mutually agreed upon between the Government and the contractors. Full provision has also been made for representations and discussions concerning any matters regarding which unforeseen difficulties may arise during the 10-year period of the new contract, so that it will be possible to bring about any desirable adjustments and alterations rendered necessary by future developments. The interests of Union coastal ports, and of the people and business interests served through them, have been safeguarded by a provision that mailships will continue the practice of sailing to Durban each week, calling at intermediate ports in the manner stipulated in Clause 27. Under the heading “Special Undertakings by Contractors” important advantages for the Union have been secured and prescribed in detail. Many South Africans have gone to sea during the war, and have developed a liking for a searfaring career. They will want to continue serving in ships after the war when their active service duties fall away. Hitherto there have not been many such openings for Union nationals, but the Union-Castle Co. has now undertaken to employ in their ships Union nationals to an extent of not less than 20 per cent. of the personnel, officers and ratings, per ship. The usual complement of a mailship is 270 officers and men and the contractors normally operate eight mailships when maintaining the full service provided in the contract. On a basis of a minimum of 20 per cent., there will thus be scope for at least 430 Union nationals in mailships, and for a further 400 in the company’s intermediate and other vessels. South Africans interested in the sea will surely welcome this provision of new careers. The contractors also undertake to extend their present practice of purchasing for use in their vessels as wide a range and as large a quantity of Union products as may be reasonably practicable, and to continue to accord full consideration to any representations made to them by the Government in this matter. It has always been the policy of the Union-Castle Co. to purchase certain stores for their vessels in the Union. During the years 1936-’39 inclusive, a total amount of more than £250,000 was expended by the Union-Castle Co. in the purchase of stores for their vessels in Union ports. The purchases ranged over many items, but some of the figures are as follows:

During 1938 wines were purchased to a value of £928, beers £1,628, cigarattes and tobacco £2.284, liqueurs £430. The Union Government feel, nevertheless, that there is still scope for improvement in this direction, and accordingly arranged for the inclusion of a specific undertaking in the new contract. Every effort will henceforth be made to ensure that maximum quantities of Union products which are suitable and available will be taken on board by mailships and other vessels in Union ports, in order that this outlet for our producers may be expanded and that Union quality products may receive full publicity amongst mailship passengers and on intermediate and other vessels. Ship repair facilities in the Union have progressed magnificently under the impetus of war exigencies and Union ports, shipwrights and engineers are now able to’ undertake a greater volume as well as a greater variety of repair work than a few years ago. We will also shortly have the large new Duncan Dry Dock available at Cape Town, and the Government accordingly desired to ensure that the Union-Castle Co. would make the fullest possible use of these facilities with consequential benefits to Union engineering firms and our skilled ship repair artisans during the years that lie ahead. The contractors have undertaken to utilise these facilities in the Union as far as the conditions under which their vessels are operated make this practicable. The Government is anxious to encourage the registration of seagoing vessels at Union ports, as such a development will add to the prestige of our country, and will ensure that vessels whose owners have an interest in South Africa will be available for carrying cargoes to and from the Union under conditions which will take full cognisance of the Union’s interests. The Union-Castle Co. has undertaken to arrange to the extent to which they find it practicable and consistent with their interests and obligations, to register certain of their cargo vessels in the Union within a reasonable period after the commencement of the new contract. The Government look upon this as a first development in the right direction, and will endeavour to persuade other shipowners to follow a similar policy during the following years. The provisions covering the conveyance of pedigree breeding stock to the Union from the United Kingdom are not new, as they have been in operation for a number of years, but they have been restated in the new contract in view of their importance for the Union’s pastoral industry. During the three years 1937, 1938, and 1939, 162 out of 319 head of cattle, 36 out of 332 horses, 8 out of 14 pigs and 497 out of 558 sheep were conveyed to the Union free of freight in terms of this undertaking. Over a period of five years the amount of freight surrendered by the contractors in respect of the freight-free shipment of pedigree stock was in the neighbourhood of £30,000, i.e. about £6,000 per annum. This facility will now be retained during the 10 years of the new contract. The amount to be paid to the contractors by the Government for the performance of the mail and other services under the new contract will be £300,000 per annum. This is an increase of about £72,000 per annum over the payment of £228,000 made under the present contract since 1922. Under the present contract an amount of £198,000 is paid in respect of the mail service between Table Bay and Southampton, £27,000 in respect of the extension of the mailship service to Durban, and a sum of about £3,000 per anuum is rebated to the contractors in respect of port dues on mailships calling at Durban: a total of about £228,000 per annum. The new contract provides for a consolidated payment and no separate payment will be made in respect of the coastal voyage, whilst the port dues rebate at Durban is also cancelled. The increased payment has become necessary as a result of the steep rise in the cost of operating ocean-going vessels, and the increased costs involved in the construction of new vessels in replacement of those lost during the war. Rates of pay for seamen have increased and are likely to remain at a considerably higher level than pre-war. Few people would want these wages to revert to their former low levels in view of the present international emphasis on reasonable incomes and living conditions for all. The accommodation and general living conditions aboard for the men who go down to the sea in ships have also been improved very much during recent years, and this desirable improvement has resulted in increased expenses for shipowners. There have been increases in the cost of fuel, repairs, stores, etc., and there can be little doubt that these enhanced costs will remain during the post-war years. At present it costs just about double as much as pre-war to construct an ocean-going vessel, and the two new mailships for which the contrctors will now place orders will accordingly involve the company in very considerable additional capital expenditure. The Government recognised these facts, and accordingly agreed to increase the annual payments to the contractors. In the case of the vessels operated by the South African Railways and Harbours Administration, a similar increase in operating expenses has been experienced. These facts are reflected, also, in the increase by 90 per cent. at the present time of the pre-war rates of freight from the United Kingdom to the Union, whilst further increases in the freight rates from other areas have been foreshadowed. Viewed in relation to the services to be rendered to the Union by the contractors under the new contract, the annual payment cannot be regarded as being excessive. Under the new contract the Union is guaranteed a regular weekly mailship service in both directions over a period of 10 years. This is a most important benefit for the years that lie ahead, years during which it is hoped that the Union’s external trade and other contacts with the outside world will increase very greatly. The fact that large, comfortable, well-equipped mailships will sail at regular weekly intervals from the Union to the United Kingdom and vice versa will have an enormous value for business people in the Union who require the regular and rapid arrival of trade papers, samples, materials and stock replacements. It will be of importance to importers who need not carry large and expensive stocks of imported products in view of the certainty that regular supplies will become avalaible week by week, and it will benefit the Union’s tourist traffic. On the other side, it will also be of the greatest possible value to Union exporters of fruit and other perishable products, of wool, hides, skins, wines and brandy, jams, wattle bark, etc., who will have regular weekly sailings to the United Kingdom and certain European ports of vessels which will perform the voyage in a relatively short period, and which will be well equipped for the conveyance of our products. Details of these facilities are contained in the new Freight Agreement, copies whereof have been made available to hon. members, and which will also continue for a period of 10 years. Hon. members will note that Clause 5 provides that the contractors shall, as from the 1st January, 1947, be under an obligation to implement their undertaking to provide regular weekly sailings in both directions only to the extent of the tonnage which may then be available to them as a result of the possible continued requisitioning of some of their vessels by the United Kingdom Government or the reconditioning of vessels which had been requisitioned for war service, or the non-completion of new vessels still under construction for the South African mail service. This was, of course, a necessary provision in view of the present position of the Union-Castle Company’s fleet of vessels. But it was also necessary to ensure that the contractors would not receive the benefit of the total annual payment provided for under the new contract until and unless they performed the full service stipulated therein. Clause 7 accordingly provides that if the contractors should, at any time during the currency of the new contract, be unable wholly to perform the services stipulated in the contract, the full amount of the annual payment under the contract shall not be paid to them, but they will be paid an amount equal to 1/104th part of the total payment for each completed voyage of a mailship operated for their account. This will ensure that the full annual payment will be made only when the contractors are again able to perform all the services by their own vessels for their own account. In connection with the amount of £300,000 I should like to explain also that this entire amount is not a net charge on the Union Post Office, in view of the fact that other postal administrations which make use of the mail services provided under the contract pay for such facilities. In 1922, when the total annual payment was £225,000, the actual net disbursement by the Union Post Office was only £28,000. In 1926 this figure was £70,000, in 1932 it was £64.000, and in 1935 it dropped to only £14,900. After that year there was again an increase to £52,000 in 1936, and to £98,000 in 1938, but this resulted from the introduction of the airmail service for all first-class mails at that time, and a reduction in the contributions by other postal administrations who also utilised the trans-African airmail service and sent less letter mails by sea via Cape Town.

How does the Union Government recover the money?

That will take me two hours to explain, but under the International Postal Union the various administrations are debited, the same as we are debited when we send mail to America, and as a result of accountancy those amounts are paid in to the Union Government. Some years it is very much down, and other years it is up. In fact, therefore, the Union Post Office collects a fairly considerable proportion of the annual payment from other postal administrations, and the £300,000 does not form a full charge against the Union Post Office alone. With regard to the volume of postal traffic, there is every indication that the bulk will continue to increase. In 1912 the number of postal bags shipped was 155,769, in 1922 it was 200,412, in 1932 it had increased to 249,451, and in 1938 the figure stood at 261,626 or 30,286 shipping tons. It is hoped, of course, that the carriage of the bulk of the first class mail by air will be resumed shortly, but this fact will not reduce the volume of mail which will still be conveyed by sea. On the contrary, there are good reasons for believing that the volume of ocean mail will continue to increase, as the return to normal conditions will result in a larger volume of registered trade parcels, periodicals, trade journals and other postal matter which will not ordinarily be sent by air if a regular 14-day sea service is available. The continuance of the Ocean Mail Contract is, therefore, well justified notwithstanding the probability that the airmail service for letters will be extended after the war. The Government have planned for the future, and have, by means of this new contract, ensured that the Union will be served by fast modem mailships sailing between the Union and the United Kingdom at regular weekly intervals over a minimum period of 10 years. I am sure that this provision will be welcomed by the House and by the country as a whole. I am confident that if this contract is examined impartially and looked upon as a purely business proposition hon. members will come to the conclusion, as I did, and as my colleagues did, that it is good business for the Union.

I second.

I find myself rattier in a quandary in regard to the procedure here. On the 21st of this month the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs laid two agreements on the Table of the House. Now he asks for the approval of one of these. The other one which is also before the House is dealt with under some other procedure and the provision in the agreement itself is that if the agreement is not disapproved of, then it remains in force. This agreement is binding on all parties concerned, but in case the Union Parliament rejects this agreement before the 30th June it lapses. Up till now there has been no proposal before the House which has been accepted. I do not want to go into that aspect now. You gave me leave to speak and I also have leave to criticise the second agreement which was submitted to us. To me there seems to be a defect, namely that the Minister did not submit it for our approval earlier, seeing that there is the stipulation that it is in force when not disapproved of on the date mentioned. I listened attentively to the explanation given by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and I noticed that he omitted to touch upon quite a few of the important points. I do not want to raise the aspects which he did not discuss and the other things which he put in a certain way and about which a different point of view may be put forward. I want to confine myself with the second report, namely the report signed by the Minister of Economic Development and the chairman of the Perishable Products Export Control Board. I have quite an amount of criticism to offer on the contents of that agreement but before doing so I think the House should realise that we are dealing here with an agreement—I am now referring particularly to the shipping contract which will make provision for the transport of Government requirements to this country and the export of perishable products of South African producers to countries overseas. This contract was signed by the Minister of Economic Development on behalf of the Government. In regard to the criticism I want to raise, the House should understand that this is an agreement between two contracting parties, one of which is the Union Government, the Government of an independent State. The other party is a private company, although a particularly strong company, powerful owing to its capital and more powerful owing to the status and position which the Union Government enables it to occupy in the world. In passing I just want to say that I had the privilege of travelling five times between South Africa and Europe on ships of this company and I enjoyed the best treatment, and in future that may happen again; therefore I have no personal grievance against the company but when I act as a representative citizen in this House, the highest council in the land, I consider it my duty to describe the agreement as I see it and for that reason I first of all want to emphasise that we have here an agreement between two contracting parties, one of which is the Government of this country, the government of a country which does not possess its own shipping lines and the citizens of which also own no shipping. The Government therefore has the responsibility to see that the rights and requirements of the population as a whole will be properly and fully represented. In view of the position in which we find ourselves and in view of my privilege to set out the point of view of the party I represent here to the House, I now want to say that in principle we are not opposed to the entering into an agreement for the imports of our requirements or the export of our products. In principle we have no objection to that. But we do not forget that South Africa does not have its own shipping companies, and provision has therefore to be made for it on certain conditions, and I want to emphasise that although in prinicple we have no objection to the transport of our import and export requirements, we in any case have to make certain demands; we lay down certain conditions which the agreement should satisfy if it is to conform with the requirements which we on this side of the House demand from it. First of all we stipulate that such agreements should be economically sound. The State should obtain good value for the undertakings it gives and that is not happening in this case. In the second place the agreement should not grant extraordinary powers to a shipping company or a group of shipping companies. That, however, does happen in this case. In the third place the agreement should leave room for the development of our own shipping activities. It should leave room for the State and the inhabitants, especially in view of the world conditions of today under which we as a State have developed so tremendously that our import requirements have increased and our exports are also increasing—room should be left especially on the part of the State and the Government acting on behalf of the State, for us to be able to develop our own shipping industry either by means of the State or by means of private agreements. In the second place we stipulate that the agreement must make provision for the development of our own coastal traffic for the benefit of our own Union citizens. I am very disappointed that this agreement makes no mention of coastal traffic especially after very recent revelations by the Minister of Transport that provision should be made for our own coastal traffic. The agreement should furthermore leave room for the best distribution of our products on the best world markets. This agreement which is now on the Table of the House concentrates our trade on England. As a result of the war England has lost its buying power, something we do not express an opinion on, but in the interests of the Union producer it is necessary that markets of the Union should be secured in as many parts of the world as possible. In view of the contents of these agreements those opportunities are not being secured. No opportunities are given to develop the world markets properly, owing to the restrictions which are laid down in this agreement. Finally the agreement should provide that we can buy in the best markets. I said that I consider these points to be the only sound conditions under which agreements between the Union of South Africa and any overseas shipping companies should be concluded. These are the conditions we ask for because we believe that only if those principles are accepted, the agreement will conform to our demands, and then and then only will the agreement be satisfactory. On a later occasion I shall go into further detail in regard to the various defects. At the moment I only want to refer to one of the aspects. The Government has assumed obligations towards the company and these obligations assumed by the Government suppose that there will be counter obligations. Seeing that the Government undertakes to import practically all its requirements—that is one aspect of the shipping agreement—by means of the ships of the contractors or in ships which will be made available by them, the Government on the other hand in Clause 5 undertakes that all goods, materials, supplies and equipment and anything from whatever nature which has to be shipped for use in its various undertakings from the European ports of call to the Union and Lourenco Marques shall solely and exclusively be shipped in the vessels of the contractors or in vessels which they will indicate. The Government only reserves the right to transport in its own ships 12½ per cent. of the imports of the previous year. The Government will therefore be obliged to transport 87½ per cent. of all its requirements by means of the ships of the contractors. Any development can only take place by way of negotiation. There are possibilities in the agreement under which negotiations can take place. But if at this stage I may express a doubt then it is chat I seriously doubt whether the contract as a whole was first submitted for legal opinion. To my mind there are so many defects in the contract, so many complications which may be interpreted in two different ways, that I seriously doubt whether this contract was submitted for legal opinion.

It is vague.

Not only vague but ambiguous. In the first place the Government undertakes to transport, apart from 12½ per cent. of the total tonnage of goods used by Government undertakings and shipped during the preceding calendar year, all Government cargoes in ships of the contractors or in ships indicated by them. In che second place the Government undertakes that, if it calls for tenders for supplies, it will see to it that a condition will be inserted in the tenders that the overseas suppliers who tender must undertake to send their goods in the ships of the contractors. Neither the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs nor the Minister of Economic Development should use the argument that this was a provision already appearing in the old contract. I know chat but that does not eliminate its weakoess. In the third place if persons tender in the Union and goods have to be imported from overseas for the fulfilment of such a Government contract, then the tenderers nave to indicate whether the goods are actually here so as to ensure that there will be no possible evasion of the provision by importing goods from abroad in ships other than those belonging to the concractors. Furthermore separate bills of lading have to be taken out by the contractor who tenders for goods to be imported and these people will have to pay the full freight until such time as the High Commissioner for the Union can certify that che tender was actually carried out for the Government and that the Union Government did receive the goods. To me as a Union citizen it is humiliating that the Government has to go so far and has to bind itself to such an extent without a proper quid pro quo. Now first of all I have to point out that it is proposed that the Government should undertake to transport all its requirements by means of ships of the contractor, except the 12½ per cent. and that as a consideration there will be a reduction in the tariff. That is the supposed quid pro quo, a tariff reduction. But when the Government goods are transported by means of mailships then the commercial tariff applies. In that case the reduced tariff does not apply according to Clause 22 of the agreement. And in spite of the provisions in the mail contract that eventually some of the companies’ ships will be registered in the Union, the Government undertakes to pay in London in sterling. To me this is a very humiliating position for the Union Government. I assume that it is the honest intention to register some of the ships in the Union, but the Government of the Union of South Africa has to pay in London The Government accepts obligations without a proper quid pro quo. My time is too limited to go into detail about the benefits the Government will obtain but apart from two small considerations which are not of sufficient importance and which I shall mention just now, there is nothing else which one can mention. For a period of 10 years the Union Government may not undertake to transport more than 12½ per cent. of the imports of the previous year in its own ships. We expect a period of tremendous development to be approaching, when there will be enormous possibilities for development throughout the world, but our Government is not allowed to transport more than 12½ per cent. of its own requirements in its own ships. Where is the room for development which we expect? This is a humiliating agreement. For a period of 10 years the Government grants a monopoly to one single shipping company on the basis on the commercial tariffs of 20 years ago. I perhaps should make the position clear. I know that the Minister and his Department most likely give another interpretation to Clause 23 to which I am referring. In the past the quid pro quo on the part of the contractors was to import Government requirements at a lower tariff, apparently at 50 per cent. or less ofc the ordinary commercial tariff. Under this contract the Government is being bound to carry out its obligations but against that there is no undertaking by the contractors as regards prices. All the prices for the various groups—basic price and other groups—are calculated either on the commercial tariff or on prices which will be determined later or on the commercial tariff of 1927. In all fairness I want to admit that this is my interpretation and that it most likely differs from that of the Minister but I want to make bold to say that I am prepared to ask any lawyer whether any other interpretation but mine can be given of the clause as it reads here, namely the obligation of the Government as regards payments to the commercial tariff of 1927 with the stipulation that if there is any justification for an increase Che Government shall not prevent that in an unreasonable manner. I want to repeat that the tariffs will be based on the tariffs of the past which were 50 per cent. less than the commercial tariffs, but the door is being kept open for future negotiations and if such negotiations should fail, only then Clause 23 will apply, namely that the contractors undertake not to charge higher tariffs than the contract price of January, 1927. The Government has to consider any reasonable demand for an increase. There are of course certain quid pro quos which are expected from the contractors, but if I look at the obligations which the State has to undertake and the obligations which the company undertakes, then there is no comparison. The Government undertakes to transport in the ships of the contractors all Government cargoes except 12½ per cent. of the total tonnage shipped for use in Government undertakings during the previous calendar year. We could not determine how much the tonnage was before the war but we know that the value of Government imports sometimes went as high as approximately £10,000,000. Without taking into account the great developments which are in store, it means that the Government undertakes in regard to 87½ per cent. of that £10,000,000, to transport the goods by means of ships of that one company only. The contractors undertake a change in the tariff basis in the course of time, but they stipulate that this will commence only on 1st January, 1947, at war tariffs. I do not know what that will be but in any case they will be war tariffs. Clause 4 controls all the tariffs under the agreement. Alterations can be effected by way of negotiations. The contractors offer nothing more than possible alterations by means of negotiations. I should, however, like to move now—

I second.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 28th May.