With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement to this House because I consider it to be my duty to inform hon. members of a specific matter. This morning reports appeared in the Times of London to the effect that my colleague, Dr. Muller, and I, accompanied by senior officials, had allegedly paid a visit to Liberia last Tuesday and Wednesday. These reports are correct. My colleague and I, and senior officials, did in fact pay a visit to Liberia on Tuesday and Wednesday, on the invitation of the President of that country. It gives me pleasure to inform this House that our reception was a particularly hospitable one. It also gives me pleasure to inform this House that we had a long and fruitful discussion on all matters which one could expect African leaders would discuss with one another, especially in these days. I understand that a long version of this talk appeared in a report in the Times. Of course, we, on our part, were not responsible for that version. I have not yet had an opportunity of studying it, and therefore I cannot accept responsibility for anything which appeared in that report without first investigating the matter. I shall on a subsequent occasion furnish the hon. members with full information concerning this matter.

In addition I may just inform this House that upon my return I informed, as is my policy, the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition that I had paid this visit.

I repeat that it was a fruitful visit, that we were received very well indeed, and that as far as I am concerned, I sincerely believe that it was more than worthwhile for South Africa that we paid this visit.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members know, the purpose of the annual Part Appropriation is to obtain parliamentary authority for the expenditure involved in the continuation of the existing services of the departments until the Main Budget and the Appropriation Act, 1975, are piloted through Parliament. As laid down in the Bill, the amounts requested are in fact advances on the Main Budget for 1975-’76.

The funds which are now being requested in the interim may, of course, only be used to finance services which have already been approved in principle by Parliament, and therefore clause 2 of the Bill lays down that the amounts requested may only be spent on services for which Parliament has voted funds in the current financial year, i.e. in the Appropriation Act, 1974, or for which specific statutory authority exists.

Subject to these provisos, the Bill makes provision for the appropriation of the following aggregate amounts:

These amounts represent the expected expenditure of the departments for the four months April to July 1975. Once again I want to sound a note of warning to the effect that no reliable deductions can be made from this about the possible total Government expenditure for the ensuing financial year, since Government expenditure may fluctuate considerably from one month to another and from one quarter to another.

As has already been announced, the Main Budget will be introduced on 26 March this year, and on that occasion I shall furnish the customary survey of the economic position of the Republic. Hon. members will therefore not expect me to anticipate my Budget speech at this stage. Nevertheless, I should like to refer briefly to some of the latest tendencies in the economy.

The levelling off of the economic growth rate which set in during the third quarter of 1974 was continued in the fourth quarter. The slower growth rate—which is still considerably higher than that of most comparable countries—has this advantage that it allows an opportunity for a period of consolidation. There are already signs of an easing of the tension in the labour and especially in the capital market, as the success of the recent Government loan demonstrated.

The slower growth of the economy also resulted in a considerably less rapid increase in the value of our imports during the past few months than during the first half of 1974. In spite of this less rapid increase, our imports during 1974 stood at a very high level, and in spite of a marked increase in the value of our net gold proceeds, our balance of payments on current account showed a deficit of approximately R800 million (or 3,6% of the gross domestic product) over the year. For a year of rapid growth, however, this deficit was relatively small. Fortunately, there was also a considerable inflow of foreign capital, particularly private capital, with the result that our total gold and foreign reserves declined by only approximately R70 million over the year.

†Mr. Speaker, inflation remains a serious problem, perhaps the most serious problem, in our economy. Over the year 1974 the consumer price index was on average 11,6% above its 1973 level. The extent to which we are exposed to inflationary influences from abroad is illustrated by the fact that the wholesale price index of locally-produced goods increased over the 12 months to December 1974 by 16,9%, while that of imported goods rose by no less than 27,7%. Nevertheless, it is no part of our policy to surrender tamely to the forces of inflation, and the Government will continue to give energetic attention to this problem.

Economic conditions abroad will doubtless have a considerable influence on our economy in the year ahead. Most countries of Europe and North America are currently suffering in varying degrees from a combination of recession and inflation. With very low growth rates and rising unemployment, the authorities of many of these countries have switched to expansionary monetary and fiscal policies, and while this change of policy is understandable, it must increase the danger of further inflation. On the other hand, if the recession in these countries should prove to be deep and protracted, the effect on our commodity exports may be appreciable.

Many commodity prices have already declined, in some cases considerably, but the total effect on our balance of payments is not yet unduly serious. While opinions differ on the future prospects, I think there is reason to hope that the recession abroad will not go too far and that our export markets will, on the whole, remain reasonably strong. In any event, we are fortunate in having as our principal export an article for which the prospects are excellent, namely gold. There have been a number of interesting developments affecting gold in recent months, and I should like to refer to some of them here.

The first was the German loan to Italy against the security of gold, valued for this purpose at approximately $120 per fine ounce. This was perhaps the first open breach in the out-dated fiction that official gold reserves must be valued at the old official price of $42,22.

The second was the agreement between Presidents Ford and Giscard d’Estaing at Martinique that gold reserves could be revalued at a price nearer the price on the private market, which was followed shortly by the actual revaluation of France’s gold reserve at a figure of approximately $170 per ounce. This, I think, finally destroyed the myth of the old official gold price of $42,22.

The question may be asked: Is South Africa going to follow suit and revalue its gold reserve? It follows from what I have said that such a step may be regarded as logical and realistic. There are, however, certain aspects of such a move which require careful consideration and study, and as there is no immediate urgency for us to take a decision, we are going into the position carefully.

The third development to which I wish to refer is the re-opening of the American gold market at the end of last year and the auction of a small portion of the American gold reserve last month. There is no doubt that the initial demand for gold in America has not come up to the expectations of some of the more enthusiastic supporters of gold in that country. This is not altogether surprising in view of the lack of a gold-holding tradition among Americans, the longstanding anti-gold campaign and the decision of some of the principal American banks not to take part in the gold trade.

My own view is, however, that eventually a steady demand for gold will build up in America, which must be a positive factor for gold. The gold market has seen many fluctuations over the past few years, but the long-term trend has been strongly upwards, and with the continuation of inflation and currency uncertainties I believe that this trend will persist.

In general, we have good reason to face the future with confidence. Although our growth rate in the months ahead will almost certainly not reach the exceptionally high level of 1974, our basic position is absolutely sound, and the breathing-space will enable us to prepare for a new phase of rapid economic growth which will surely follow.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first occasion on which the new Minister of Finance has introduced an important financial measure. I would like to take this opportunity of wishing him well in his term of office as Minister of Finance. The Ministry of Finance is obviously one of the key ministries in any Government. The incumbent of this post holds many keys to the welfare of the State. He holds many keys to the material prosperity of the country; he holds many keys to the level of living standards of the inhabitants of the country, and he holds many keys which control the rate of inflation which we are likely to suffer. These are all factors, Mr. Speaker, which are measurable and accurately measurable, and I would like to say to the hon. the Minister that his performance as Minister of Finance will be judged, because these factors are measurable, by the results which he achieves. He will be judged not only by this side of the House, but he will be judged by South Africa as a whole on the results which he achieves and which can be measured.

The hon. the Minister succeeds a very eminent predecessor in Dr. Diederichs. Dr. Diederichs was a man who in the financial circles of the world was very highly respected, and I believe that over the eight-year period during which he was Minister of Finance of this country, even allowing for the fact that like most other Nationalist Ministers of Finance he was blessed with his more than fair share of luck, he was a good Minister of Finance. I believe further, Mr. Speaker, that he would have been a great Minister of Finance if two things had happened; first of all, if he had not been hamstrung in his management of the country’s finances by ideological considerations which, in their effect, were contrary to good financial management, and, secondly, I believe that he would have been a great Minister of Finance had he listened more carefully to some of the advice which he received from time to time from this side of the House. I refer in that respect in particular to the advice which we have given him over the years in regard to the management of our currency. Had he followed our advice and allowed and encouraged the rand to become a strong currency instead of allowing it to depreciate, I believe he would have done a great service to our country.

I hope that the new hon. Minister of Finance will be a worthy successor. He carries our best wishes in that regard. He may not have the unique qualities and the unique experience that his predecessor had but he is fortunate in being backed in the various departments which come under him by public servants of exceptional quality and character. Here I refer not only to the departments which come under him but also to the Reserve Bank. I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that so far as I am concerned it is no part of my thinking to play politics in any way with the finances of the country. The finances of the country are far too important and far too delicate for that type of treatment. Instead they are deserving of an honest and sincere approach. Sir, I entered politics to try to make a positive and constructive contribution to the welfare of South Africa. I have consistently tried to do that and I shall continue to try to do the same thing. As long as I am entrusted by this party with the leadership of the financial group of the party I shall see that full credit and full support are given to the Government and to the hon. the Minister when they do the right things but by the same token, if the Government takes steps which we on this side of the House consider wrong or, more important, if the Government allows the financial management of the country to be prejudiced by ideological considerations with which we do not agree, they can expect us to oppose them tooth and nail.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister’s speech this afternoon requires careful study on our part before we can reply to it. It did strike me, however, that there was one glaring negative aspect of it which requires to be brought to the attention of the House at this stage, and that is the failure of the hon. the Minister to deal anything like adequately with the main problem which is facing the country and its economy, namely the rapidly rising cost of living. This is a matter which we will debate fully when the debate is resumed, and to enable us to examine and to study this speech more carefully I should now like to move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we come now to the end of the debate on what is the first Bantu Laws Amendment Bill, in which I have participated that we support. We do this because we believe there are provisions in this Bill which are going to lead to the better administration of Bantu Affairs in this country and because we believe that there are provisions in this Bill which are necessary for the well-being of the African people in this country. Sir, there are amendments to the Bantu Labour Act and to the Bantu Affairs Administration Act, amendments which provide for the better administration of the Bantu and for the better financing of those boards for which finance is necessary if they are to do the job properly. The hon. the Deputy Minister and members opposite know that we are opposed to this system and that we opposed the legislation concerned at the time. They know that we are not wholly satisfied with what is being done by those boards at the moment and that we are critical of many of the actions they take. But, Sir, this is not the time nor the place to discuss that and you will certainly not allow that discussion to take place. But we believe that what has been done here will perhaps go some way towards making the procedure more efficient. Regarding the provision for the extension of certain laws of the Republic to the high courts of the Bantu areas, in South West Africa and the other homelands in the Republic, except the Transkei, I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we accept this. We believe that he needs them from the point of view of his conception of how these things should be run, but I wonder why he has come with these powers when he has not even yet got around to establishing the high courts. Those high courts have not yet been established. As far as I am aware, the only high court that has been established is in the Transkei. These powers were granted to the Transkei during the last session of Parliament. Here, however, we are asked to grant these additional powers although we have not seen the establishment of any further high courts. I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister will enlighten us this afternoon as to what his intention is. Is it his intention to establish these courts, and if so, when? Sir. I believe that if he is honest with his policy—not to my way of thinking, but to his way of thinking—he must get on with it and establish the high courts so that these homelands will at least have the trappings of independence, the trappings of being able to handle their own affairs in their own way.

Sir, the only two clauses in this Bill which led to debate and to the amendments which we moved are clauses 1 and 7. These are the clauses which provide for a change in the formula of financing the Transkei, in the case of clause 1, and of the other homelands, in the case of clause 7. I do not believe it is necessary for me to repeat the arguments which were advanced here, but I must place on record again our regret at the failure of the Government to grasp the nettle and to take the opportunity of showing to the world and to the Black people in this country their good faith and to show that they were prepared not just to talk about consultation but to entrench it in legislation. I believe that this Government missed a golden opportunity. What did we get in argument against our proposed amendments? We were given an argument over semantics, over what was meant by words, over whether “after consultation with” meant that there should be agreement between the parties or whether “in consultation with” meant that there should be agreement between the parties. We had a long dissertation from the hon. the Deputy Minister, who said that he could not bind the Minister of Bantu Administration and the Minister of Finance to reach an agreement with the Black Government concerned. I want to deal briefly with the hon. the Deputy Minister’s argument. He said that “in consultation with” meant that there had to be consensus, that there had to be full agreement between the parties concerned. If you look at the clause concerned, Sir, you will find that the amounts are to be determined from time to time by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in consultation with the Minister of Finance. Firstly, I cannot agree with the interpretation of the hon. the Deputy Minister because, as I read this, it is quite clear that there is one person who is going to determine the amount, and that person is the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. That is the way it reads, whether you read it in English or whether you read it in Afrikaans. It is quite clear that he is the person who shall determine. Then the clause goes on to say “in consultation with the Minister of Finance”. I want to say that I reject totally the argument of the hon. the Deputy Minister. If he is correct, why did he not move an amendment to our amendment, so that instead of reading that the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development shall determine this amount in consultation with the Minister of Finance and the Bantu homeland Government concerned, it would read “after consultation with the Minister of Finance and the Bantu homeland Government concerned”? That would have satisfied his view. Sir, I believe there is something else behind this. I believe that that hon. Deputy Minister was trying to say to this House that it is a simple matter to get agreement between two people but that you cannot get agreement between three people. That is what he was trying to say, that he believed that it would be a simple matter for the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the Minister of Finance to get together to reach consensus as to the amount involved, but that if a third party were to be involved, it could not be done. In other words, he was saying you cannot get agreement between three people. Or, Sir, was the hon. the Deputy Minister trying to say to us that he cannot get agreement with the Black Governments? I wonder if that is not the truth. What did he tell us? He said that there is consultation. I do not deny this; I do not deny for a moment that there is consultation between the department of the hon. the Deputy Minister and all of the Bantu homeland Governments, but what I think the hon. the Deputy Minister was trying to say here was that we cannot get agreement with them and that that is why we have to word the Bill in this way. We will consult with them, but if we want to put it into this Bill we will have to say “after consultation with” and not “in consultation with”, if we accept the hon. the Deputy Minister’s interpretation, which I do not. I am disappointed in the hon. the Deputy Minister. I know him as a reasonable person, a person who has been open to argument in the past. He should have listened to the arguments of this side of the House and should have accepted the amendments which were moved, because then we would have had a far better Bill. We would have had a Bill which could have been defended by every one of us both in and outside the Republic, because it would have shown the bona tides not only of this Nationalist Government but of the White people of South Africa to recognize the Black people, to recognize the Governments which have been set up by this Nationalist Government. It would not only have recognized them in word, but also in deed if we had written into our legislation that they will have some say in determining the amount which is to be paid to them.

Let us take that argument a little further. Why am I stressing this point? The hon. the Deputy Minister has said it is a simple formula and I know he is going to say that again when he replies to this debate. Perhaps the amounts which are to be determined in terms of subparagraphs (iii), (iv) and (v) can be determined by means of a formula, but he and I disagree over that. I do not believe there is a simple formula. If there had been a simple formula it would have been written in here. It would not have been written in that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development must determine the amount, taking certain factors into consideration. But let that go. Let us accept that. But if one looks at the provisos to these subparagraphs in both clauses 1 and 7 one finds that these can virtually be called escalation clauses, since it is provided that the amounts may be adjusted with due regard to economic and other factors. Once again the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration in consultation with the Minister of Finance of the Republic shall decide by what amounts the grants shall be increased. Here we have a golden opportunity. This is the most important part of these two clauses. We are in fact not pegging the amounts these Bantu homeland Governments are going to receive, as in the case of the amounts which were granted during the last financial year. There is, in fact, an escalation clause to provide for increases in these grants to meet increased costs. Even in this case, however, the hon. the Deputy Minister is not prepared to acknowledge the Black Governments concerned, so that they should have some say, by rights, in determining by what amount this grant should be increased. This is why I express my disappointment this afternoon that the hon. the Deputy Minister has not seen the light and that he is not reasonable enough to accept the words of his own leader, the hon. the Prime Minister. He is not prepared to give to the Black people of this country what the hon. the Prime Minister is giving to the Coloured people. He has merely been paying lip-service to all the talk about consultation. I am disappointed, but unfortunately my disappointment is not sufficient to warrant voting against this Bill. We will support the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South and I wish to express my thanks and appreciation for their support. Yet I began to wonder whether, if one promises one’s support with such a sour face and such lamentation, it is really worth the trouble. I feel that if hon. members opposite come forward to signify their concurrence and they do so with so much resentment and such long faces, they should rather tell us next time that they do not agree, and do so in a friendly way. We might all feel better then. In any event, I just want to reply very briefly to the arguments of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. Nothing new emerged. In my opinion there is only one particular matter which I must have to touch upon. The hon. member referred to the bona fides of this side of the House, and not only that. He also referred to the bona fides of the Whites as such. I do think I should point out to the hon. member that they should not refer so glibly to bona fides and use such fine-sounding terms. Every year the purchase of land is discussed here it is pointed out that this was in fact an undertaking on the part of a Government which represented that side of the House. Nevertheless hon. members opposite kick up a great fuss because more land is being purchased. They will be afforded their opportunity of proving the bona fides of the Whites when we again discuss land purchases later this year. With that timely warning, I want to leave the matter at that.

I also want to refer briefly to something else. With regard to the question of “after consultation” and “in consultation”, we must simply agree to differ. However, it is very clear that “in consultation” refers to two Ministers. In other words, there must be unanimity between the two Ministers concerned, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the Minister of Finance. It is their two departments that are involved in this and there therefore has to be concurrence as far as they are concerned. However, if we want to bring in an outside Government, it will mean that we are granting to an outside body a say in the decision-making of this Government. I do not want to take the matter any further at this stage. We simply have to accept that we differ with one another. It is a great pity that they are trying to create this impression, i.e. that we do not consult these people and therefore have to write consultative provisions into the legislation. This attitude is going to create problems for us in future, i.e. if we try to include these provisions when it is not practicable to do so. Everyone knows that we have a spirit of détente in this country as a result of the enterprise of our Prime Minister, not only in Southern Africa but also beyond the borders of the Republic. Dialogue is conducted with people. Hon. members heard evidence of this again this afternoon from the hon. the Prime Minister himself. Therefore it is very clear, not only in this country but throughout the world, that we are conducing a dialogue with and negotiating with the rest of Africa beyond our borders. I cannot understand the argument of that side of the House that in one way or another we now have to lay this down in legislation whereas we have repeatedly explained that it cannot be of any practical significance. I think it is necessary for that side of the House to become a little more conversant with the practical operation of the various homeland councils and cabinets. It seems to me they have taken cognizance of the legislation we passed here in the past which granted certain powers to those bodies, but they have not made a proper study of how it is applied or how the various executive authorities of the homelands exercise their functions. In this connection the drawing up of budgets plays a very important role. If I do not explain this to hon. members, we might find later on that hon. members will again make all manner of unreasonable demands for provision in legislation when it is not practically appropriate, although we are in favour of it in principle. I therefore want to request them to liaise with my department, with myself or with the hon. the Minister or to take part in tours with this side of the House. We recently had a tour during which certain homelands were visited. We held talks, but we did not do so for political purposes, as is the case with hon. members opposite, but to acquaint ourselves fully with the way in which these people perform their task and the way in which they set to work when they draw up a budget. They will then see that it is a lengthy process and that the leaders then state their needs. After they have done so, the budget proposals are relayed to this department, and the Minister has to report on them to this House. The matter is then thrashed out further in this House. I am not going to elaborate on this particular aspect. As I have said, we must just accept that there is a measure of difference among us as far as this matter is concerned.

As far as the amendment in respect of the high court is concerned, I just want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that in this measure, although it relates to the amendment of the constitution acts of the Native peoples of S.W.A., the State President is in fact being empowered to apply certain measures by proclamation. I just want to reply to the hon. member’s argument that we should first establish a high court and then effect changes afterwards. We have had certain experiences in the Transkei where things did not function properly …

I never said that. You are putting words into my mouth.

… or did not function as desired, with the result that we had to effect changes there. Now we are effecting these changes in good time in respect of the other homelands. After all, one does not wait for a crisis to arise before one introduces legislation to solve the crisis. We are introducing legislation here in order to make legal provision to deal with such a crisis if it should arise. I do not want to delight in the misfortune of hon. members opposite, but I do want to point out to them that their method is to create crises first and then to run around searching for a solution. We on this side do not want to apply those methods.

I think I have replied as fully as is required under the circumstances. Once again I want to express my appreciation for the support which came from that side of the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I have a large number of amendments to this clause and they all appear on the Order Paper. I shall do my best to explain briefly the implications of the amendments which I hope I shall be able to persuade the hon. the Minister to accept. These amendments attempt to bring this Bill broadly into line with the 1973 draft Bill which was referred to the Select Committee which later became a commission of inquiry. It is not entirely in line with the 1973 Bill as one or two of the amendments which I propose go outside that draft Bill. I might say that clause 3 is the kernel, the heart of this Bill and if we cannot have it amended satisfactorily, I am afraid we are right back to square one. I sincerely hope therefore that we shall be able to persuade the hon. the Minister to accept these amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I presume that these amendments are going to be put separately so that the Committee can vote on them individually because hon. members may agree with some of them and disagree with others. May I have your ruling on that?

I shall decide on that later.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members may agree with some of the amendments but not with others and I hope therefore that they will be put separately.

Yes, that will be done.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I now move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 4, in line 1, to omit “other”;
2. (2) on page 4, in line 9, to omit “other”;
3. (3) on page 4, in line 11, to omit “permanent” and to substitute “serious”;
4. (4) on page 4, in line 17, to omit “other”;
5. (5) on page 4, in line 22, to omit “other”;
6. (6) on page 4, to add the following paragraph at the end of subsection (1): “(e) where the pregnancy has occurred after a failed sterilization”;
7. (7) on page 4, to omit subsection (2);
8. (8) on page 4, in line 49, to omit “employed by the State”; and
9. (9) on page 4, to add the following subsection at the end of the Clause: “(4) A medical practitioner may, notwithstanding the provisions of this section, procure the abortion of a pregnant woman if he is of the opinion, based on medical scientific grounds, that the pregnancy should be terminated immediately in order to preserve the life of the woman concerned.”

The first two amendments and indeed wherever the word “other” appears in these amendments, namely in amendments Nos. (1), (2), (4) and (5) are all introduced by me with the object of trying to reduce the number of doctors who are involved in this cumbersome procedure before a woman may obtain an abortion. I see no reason for there having to be three physicians involved, viz. two physicians to issue certificates and a third actually to perform the abortion. There is actually a fourth man involved, viz. the superintendent of the institution concerned, but he is of course not actually involved in deciding whether or not it is desirable to procure an abortion. He is simply involved in so far as he has to give permission for the abortion to be performed at the institution of which he is the head. Consequently, I shall leave him to one side. I cannot see why the hon. the Minister requires that three doctors be involved. I would like to point out that, in the course of giving evidence to the Select Committee, it was mentioned that there were many small towns in South Africa where there might in fact only be two doctors practising and that, consequently, to try to find a third doctor actually to procure an abortion even within the limited terms allowed by this Bill, may well prove to be an impossibility. The cumbersome procedure of having to see first one doctor, then a second and finally a third who will actually perform the operation, seems to me an unnecessary mark of a lack of confidence, if you like, in the medical profession. Surely, two doctors should be sufficient. In England where there is not in fact abortion on request, although everybody seems to think there is, the law lays down that two doctors have to certify that in their opinion it is necessary or desirable that an abortion should be procured. It is true, of course, that in England the terms are much less stringent than the terms being laid down in this measure. What I have said explains amendments Nos. (1), (2), (4) and (5) as they appear on page 47 of the Order Paper.

I now come to a very serious and important amendment concerning the decision that is to be taken whether or not it is desirable that in a particular case an abortion be procured on the grounds of the mental health of the patient. The first Bill, the draft Bill, linked together the physical and mental health of the patient as factors to be considered. I think that that was the correct thing to do. I cannot see the necessity of separating the two, but that is of course not the important issue. What is important is that the original Bill simply stated that the doctors concerned—and I must admit that in terms of that draft Bill there were also three doctors concerned— simply had to certify that in their opinion there was a danger that the mental health of the patient would be seriously affected. Now, however, for reasons best known to themselves, the commission has seen fit to introduce the extremely limiting phraseology of “permanent mental damage” in respect of the mother’s health. I may say that I have read the evidence heard by the Select Committee and that all sorts of fears were voiced that this might prove to be the loophole through which many hundreds of cases of abortion on request might slip through if this loophole were not closed. I have discussed this matter with psychiatrists and they assured me that it is virtually impossible to diagnose or to give a prognostication that the woman’s health would be permanently damaged if she continued with the pregnancy. It is possible to diagnose or prognosticate, rather, that her mental health will be seriously affected. It is possible, too, to diagnose that there will be some effect to her mental health, but all the specialists with whom I discussed this, have said it is virtually impossible to certify that a woman’s mental health would be permanently impaired if she continued with the pregnancy. In other words, an almost insuperable barrier has been put into this clause as far as mental health is concerned. I cannot see the necessity for that at all, unless it was the intention of the Bill so to limit the procurement of an abortion as to really make it only possible in cases of pregnancy as a result of rape, incest or where the mother is ill with a disease which is likely to lead to a deformed child. I welcome those provisions. I may say that I was the first person in this House to suggest that our law badly needed amendment in order that those cases at least should be allowed. [Interjection.] The hon. member perhaps does not remember, but I was in fact the first member to suggest this.

I am not arguing with you.

Well, that is fine, but do not make such noises; they are distracting me. I took it as a noise of dissent, as I am used to those from that hon. member. Anyway, I obviously welcome the fact that for the first time there is legalization of the procurement of an abortion where a woman has become pregnant as a result of rape, incest or where her condition is such that it may lead to there being a serious danger that the child may be deformed, or that it may be dangerous to the mother’s own health. I welcome those provisions very much indeed. Those are, however, limiting factors and the mental health of the woman is as important as her physical health. Therefore I move as an amendment that the word “serious” be substituted for the word “permanent”. This will make it possible, at least in cases where the psychiatrists are of the opinion that the mother’s mental health will be seriously affected by the continuation of the pregnancy, that an abortion may be performed, with all the other necessary requirements having been fulfilled. That is what I have to say about my third amendment. This is to my mind an extremely important provision. I should like to link with this my eighth amendment, because this is relevant to this particular argument.

Again the drafters of this Bill have put in a proviso which makes it virtually impossible for a woman to procure an abortion on the grounds of mental health. That is that the certificate has to be signed by two doctors and the abortion performed by a third doctor, and that one of the two doctors concerned has got to be a psychiatrist employed by the State. This is really quite absurd. As I pointed out in the Second Reading debate, there are in all 150 registered psychiatrists throughout the whole of South Africa. There are vast areas where there are no psychiatrists, and for the benefit of the hon. the member for Caledon, I was not only referring to the African population when I made these objections. I said that there was barely a psychiatrist between Pretoria and the Limpopo. To the best of my knowledge large numbers of White people live in that area as well.

You spoke at length about the Transkei.

No, I did not. The hon. member can look at my Hansard, then he will see that I devoted equal time. …

You did not mention the word “Limpopo.”

Sir the hon. member was not listening very carefully. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton has moved a certain number of amendments to this clause. I have placed on the Order Paper two amendments similar to amendment No. 3 and amendment No. 8 that have been moved by the hon. member for Houghton, so I do not intend moving these amendments as well.

I would like to associate myself with the hon. member for Houghton in certain views that she has expressed on this particular clause. Many hon. members, certainly some on this side of the House, have expressed the view that the provisions of clause 3 do bring about the situation where there is a cumbersome procedure that has to be followed. It would appear that it becomes over burdensome for a person to obtain and procure an abortion in terms of the legislation as it now stands. We have to ensure at the same time that there are no loopholes created in this clause which could be abused, whereby certain persons would then take advantage of a situation where abortions could be procured far more easily. Therefore in considering the provisions of this clause, we must bear in mind the principle which was accepted at the Second Reading, that is to say, that we are dealing here with thereapeutic abortions which can only be performed on medical grounds. Sir, I think we are agreed that there is a tremendous shortage of doctors and of qualified psychiatrists, and one can appreciate that great difficulties may arise in complying with the procedure laid down in this clause. Subclause (b) provides that before an abortion can be procured, there must be a danger of permanent damage to the woman’s mental health. I ask in my amendment for the word “permanent” to be substituted by “serious”. We know that in some countries overseas provision exists for an abortion to be procured on request on the ground of the woman’s mental health and that this has in some cases led to abuse. However, I believe that the substitution of the word “serious” for the word “permanent” will not create a loophole which will result in abuse. I think the practical application of this clause as presently worded is going to be exceedingly difficult. May I refer you, Sir, to the evidence which was presented to the Select Committee in 1973. Professor Gillis, when cross-examined about the question of permanent mental damage, had this to say (page 30)—

Further on Dr. De Beer said—

Sir, it is quite obvious that this is a matter in which the psychiatrist concerned will be faced with great difficulties, and I believe that if the word “serious” were substituted for “permanent”, it would facilitate the task of the psychiatrist. We should leave it to him, with his professional knowledge, to decide what constitutes a threat to the mental health of the woman concerned. I believe it is important to see that this clause is worded in such a way that confidence in the psychiatrist is retained. Sir, in terms of other provisions of this Bill, certificates have to be submitted to the Department of Health where an abortion has been procured. If it is found in practice that a particular psychiatrist has been issuing a large number of certificates on the basis of this particular provision, then the matter could be investigated by the Medical Council. I believe, Sir, that there is provision in other sections of this legislation which would prevent a psychiatrist from lightly issuing certificates to certify that an abortion is necessary. I have sufficient confidence in the medical profession to believe that they will be able to determine under what circumstances a continued pregnancy would constitute a serious threat to the mental health of the woman concerned.

Sir, the other portion of my amendment asks for the omission of the words “employed by the State”. The hon. member for Houghton has already indicated what difficulties may arise because of the shortage of doctors and psychiatrists. A woman living in the rural areas may find it extremely difficult to obtain the services of a psychiatrist employed by the State; they are simply not available in the rural areas. In addition, Sir, there is the question of expense. Take the case of a woman living in a rural area. The other two medical practitioners may consider that the pregnancy should be terminated on health grounds, but because both the physical and the mental condition of the woman concerned must be taken into account, that woman will have to be referred to an institution where there is a State-employed psychiatrist. This could involve travelling many hundreds of miles. She would therefore have to incur additional expense in order to obtain the necessary certificate. If these words were omitted, it may be possible for the woman concerned to be examined by a psychiatrist who is not necessarily employed by the State; he could then issue the necessary certificate if he is of the opinion that her continued pregnancy constitutes a danger of serious damage to her mental health. For these reasons, Sir, I intend supporting the amendments moved in this regard by the hon. member for Houghton. I feel that the word “serious” should be substituted for the word “permanent”, and that the words “employed by the State” should be deleted.

Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to apologize to you and the hon. the Minister for being absent when the last amendment was moved but I was called out of the Chamber. Sir, the reason why this clause has been altered to make it stricter in this new Bill is because of the experience doctors and gynaecologists have had in countries where there is a mental health clause in their abortion laws. What has happened is that most abortions are performed through the loophole of a mental health clause. In fact, I think under the National Health Service in Britain it is something like 66% of abortions which are performed in terms of the mental health clause and something like over 90% of other abortions. This brings about the situation in Britain, that with the definition of abortion being so broad, you have de facto abortion on request although it is quite correct, as the hon. member for Houghton said, not de jure. But it is generally accepted throughout the world that the British law on abortion is a very bad law, that it is not a good piece of legislation at all. Therefore I think it is silly for us in this House to compare our law with theirs. Sir, what concerns me in the amendment I have proposed is that it is of course impossible for any responsible medical practitioner of whatever kind to say that damage is permanent. I am sure that all the doctors in this House will agree with the hon. member for Brentwood, who pointed out in his Second Reading speech that it was very difficult for any medical practitioner to give a prognosis of permanent damage. But the psychiatric profession is a little different from the medical profession in certain respects in that much of the attitude of a psychiatrist to patients is determined by what school of psychiatry he comes from and also on what his view of life is. In fact, in the U.S.A. there are some psychiatrists who believe that a woman who gets herself pregnant unexpectedly, through a “glips” as it were, is in the first instance a psychiatric case and therefore needs some kind of excuse for an abortion. Really, we need to be careful that this clause does not become an excuse for abortion on demand. In line 11, subsection (b), I would like to insert the words “substantial danger of permanent damage” because it seems to me that it would be easy for a psychiatrist who perhaps has a purely materialistic view of life, to use this, if there is a danger of permanent damage, as a loophole, but if we have the word “substantial” to qualify it it would be different, although I am aware that in the English version in line 7 it refers to a “serious” threat to mental health. However, I still feel that one ought to qualify the word “danger” with “substantial” and consequently I move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I should like to continue explaining my amendment but before I do so I want to say that I cannot pay much attention to the argument advanced by the hon. member who has just sat down because he is being completely illogical in his arguments. He has on the one hand stated that he does not believe in abortion on request while on the other hand he appears to have decided that after a third live birth it is quite all right for a woman to have an abortion. That kind of illogical argument I cannot cope with and will not even try to cope with it. But I do want to point out that the Lane Commission, which carried out an in-depth research into the whole working of the British Act, recommended finally that the wording of the Act laying down the criteria for abortions be left unamended. In other words, this expert commission decided to leave the British Act unamended. So much for his argument.

I want to come back to the other amendment I am moving on clause 3. I agree with what the hon. member for Umbilo has said on the whole question of the psychiatrists. If they must be State employed the ability of the women to get skilled care and skilled attention in this regard is further reduced. I want to move the remaining section and explain what it is all about.

Number 6 on clause 3 adds the following paragraph to the end of the subsection which allows abortions under certain circumstances: “When a pregnancy has occurred after a failed sterilization”. This, of course, goes beyond the 1973 draft Bill and I wish to make that quite clear. The reason why I suggest this is that here there is a woman who has made every effort to avoid conceiving, even to the extent of having herself sterilized. She cannot do better than that. Presumably this is the sort of woman who either feels unsafe about normal contraceptive measures or she has found that they do not happen to work with her because no contraceptive is a hundred percent safe. Apparently not even sterilization is safe, because there are cases—rare it is true—where people conceive …

How many cases do you know of?

It is rare. I am saying that it is rare. I do not know how many cases because I do not have any figures. However, I do know that they occur. I have been told this by obstetricians. There are women who have become pregnant after sterilization. The operation has been bungled by one of the hon. member’s medical colleagues. But the point is, the woman has used every possible method to ensure that she has no more children. In a case like this, quite obviously, there would be under the old definition serious damage to her mental health if she continues with the pregnancy. If she feels so strongly about not having anymore children for economic or other reasons—she might have a husband who is a drunkard or a husband who is perpetually unemployed or who is unemployable—or she could have had herself sterilized because she already has a large family, I think an exception ought to be allowed in a case like that.

The argument for number 7 is much the same as for the omission of the word “other”. I really cannot see why there is such a lack of confidence in the medical profession as to assume that there will be collusion between doctors where one partner in the practice has accepted the need for an abortion. Consequently he is not allowed both to sign the certificate and to do the abortion. I think that that is ridiculous. It shows a very suspicious frame of mind on the part of the commission. Therefore, I am moving the omission of that subsection, that is the omission of subsection 2.

I now proceed to (9). At the end of the clause I would like to insert the old emergency clause although what I ask for does not go quite as far as the emergency clause which was in the draft Bill of 1973. I use some of the same words, but I must say that the draft Bill of 1973 went a little further than my amendment. It suggested that there could be an emergency, not only in order to preserve the life of the woman concerned, as I have suggested, but also to prevent a serious and lasting injury or disability to her physical or mental health. Now, obviously, I am very happy to have that included if the hon. the Minister would consider it. But I am not even going as far at this juncture. I have learnt to be satisfied in this House with very small steps forward. And if I could get the Committee to accept the inclusion of a clause which allows a doctor to perform an abortion where the continued pregnancy is likely to create an emergency situation and the woman’s life is in danger, I will settle for that pro tein. But it will not mean that I will not be nagging for changes to be extended at a later stage. But, pro tein, let us just get that into the Bill, namely that there can be an abortion performed when a woman’s life is in danger, cutting out all the red-tape that is necessary in other cases. I know that evidence was given before the commission to the effect that very few cases have occurred, but the information I have is different. I have been talking to specialist obstetricians who have informed me that these cases do occur. You have the case where the woman has already commenced the abortion and there is already haemorrhaging, but the foetus is still alive. If the doctor then performs the abortion he is performing an illegal act because he has not gone through the whole routine. The hon. the Minister made a serious mistake during the Second Reading debate of the Bill. I asked him whether the old common law situation would obtain if a doctor procured an abortion under emergency conditions to save a woman’s life. He said “yes, of course”, but that is nonsense. Once you have a Statute, the common law falls away; the Statute takes precedence over the common law. Once this measure is put on our Statute Book, an abortion may only be procured under the limiting conditions laid down in our law. That argument of the hon. the Minister does therefore not hold water.

There is no such argument.

But you made it during the Second Reading debate.

Where did I say that? I cannot remember.

I asked you a question and you said “yes, of course”. I asked the Minister whether he thought that the common law situation would protect the doctor, and he said “yes, of course”.

I said that it would not be a case of abortion but of inevitable miscarriage.

Nevertheless, in terms of the definition, inevitable abortion …

Miscarriage.

It is not a miscarriage. Gynaecologists and obstetricians assure me that that is not how they define it. The inevitable abortion is still an abortion and is not defined as an inevitable miscarriage. The foetus is still alive and doctors would be performing an illegal act. I think the hon. the Minister ought to protect doctors in this case. The hon. the Minister then said that this was provided for in the Bill. I wonder if he remembers saying that to me? I asked him how and he said “because the woman’s health is seriously affected”. In terms of that clause you have to go through the whole rigmarole. You have to get two doctors to certify; then you have to find a third doctor to perform the abortion, by which time the woman may be dead. I do ask the hon. the Minister to protect the doctor performing an abortion in circumstances of an emergency. It may be way out in a country district where it is extremely difficult, swiftly, to get the concurrence of other doctors to allow a doctor to perform an abortion in these circumstances. What can be the possible objection? It is surely the intention of this Bill—indeed, it states that —that where a woman’s health is seriously affected she shall be protected. But then it then lays down a complicated procedure. I am trying to circumvent this complicated procedure in an emergency situation. If this does not happen, firstly, why was it thought of in the 1973 Bill, and secondly, why does the English law, liberal as it is with all its loopholes as has been pointed out by hon. members, make allowance for emergency situations? There is a section in the British Act which makes allowance for a doctor …

It has been used about 20 times.

The hon. young member over there knows everything.

I do not know as much as you.

That is true, but what you know you know.

But he talks a lot more than even I do, and that is saying something.

But you interject a lot more.

Perhaps I have a right to, having been here a few years longer than that brash young member. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have listened carefully to all the arguments advanced here. Quite a number of amendments were moved, but I nevertheless think that we can deal with some of them simultaneously.

†I think I must start by dealing with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umbilo.

Order! He did not move an amendment.

They are the same as amendments Nos. 3 and 8 moved by the hon. member for Houghton.

Then I want to start with the amendments of the hon. member for Houghton. I cannot agree to those amendments which refer to the omission of the word “other”. It is very important to look at the possible malpractices or misuses which can flow from this if we are too liberal. The mere fact that certificates must be obtained from at least two practitioners in separate practices, serves as a deterrent to collusion. It is part and parcel of the old idea of checks and balances. I think it very necessary to have this, not only for the protection of the patient in the sense that the medical practitioner may engage in some malpractice or other, but also for the protection of the doctor as such. That is why I cannot accept this amendment. The same applies to the two or three instances where the member also wants the word “other” omitted.

An argument has also been put forward to substitute “serious” for the word “permanent”. I cannot support this amendment either because the very nature of the mental affliction, as we have argued in this House from time to time, will determine whether it is permanent or temporary. The main idea behind this Act is to be restrictive from the very outset. The intention is to be not too liberal. That is part and parcel of the basis underlying the Act. At the present stage of our medical knowledge, only two conditions are generally regarded as permanent, i.e. schizophrenia and endogenous depression. I have already mentioned that. Any mental condition may be serious, even hysteria or anxiety, without necessarily being permanent or irreparable. If a mental condition can be cured, why should an abortion be procured as a consequence of that mental condition? Such an amendment would greatly increase the flexibility of interpretation of the legislation, and that has already led to many abuses in other countries. Because of that I cannot accept this amendment either. This does not mean that we are dogmatically inclined or that we are attempting to prescribe to psychiatrists what their attitude to these two specific conditions should be. The main idea behind this clause is that the danger of permanent damage must be present in the psychiatrist’s mind. That is important. We are not therefore prescribing dogmatically to the psychiatrist what his opinion should be in each specific case. As I have said during the Second Reading debate and also subsequently, some conditions which are at present temporary may be permanent in future and vice versa. Many psychiatrists say that it is impossible for them to be specific about the permanency of a mental condition. That is true. However, not all psychiatrists are of that opinion. Some of them do not want to assume the responsibility of making a diagnosis in such cases. I do not want to censure them for that, but the position is that some of them do want the State to prescribe their conduct on technical grounds. They want the State to be very specific. Actually I think we should leave them to form their own opinions. There can be some flexibility in the application of medical knowledge. Eventually other similar conditions may come to the fore. Many specialists, i.e. doctors, physicians and gynaecologists, are in full agreement that we cannot allow ourselves to create this loophole, and that is why I cannot accept this amendment.

There is also the amendment relating to clause 31(e)—“where the pregnancy has occurred after a failed sterilization”. I also cannot accept this amendment. Therapeutic abortions will only be legal on the grounds as set out in the Bill and we must stick to that. If sterilization was originally intended or done on medical grounds or for safe-guarding the health of the woman—where there was a possibility that there could be permanent damage to her health—it is all right and I do not see any problem why an abortion cannot be procured. Why not? In such a case there are medical grounds and there might even be mental grounds. If the sterilization was carried out on socio-economic grounds, I do not see how we can condone an abortion afterwards because then it amounts to abortion on request.

But you condone sterilization.

No, we do not condone sterilization. This legislation does not express itself on sterilization as such. Any person has the right to decide for himself. The common law and all the other legal aspects must be borne in mind. We are not going to make any inroads on the rights of persons. We are specifically mentioning health and mental grounds in this clause and if that is the reason for a sterilization, then of course we condone to it. It may have an abortion as a consequence. But if we allow an abortion just because a sterilization has failed it will amount to abortion on request.

The amendment to clause 3(2) amounts to the same as the first amendment. I have raised my objections to that. The hon. member also had great objections to the fact that a State psychiatrist must come in and give his opinion where mental grounds are raised and a decision must be taken on the necessity for an abortion. I want to refer here to the comments I made in regard to the amendments to clause 3(1)(a). The provision in subsection (2)(b) provides for needy persons in the first instance. It is important that the State gives a helping hand under such conditions. It can prevent great inconvenience to people and it can obviate them incurring great expenses. When mental grounds are raised as a possible reason for the procurement of an abortion, I cannot see why these people cannot be taken to some sort of institution because a psychiatrist must always observe. It is not just a cursory, swift decision in a case where the question of metal health is raised. A person is usually taken to an institution where he is observed. The psychiatrist then decides on the results of his observations. One will find private psychiatrists where one finds State psychiatrists, but one will not find State psychiatrists in all these far-off places. Therefore it really is not a question whether the psychiatrists are available. In recent times we have the psychiatrists on a tripartite basis, between the universities, the provinces and the State psychiatrists, and I do not foresee any difficulties getting psychiatrists to give their opinions.

Then I want to refer to amendment No. 9. The hon. member proposes that a subsection (4) be inserted at the end of the clause. The amendment reads—

In other words, it is the emergency clause. I must say again what I have said before, that it is not a question of there being only a few emergency cases, but of there being no known cases. I must again state categorically that an inevitable abortion where there is dangerous bleeding, is a medical condition in which a therapeutic act can be performed by any medical practitioner.

[Inaudible.]

That does not come into the picture, and it is the only example she mentioned. She did not mention any other example. If there are any others, she can mention them.

What about the case of a heart condition?

That is the case. Such a person may not be indictable. This Bill provides to the best of our knowledge for all the legal and medical scientific grounds upon which abortion may be justified. Furthermore, according to specialist medical evidence heard by the commission, no condition is known to medical science which necessitates an immediate abortion to save the life of a pregnant woman. Let me repeat that, because I think it is right to repeat a truth as we see it. Even if a woman has a heart attack or is seriously injured in a motor accident, such a condition would not necessitate an immediate abortion. Such a provision would therefore be superfluous and would only lead to malpractices. That is why I cannot support or accept these amendments.

I think I have also dealt with the amendments moved by the hon. member for Umbilo. I now come to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Pinetown. I must say that, having listened to the arguments he raised, I cannot accept his amendment either. If there were degrees of danger, this would put an onerous responsibility on the medical practitioner.

*One cannot expect degrees of danger to be prescribed as well. This is the difficulty. It is actually easier for the medical practitioner to use his discretion, his knowledge, his integrity and his conscience, when only the word “danger” is used. If “real danger” is used, it immediately gives rise to an argument.

†That, of course, makes it much more difficult for the medical practitioner. I think it is easier for him as it stands. We must leave at least that little amount of flexibility to the integrity and technical and medical knowledge of the practitioner. I am sorry, but I cannot accept any of these amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to be so persistent but some of the hon. the Minister’s arguments really carry no weight with me at all. He says the idea is not to be dogmatic, but he himself is completely dogmatic. I cannot understand why they bother to mention mental grounds at all in this Bill if they are going to make it impossible for any psychiatrist to use mental grounds. The hon. the Minister is a little less coy now than he was during the Second Reading debate in that he told us what the psychiatrists think. The general consensus of opinion, I am told—and the hon. the Minister will tell me if I am wrong —is that the majority of psychiatrists, in their association anyway, think it will be impossible for them ever to sign a certificate stating that they believe that there is danger of permanent mental damage. In other words, one might just as well have omitted the mental health clause entirely from this Bill. It is not going to mean anything. No psychiatrist is going to be able to use it. This is what I am informed. The hon. the Minister said that there were only a few of these cases, but I know that one psychiatrist at a large State hospital had 120 referrals on psychiatric grounds. I do not say that abortions were then procured but there are many cases in which doctors are of the opinion that it might be necessary for the mental health of the patient to do something about the abortion. One State psychiatrist had 120 such referrals in one year. Then, too, I can tell the hon. the Minister that there are 150 registered psychiatrists throughout the country. In State employment there are 28 full-time and 26 part-time psychiatrists. Does the term “employed by the State” include the part-time psychiatrists at provincial hospitals? Can the hon. the Minister answer that question?

No, it does not.

It does not include a part-time psychiatrist employed at a provincial hospital.

Part-time psychiatrists are not on the Government’s pay-roll.

Well, there you are! In other words, it is even more limiting.

They do assist us from time to time.

Well, in terms of this Bill they cannot assist you. The Bill excludes them. In other words, you can forget about them unless you are prepared to accept or to draft an amendment to include part-time psychiatrists in provincial employment. Are you prepared to do so? If so, I shall draft an amendment immediately. It will certainly assist the situation.

It is intended to try to get the assistance of part-time psychiatrists. We hope that they will become a party to this tripartite agreement in the future. We are in the process of trying to bring this about.

It is very simple. If the hon. the Minister will accept an amendment right now, he will not have to rack his brains. I can draw up an amendment for him immediately. It is simple. The hon. the Minister need simply insert a provision in the definitions clause in the Other Place to the effect that psychiatrists in State employ shall include part-time psychiatrists.

Why should you? It is not necessary.

Because you haven’t got enough, that’s why. You do not begin to have enough part-time psychiatrists in State employment to cope with this problem. The hon. the Minister knows that there is a desperate shortage of trained psychiatric help in this country. He glibly says that one can go to an institution for observation. I wonder whether he knows how overcrowded the institutions are.

I know my own job.

They are now going to have to admit all the patients referred to them by doctors for psychiatric abortions. The position is absolutely ludicrous.

Are there going to be so many?

There are very many. I have already said that there were 120 referrals to one psychiatrist at a State hospital alone last year. Of course there are many such cases.

In regard to the other matter, the hon. the Minister is quite wrong. Of course the Government has condoned sterilization. If it did not condone sterilization we could be sure there would be a law on the Statute Book forbidding it. Does the Government ever hold back in forbidding things it does not approve of or condone? Therefore we are entitled to assume that this Government condones sterilization. The hon. the Minister has told us piously that we cannot deprive a person of his personal choice in this matter. I fully agree with him. I am not suggesting he ought to have a law forbidding sterilization. However, I want to say that I do not think that the question of sterilization should have been included in a Bill dealing with abortion. These are really two separate subjects and should have been covered by two separate Bills. I did not have time to discuss this point during my Second Reading speech. It should have been a separate Bill altogether. Obviously sterilization is condoned since it is not forbidden. Having condoned it, I think it is completely illogical thereafter to condone a pregnancy that has occurred despite sterilization.

I just want to say again that if the hon. the Minister is not prepared to accept a change in the definition of a psychiatrist— a full-time psychiatrist employed by the State—will he not allow district surgeons to act in these cases? I know that they are not specially trained in this field but I am trying to avoid the situation where people will simply not be able to cope because of a shortage of psychiatrists At least a district surgeon who is employed by the State will have at the back of his mind always the realization that the Government is not in favour of being too liberal on the question of abortions. Is that not a reasonable suggestion?

Finally. I want to tell the hon. the Minister again that as this clause stands at the moment he may just as well have omitted the part dealing with mental health because it is not going to mean anything. Nobody is going to be able to make use of it. I also believe that the way in which this particular clause is framed is going to be responsible for an increase in the number of back-street abortions. That is clear. I say this because the common law situation was hazy. Nobody could say with any certainty what was allowed and not allowed. There was complete uncertainty in the mind of the judge, Mr. Justice Hiemstra, who gave the decision in the King case, and many doctors took advantage of this hazy situation in law to assist women who wanted or needed abortions and who, the doctors felt, required them on the grounds of mental health. Now they are not going to dare to do that because of the tremendous penalties that are laid down in this Bill. They are not going to dare to do it and so you are going to have women refused help who would otherwise be given help by doctors who genuinely believe that the continuation of the pregnancy will affect seriously the physical or mental health, particularly the mental health, of the woman concerned.

Now you are not going to have that. Women are not going to have babies they do not want, whatever the men in this House think. They can lay down the law, Sir, but the woman will find a way of getting an abortion, at great risk to her life and her health. If that is the sort of thing that you want to encourage, then I think there is no better way of doing it than by continuing to retain clause 3 as presently worded. Sir, I ask the hon. the Minister really seriously to re-think this whole situation, and, if he is not prepared to grant any of my requests, at least to reconsider this matter before he goes to the Other Place and to re-draft the definition of a State-employed psychiatrist so as to include part-time psychiatrists in provincial hospitals, and also to change the description of the condition from “permanent mental damage” to “serious mental damage”.

Sir, the hon. member has a strange kind of logic. In the first instance I just want to tell her that she is talking a lot of nonsense …

That is not a very good argument.

No, I am going to qualify that statement. She talks a lot of nonsense when she talks about a State psychiatrist, because the clause refers to “a psychiatrist employed by the State”. I told her very specifically that we were embarking on a scheme which will enable us to get the help of many part-time psychiatrists who are not at the moment on our payroll. Sir, it must be remembered that these mental cases will be few and far between. Why should we have tens or hundreds of psychiatrists everywhere to be at the beck and call of every woman who wants an abortion? That is a nonsensical argument. In the second instance, I cannot allow district surgeons to express an opinion on the question of the likelihood of permanent damage to a woman’s mental health, because these people are not specialists in this field; we want the opinions of specialists in this matter. Sir, in the third instance the hon. member talks nonsense when she says that the State is condoning sterilization. We are not condoning sterilization.

As I said specifically in my Second Reading speech, we are not going to poke our noses into the rights of people who can decide for themselves. We are only making provision here for people who are mentally defective, where the act of coitus may lead to unsatisfactory conditions not foreseen by us in allowing people who are mentally defective to go on reproducing. That is the only instance where we have made provision for sterilization, and I do not know how the hon. member can deduce from that that we are condoning sterilization as such. But if a sterilization operation has to be performed on medical and health grounds, then consequentially, as I said—and I repeat it—there may be grounds for a legal abortion.

Mr. Chairman, I have no wish to prolong the debate on this particular clause, but I do want to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton. Sir, the hon. the Minister has judged the hon. member for Houghton to have spoken nonsense on at least three scores. I want to suggest, with great respect, that the hon. the Minister himself has talked a great deal of nonsense this afternoon, particularly, I think, when we talk in terms of State psychiatrists. There the hon. the Minister stands on ground that simply does not exist, and he is therefore suspended in mid-air. Sir, as I understood the hon. the Minister, he suggested that it was a very good thing that State psychiatrists should play their part in this very difficult and complex matter. Of course, Sir, one agrees with that, but the clause as we have it before us does not say “may” but “shall”. Subclause (3)(b) says, “shall be a psychiatrist employed by the State”. We have no quarrel at all with the statement that because of the costs involved it is right that the State should play its part. The fact of the matter is that there are so few psychiatrists employed by the State and so few psychiatrists actually practising in South Africa, that this paragraph as printed simply cannot stand. It seems to me from the way this is worded that the real reason for the inclusion of this particular provision is because we do not trust the psychiatrist; we do not trust the medical profession, and therefore we must have this provision. If the hon. the Minister had stated that, then at least there would have been consistency in his argument. Sir, when we debate matters of health in this House, my own impression, although I have only been here a very short time, is that the hon. the Minister is a reasonable man.

Oh no! You are quite wrong.

I realize that now and I am very sad that despite the sound reasoning underlying the amendment, particularly the amendments on page 4, line 11, the hon. the Minister has not seen fit to accept these amendments, because I think this is going to weaken this Bill considerably.

Sir. I think the House is becoming weary of the arguments of the hon. member for Houghton.

Then you can all walk out.

It seems that the hon. member for Houghton has been briefed by people who talked to her about medical conditions of which she has no understanding, who talked to her about medical conditions the consequences of which she does not realize and who talked to her about psychiatry, but she cannot answer when the Minister puts something back to her. I am not trying to belittle her, but she has been briefed by people outside and when one is briefed by somebody else, one cannot change one’s line of reasoning or of thought when a reasonable person puts a different argument to one. The hon. member for Pinetown has made the point again this afternoon that in the British law the provision most used by people who flock in from overseas to have abortions in England is actually the mental provision, in terms of which the doctors may say that a person is somewhat mentally unstable and can, therefore, have an abortion on demand. Now, the big difference as far as the hon. member for Houghton and us are concerned is that we are not prepared to allow abortion on demand, whether it is demanded by a psychiatrist or by anybody else. It can only be done for proper health reasons. There is no difference between a therapeutic abortion on the grounds of health in so far as a heart condition is concerned or a kidney condition or a mental condition. The hon. member for Newcastle has mentioned that we have had numbers of cases where ordinarily the patient has a depression after becoming pregnant. These people then want an abortion. They carry on like that for weeks on end, but when you get them over that stage with kindness and proper medical treatment, as is often and proper medical treatment, as is often done by the ordinary general practitioner, they cannot imagine that there was a time when they did not want the baby. The point about psychiatrists is this. The hon. member for Pinelands has also come into the debate in regard to psychiatrists, but let me tell the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Houghton that the number of people who will actually have to see a psychiatrist is absolutely minimal. The second point is that no sensible psychiatrist will ever sign a paper to say that a person needs an abortion, a therapeutic abortion, unless that person has been admitted to a State institution, and there is not a single State institution without psychiatrists employed by the State. They will have to be admitted to a State institution for observation for 10 to 15 days to three weeks or a month to see whether this condition is actually going to affect the patient or whether it is just the ordinary type of depression and not a permanent type of depression which could lead to the removal of the foetus. But when we argue about these things and advance logical arguments, the hon. member for Houghton will jump up again and again to talk about the number of psychiatrists, but the number of psychiatrists has absolutely nothing to do with the matter. What has to do with it is that the patient with a mental problem, which the general practitioner like myself might think is of significance, will have to be examined in an institution by a proper State psychiatrist. On that point the hon. member has differed from us radically. She is now talking only to create the impression that she is the big fighter for women’s rights in this country. The impression she wants to create is that she is the one who wants abortion on demand. Together with a few people on that side of the House she voted for abortion on demand, but the majority of the members of this House, who represent the people of South Africa outside—the hon. member may say “Black and White people”—do not want abortion on demand. Now, whether or not the hon. member bores us with the amendments she plans to move, it is her matter, and one for the House to decide, but I should like to tell her that her arguments are becoming absolutely threadbare. The hon. member should take the advice of the hon. the Minister, who is himself a medical man, as to the numbers of cases in which psychiatrists are needed.

The third and last point relates to the medical men concerned in this law. If you look at the reports of the American Gynaecological Society’s conference in 1966, which dealt with the question of whether they wanted to take part in therapeutic abortions or not, you will find that they themselves laid down a number of points. One of the most important was that there would be backing up by other opinions regarding the necessity for an abortion. They did not want to take the decision alone. This is not so much because anybody doubts the integrity of medical men. The point is that you want to cover the medical men involved, especially those in the same partnership. For instance, if you have three Practitioners in a partnership, two of them would be able to sign the authorization and the third one would do the abortion. If this were done regularly every week or two, surely those people would fall under suspicion by the Medical Council and everybody else. Abortion is a serious matter. It is not something you can obtain at every fruit stall, which is what the hon. member perhaps wants with abortion on demand. This is something which one must bear in mind. The hon. member loses sight of the fact that one is dealing with the future of a nation and not just with the individual female who is carrying a foetus. That is why these various provisions have been included in this Bill. Perhaps, at a later stage, in a year or two, there might have to be alterations. There may even have to be alterations in order to tighten up the measure. The hon. member laughs, but these provisions might have to be tightened up because we in this House are not prepared to sacrifice a full generation because the hon. member wants abortions to be done for convenience.

Mr. Chairman, …

Order! The hon. member for Houghton has spoken three times already. The hon. member for Rosettenville.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious to me that the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Pinelands have not read the clause properly. If they had read the clause, then they have not understood it. It says here quite plainly, in subsection (3)(b), that one of the people “shall be a psychiatrist employed by the State …”. That is all it says. What does that mean? The Minister will employ a psychiatrist. That psychiatrist may be part-time or he may be full-time. He may be in private practice or he may be employed by the State. The Minister does have the right to do this. The Minister has given this House the assurance that he is at the moment busy getting together the individual psychiatrists of this country and bringing them into a group which will give service to the State. What more do we want? I am quite satisfied. The hon. member for Pinelands is, however, not satisfied. I should like to know why he is not satisfied. He wants the very same psychiatrists to be employed, that the hon. the Minister is going to employ. The hon. member for Houghton said that 120 people were admitted …

I said “referred”.

Yes, she said that 120 people were referred to State psychiatrists …

To one State psychiatrist.

She does not tell us how many. Let us assume that the total number was 350, and that there are only 150 psychiatrists available. What would the demand for their services be? As was rightly pointed out by the hon. member for Caledon, every psychiatrist, if he was employed full-time, would have to see two patients a year; that is how busy he would be. But to say that he would be inundated with hundreds and hundreds of people is a lot of nonsense and poppycock. It just does not happen. Those of us who have taken the trouble to investigate the position thoroughly are quite satisfied. We have heard evidence from the psychiatrists. We have heard not from one or two psychiatrists; we have heard what the Association feels about it. They have told us about the dangers of opening up this clause without the strictest possible measures. If we open this clause we might as well agree to abortion on demand in South Africa.

What does the Society of Psychiatrists say?

The psychiatrists gave us sufficient evidence to satisfy us that it is necessary to have this clause in this Bill.

That is not true.

The hon. member says that it is not true. She has not read the evidence. I can give the House the assurance that that is the impression that the psychiatrists gave to the commission. They gave us the assurance that if we should open up this clause it would lead to abortion on demand.

First amendment moved by Mrs. H. Suzman negatived (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Second amendment moved by Mrs. H. Suzman negatived (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

On third amendment moved by Mrs. H. Suzman,

Question put: That the word stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Dr. A. L. Boraine, Messrs. D. J. Dalling, R. M. de Villiers, C. W. Eglin, R. J. Lorimer, G. N. Oldfield, N. J. J. Olivier, Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert, Mrs. H. Suzman, Messrs. W. V. Raw, H. A. van Hoogstraten, H. E. J. van Rensburg, G. H. Waddell and C. J. S. Wainwright) appeared on one side,

Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

Amendment moved by Mr. G. B. D. McIntosh negatived.

Fourth amendment moved by Mrs. H. Suzman negatived (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Fifth amendment moved by Mrs. H. Suzman negatived (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Sixth amendment moved by Mrs. H. Suzman negatived (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Seventh amendment moved by Mrs. H. Suzman negatived (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

On eighth amendment moved by Mrs. H. Suzman,

Question put: That the words stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Sir, duly authorized thereto by the hon. member for Fauresmith, I should first like to motivate briefly the amendment printed in his name. Dr. Paul Bremer, a gynaecologist and obstetrician with a country-wide reputation and, I believe, also chairman of the Board of Obstetricians, wrote a letter to the hon. member for Fauresmith in which he pointed out that this clause does not provide for the case where a person is incapable of foreseeing the consequences of sexual intercourse and where it is in fact possible that the child will not be defective. In other words, as the clause reads at present, what it amounts to is that a person who is capable of consenting to sterilization under the circumstances as described here, can in fact procure sterilization if it can be certified that if he or she were to procreate a child, such child would suffer from a physical or mental defect of such a nature that it would be seriously handicapped. Dr. Bremer now proposes that this provision be extended to the case where, due to a permanent mental handicap or defect, a person is unable to comprehend the consequential implications of or bear the parental responsibility for the fruit of coitus. Sir, here the emphasis is on the permanent mental handicap or defect of the person who is otherwise incapable of consenting, in contrast to the situation in terms of the amendment that is still to be moved by the hon. member for Houghton and which only refers to a person who is incapable of understanding the result of coitus. In other words, the amendment by the hon. member for Fauresmith limits it to persons who have a permanent mental handicap and who are consequently unable to comprehend the result of coitus, in contrast to the broader statement in the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton.

Order! The hon. member for Bloemfontein West may not move the amendment on behalf of the hon. member for Fauresmith. However, he may move it himself.

In that case I move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 4, in line 60, after “and” to insert “(i)”; and
2. (2) on page 4, in line 64, after “handicapped;” to insert “or
   1. (ii) due to a permanent mental handicap or defect is unable to comphrehend the consequential implications of or bear the parental responsibility for the fruit of coitus;”.

Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member has pointed out, the amendment that he has moved is somewhat more limited than the one which I have on the Order Paper, but they both aim at the same objective. In other words, it was an obvious omission not to make provision in this Bill for the sterilization of a person who conceived a child without understanding what the effects of coitus would be. I am not unduly worried about the limitation: I think the objective in the hon. member’s amendment is exactly the same. I do not know whether the hon. member felt that he had to introduce that as an argument in order to persuade the hon. the Minister to accept an amendment which is materially the same as the one that I have on the Order Paper. I am perfectly happy, Sir, to accept the amendment of the hon. member and not to move my own.

Sir, since, I am a reasonable man, as I have been described by the opposite side, I accept the amendments moved by the hon. member for Bloemfontein West, as agreed to by the hon. member for Houghton.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that this is an improvement on the 1973 Bill and I would like to compliment the hon. the Minister on having improved the 1973 Bill in this respect in that it widens the number of institutions which can be used for the purposes of procuring abortions. I am sorry, Sir, that the hon. member for Caledon is not here, because I could have pointed out to him that the argument which he used earlier with regard to a person going to a State institution and being seen there by a psychiatrist, does not help in the case of a person who goes to a nursing home, for instance, which the hon. the Minister will now designate as an institution where abortions may be performed, because there will be no appointed State psychiatrist at such an institution. It is not only I therefore who can talk nonsense, Sir, but the hon. member for Caledon as well.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 8, to add the following subparagraph at the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (4):
   “(iv) in the case of unlawful carnal intercourse with a girl under the age of sixteen years in contravention of section 14 of the Immorality Act, 1957, that she was at the time of the alleged contravention under the age of sixteen years.”; and
2. (2) on page 8, to insert the following as a paragraph (a) at the commencement of subsection (5):
   1. “(a) Where the person charged with unlawful carnal intercourse with a girl under the age of sixteen years in contravention of section 14 of the Immorality Act, 1957, was at the time of the alleged commission of the offence—
      1. (i) under the age of twenty-one years and it is the first occasion on which he is so charged and the girl concerned was at the time of the alleged commission of the offence a prostitute;
      2. (ii) under the age of sixteen years; or
      3. (iii) deceived by the girl or the person in whose charge she was into believing that the girl was at the time of the alleged commission of the offence over the age of sixteen years,
         such carnal intercourse shall for the purposes of subsection (4) nevertheless be deemed to be unlawful carnal intercourse.”

I should like to have a ruling from you, Sir, as to whether I am in order in advancing arguments on these amendments.

Order! I am unable to accept the amendments as they are substantially the same as an amendment previously negatived by the Committee.

Mr. Chairman, as far as this clause is concerned, I think some further clarification by the hon. the Minister is needed in regard to the practical implications involved. The first portion of this clause says that an abortion shall not be procured and a sterilization contemplated in clause 4 shall not be performed without the written authority of (a) in the case of a State-controlled institution, the medical practitioner in charge of such an institution or a medical practitioner designated for the purpose by the first-mentioned medical practitioner. Now, Sir, it has been brought to my notice that there are instances where a medical practitioner who is in charge of an institution which has been so designated, may have strong religious reasons for not wishing to permit an abortion to be procured or a sterilization operation carried out in his particular institution and would refuse to grant such written authority. It would appear that he is able to delegate to another medical practitioner the necessary authority required. However, it is possible that this medical practitioner with such strong religious feelings would not even be prepared to designate that authority to another medical practitioner. So we could have the difficulty arising, where an abortion is to be procured or a sterilization operation has to be carried out at a State-controlled institution, that the medical practitioner in charge is not prepared to permit such an operation to be performed at his institution or even to delegate his authority to another medical practitioner. We know that in terms of clause 9, which has not yet been dealt with by the Committee, there is what has been termed a “conscience clause”, whereby certain medical personnel may refuse to be part of such an abortion or operation. Clause 9 clearly refers to a medical practitioner other than the medical practitioner referred to in clause 6(1). This is the clause I am now referring to. So it would appear that clause 9, which is known as the conscience clause, would not be applicable in this particular case because they are specifically precluded in terms of clause 9 as far as this conscience clause is concerned. I bring this to the attention of the hon. the Minister so that perhaps he can give consideration to it, and perhaps in the Other Place consider some form of amendment to overcome any practical difficulty which might arise, as I say, in view of the fact that it has been brought to my attention that there may be such a medical practitioner who on religious grounds is not prepared to allow any abortion to be procured or a sterilization operation to be undertaken.

The position is that the head of the institution, in complying with the requirements of the Act, may not refuse to give his permission, but he is not obliged to participate in an abortion nor is the other person obliged to do so. All of them are covered. The only difficulty we may have is that even after the legislation has been complied with, there may be such a person at an institution which has been designated for those purposes. But if he has very strong feelings about the matter, he should not have asked for his institution to be designated by the State for these purposes. Once he has indicated that his institution is available for these operations and the State has given the necessary permission for such operations to be performed there, surely there can be no justification for refusing to comply with the Act in so far as the certificate is concerned, because in respect of the actual committing of the abortion, as we wrongly term it, in respect of doing or procuring the abortion, there are no obligations.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I understand that to leave the clause as it is will entail an enormous amount of paper work at hospitals. The only excuse the hon. the Minister has given us in his Second Reading speech was that this was very valuable because one would be able to find out “whether there was a snake in the grass”. This was, I think the elegant phrase he used. In other words, if a large number of abortions were notified as coming from one little place or one special hospital, one would have an idea as to who was performing large numbers of abortions. Suspicion would be aroused and investigations could be made to make sure whether or not these were being legally procured. All I can say is that people who are going to act illegally are not going to complete forms anyway; they are going to do back-street abortions. I think this is really a very unnecessary clause which is going to tie up a lot of expert medical help in the filling in of millions of forms. Well, I should rather say hundreds of forms and not exaggerate too much.

Thousands of forms.

Yes, thousands of forms. At Baragwanath at the moment 7 000 forms have to be filled in and I think at Groote Schuur 2 000 have to be completed. I do not see the need for this. It seems to me quite unnecessary. It is a sort of Excelsior clause. Why people are rushing around investigating Excelsior, we shall never know although we have our suspicions. Equally here they may start rushing around investigating small towns or certain hospitals and I just do not think that this is necessary.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think that we need go into all the arguments again. However, I must again correct the argument that the removal of the residue of a pregnancy is a thereapeutic action. The performance of such an operation is not against the law. Therefore this provision deals merely with an existing practice and is not a new innovation. The only aspect in this regard is the furnishing of the prescribed information to the Secretary for Health. It is an endeavour to combat back-street abortions. I did refer to “a snake in the grass”, but there might not be a snake in the grass. Such a tendency may be shown on the computer, but if it is a genuine case it should be open to inspection and nobody will be indicted. However, should this amendment be accepted, the status quo will be maintained and the State will receive no assistance in the combating of practices which may become evil practices. In the circumstances, I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived (Mr. R. J. Lorimer and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

This is the conscience clause which has been inserted in the Bill and I am fully in favour of it. I think it is an improvement on the 1973 draft Bill. It is something that obviously had to be done because we cannot force a doctor or a nurse to procure an abortion if it is against their religious or other convictions.

There is a conscience clause in the British Act and I think the hon. the Minister has done well to accept this recommendation of the commission. It is the only other improvement I can find in the Bill vis-a-vis the 1973 version. I think you have to have a proviso, because you might find cases where, because of religious convictions, a doctor or a nurse refuses to participate in an abortion under any circumstances whatever. You do get people who are religious fanatics even among doctors. You also get nurses who arp religious fanatics. I think some protection has to be given to the pregnant woman who is aborting or in the case of an incomplete abortion where a woman may be dying because of haemorrhaging and an immediate abortion is necessary to save her life. The British Act does make such a provision. It lays down that although it agrees to the conscience clause and makes provision for conscientious objectors, this does not in any way affect the duty of the doctor concerned to see to it that the patient gets expert attention. He must see to it that the patient will get the necessary attention to save her life, from another doctor who does not feel strongly on conscientious grounds.

Surely the hon. the Minister cannot object to that. It is a reasonable proviso. You can say that doctors are sensible and that they will never let a woman die, but you just never know. When you have a conscience clause it gives the man an “out”. One assumes that, by and large, no doctor will stand by and allow a woman to die under these circumstances. I accept that, but there are also exceptional cases and I think the law must provide for them. This was foreseen in England where there are people who, because they have religious objections, will not do an abortion under any circumstances. There have been cases where women have been left in danger of their lives as a result. Surely the hon. the Minister can see that this is a reasonable proviso. It will not often be used, but there will be occasions where it may be needed.

Mr. Chairman, I think our doctors consider their ethical code to be so important that we need not fear that they will ever shirk their duty when they have to save the life of a woman or a child. It is true that in the English Act there is a provision of this kind, but I am not sure that it has ever been necessary to invoke it. I have every confidence in our medical practitioners, even in Catholic doctors, some of whom may have certain reservations about acting in cases like this, that they will not shirk their duty. We have not had any instance of a doctor shirking his duty in the past when a patient’s life has been in danger. A professional person is always responsible to his statutory body. Seeing that the hon. member has so much confidence in the opinions of our psychiatrists, she should also have a lot of confidence in the actions, the intentions and the dedication to their duty of all our other medical practitioners. I really think this amendment is superfluous.

Mr. Chairman, I seem to have more confidence in the medical profession than the hon. the Minister, certainly judging by his arguments on other clauses. Where religious convictions come in, however, very often other considerations become of less importance. This can happen in the case of a really religious doctor who under no circumstances is prepared to perform an abortion.

His attitude will be known beforehand.

Not always. Moreover, in the country districts you may have only one doctor who is a very religious man and who is not prepared to do it. There may be no other doctor for miles around. [Interjections.] Will the hon. the Minister then tell me why this provision is inserted in the British Act and why, after the Lane Commission had reconsidered all the provisions of the British Act, it still advised that there should be no change in the law9 One would be able to understand his attitude if the Lane Commission had said:

“We find this to be completely unnecessary. There have been no known cases between 1967, when the law was passed, and 1971, when we reported. There have been no cases like this. Therefore we recommend that subsection (2) of section 4 be repealed because it is unnecessary.” But they have not recommended that. Therefore I am surely entitled to assume that it has some use. The whole reason for appointing the Lane Commission was to see whether it was necessary to bring about any changes in the existing law. I have as much confidence—as I say, more than the hon. the Minister—in doctors. After all, I am married to a doctor and I know exactly how difficult a task they often have and how very seriously they take their professional obligations. But I also know something of the importance, the overweening importance sometimes, of religious convictions.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know what motivated the Lane Commission in putting in a clause like this. I can see the necessity for this as little as I can see why they brought forth an Act which has led to the indications of abuses that they have in England at the moment.

Amendment negatived (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following two amendments which appear under my name on the Order Paper—

1. (1) On page 10, in line 42, after “conviction” to insert “, in the case of a person referred to in paragraph (a),”; and
2. (2) on page 10, in line 45, after “imprisonment” to add “and, in the case of a person referred to in paragraph (b), (c), (d) or (e), to a fine not exceeding one thousand rand or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year or to both such fine and such imprisonment”.

The effect of these amendments is to reduce the penalties, which this Bill lays down, on doctors procuring abortions under conditions other than those laid down in terms of the Bill. It will be noted that I have reduced the penalties for doctors while leaving the penalty for persons who are unqualified.

Mr. Chairman, the offences circumscribed in this Bill are of a serious nature. I think that these penalties should be sufficient to deter anybody from committing these serious crimes. The effect of these amendments would be to exclude the medical practitioner from the penalties applicable to other persons. I regard this as a ridiculous situation. As I pointed out in the Second Reading, it is the crime that we must combat; it is not so much a case of punishing a specific person. The penalty should deter people from doing things like this.

*The professional practitioner is like the minister of religion who prepares the way; he himself must know how to walk the road.

†I really do think that the penalties for the medical practitioner should be just as severe. If he contravenes the provisions of this law, he knows what he is doing. Very often the person with no training, who is not within the confines of the profession, does not know about these things, and he might not be indictable to the same extent under these provisions. Therefore, I really cannot accept an amendment like this. This argument has been brought up, and I have stated from the start that I am not prepared to discriminate in cases like this.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with what the hon. the Minister has said, viz. that it is very difficult, with regard to the punishment, to differentiate between one person who has committed a crime and another. I understand that point of view and I accept it. But the reason why I have suggested this, is that the danger is so much greater when an abortion is procured by a person who is unqualified than when the person is qualified. What I was trying to do was to make the deterrent for the back-street abortionist or the person who is unqualified, much greater than that for a doctor from whom one can expect some modicum of care in procuring an abortion. That was the reason for my amendment. I must say that is was a bright idea which was given to me by the hon. member for Brentwood in the course of his speech.

There is something to be said for it.

Well, on this point at least we are in agreement.

Amendments negatived (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The 1939 Proclamation of South West Africa which we are dealing with here is in fact the legislation which controls and protects the diamond industry in that Territory. In this regard it also contains special provisions relating to the illegal entry into prohibited areas and it is to these provisions that we wish to effect a few slight amendments, for reasons I shall explain briefly.

No doubt hon. members are all aware of the existence in South West Africa of the so-called Diamond Areas Nos. 1 and 2, for which prospecting and mining rights were awarded many years ago. Diamond Area No. 1 is the area for which such rights are held by a well-known company of the De Beers group and includes a tract of land along the West Coast, which is situated between lattitude 26° and the Orange River.

The Luderitz municipal area is surrounded by Diamond Area No. 1, and since, in terms of section 22 of the proclamation, no member of the public is permitted to enter the diamond area without a special permit, there is not enough recreational area for the inhabitants of Luderitz and people in the vicinity.

Following representations by the Luderitz municipality, representations which were supported by the South West African Administration, the company kindly agreed to make available to the public, for recreational purposes and for the purposes of a caravan park, a section of Agate Beach at Luderitz plus an access strip. However, the company is not prepared to relinquish its mining rights in respect of Agate Beach and the access strip permanently. The company wishes to retain its mining rights in the land concerned so that, if it subsequently appears justified it will be able to take back the land for mining development, but it has pledged itself to pay compensation, if it should indeed mine there at a later stage for any permanent improvements which might have been effected to the land. The municipality is satisfied with this since they realize that the company’s rights cannot simply, be cancelled or curtailed for the convenience of the public, i.e. as long as the company complies with the conditions of its award.

†We come now to the legal amendment which is necessitated by the fact that a portion of Agate Beach, together with an access strip, will be made available to the public for recreational purposes. In this connection, it is the position that although section 22 of the 1939 proclamation prohibits entry into Diamond Areas Nos. 1 and 2 except under authority of entry permits issued by or on behalf of the Diamond Board of South West Africa, section 23, after exempting a certain railway line, some defined roads, etc. from these permit restrictions, provides for the possible exemption of other roads from the permit restrictions but not areas such as the one at Agate Beach which we now want to throw open to the public. I may perhaps add that it is the intention to expand the Luderitz airport which is located within Diamond Area No. 1, but that under the present wording of section 23(1) of the proclamation, it will also not be possible to exempt the airport extensions from the present entry restrictions.

*Therefore what we are doing now is to clarify and amplify the wording of section 23(1) of the proclamation so that, irrespective of roads, it will also be possible to exempt certain areas which are situated within diamond areas Nos. 1 and 2— such as the one of Agate Beach—from the requirement that people who enter these areas have to obtain entry permits.

That is all which is contained in this short Bill. We believe that it will undoubtedly have the effect that the inhabitants of Luderitz will acquire better recreational facilities. Without a doubt it will also male it possible for Luderitz to develop more effectively. These are all things we should like to bring about for them. That is why I feel myself at liberty to come to this House with this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I must firstly apologize, on behalf of the chief speaker on mining matters on this side of the House, for his absence today. His absence is due to illness and is unavoidable. On behalf of this side of the House I want to say that we have no objection to this Bill. Those matters which have been outlined by the hon. the Minister, which we fully understand, are most welcome to us. For that reason we shall support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I must express my appreciation towards the hon. the Minister for having been able to make such a great deal of progress with this legislation after he had negotiated with the bodies concerned. The concession areas, such as diamond areas Nos. 1 and 2, have a very long history. Of course it is true that in the German period there were a number of concession-holders there. After First World War, when it was no longer in the hands of the custodian of enemy property, it was possible for all these concessions to be grouped together. That is how it came about that the so-called Consolidated Diamond Area, a company bearing this name, obtained control over diamond area No. 1. That is precisely where the most important diamond diggings are today. In the past that area yielded the highest production as is still the case today. Those diamond diggings also yield the largest quantity of high-gem quality diamonds. As far as I know, it is the largest as well as the only one of its kind in the world.

Now, there is a facet relating to the issuing of certain concessions in respect of which I want to request the Department of Mines to take my opinion into consideration in future. I am referring to the case where a large area is granted to concession-holders who in this way legally obtain permanent rights in this regard. The position today is that the company concerned has permanent legal rights there so that only the company in its own discretion and as circumstances may demand, is able to make certain concessions. In my view this is wrong, especially in a territory such as South West Africa, where mining companies have special privileges in regard to the mining industry, rights other than the rights which are obtained here in the Republic. The position in South West Africa is that the mineral rights do not belong to the surface-owners. There the State has the mineral rights. The subterranean rights of the surface-owner are very limited there. I think it is in the interests of the industry as such, the mining industry, that these rights which are granted in any mineral concession, ought to be on a sliding scale so that the company concerned, if it has engaged in prospecting in certain areas for a long time, would be compelled to relinquish portions of the surface rights in areas which may not, in its opinion, be producing areas. It would be very easy for any exploration company to eliminate certain areas then, after it has possessed the rights for ten years, for example. By these means that company would then possibly eliminate those non-mineralized areas. In prospecting terms these areas are referred to as “impoverished areas”; in these areas one finds impoverished stones just as one finds impoverished people. In my opinion this is what should for the most part be taken into consideration when similar mineral concessions are granted. After one has prospected for a certain period, one has to relinquish a certain percentage of the surface of one’s concession. The advantage of doing so is this: It is a well-known fact that when one company makes a start with prospecting work it displays a great deal of enterprise, while another company might not display the same amount of enterprise. Sometimes it might be waiting for financial assistance from another source or hawking its rights at other companies. I think this is an undesirable state of affairs. In the case in question I want to say that I admit that the company concerned displays a great deal of enterprise. In my view it has covered the areas very well and in my opinion it is, furthermore, in a position to judge the potential of a large area and which portion could be eliminated and handed back to the State. In the period following the First World War—we had the legislation of 1920-’21, of 1932 and, as the hon. the Minister pointed out, the legislation of 1939, which is also being amended by this Bill which is now before us—the circumstances, when the legal rights were obtained, were quite different from what they are today. If the circumstances are quite different now, an adjustment has to be made. In the granting of such long-term concessions one should always take into consideration that circumstances may change from time to time. Of course it is true that the company concerned has already, with its exceptional initiative and enterprise, applied various mining and scientific methods. I think the company is the only one of its kind in the world. By means of its methods, this company at present moves a tremendous amount of earth in order to get to the diamondiferous layers. One finds earth-moving machines there which, in my view, are among the largest in the world. One need only take into consideration that, in 1966, this company had to move approximately 15 million cubic metres of earth in order to get to the diamondiferous layers. As far as I can remember the figure for 1973 was double that of 1966. If one moves say, 30 million cubic metres, it is an exceptional undertaking, and then of course he still has to deal with the problem that the diamonds have decreased in size a little.

Sir, as the hon. the Minister quite rightly said, an iron curtain has been drawn around this large area of approximately 500 km by approximately 100 km. Sir, this is where the attractive scenic town of Luderitzbucht is situated; it peeps at the outside world through a slit in the curtain and longs for lebensraum. Sir, I cannot describe to you how attractive I found Luderitzbucht the first time I visited this town. It must have one of the most beautiful natural settings one can find in South Africa. If hon. members should ever visit South West Africa, I would advise them to visit Luderitzbucht and to see the cross planted there by the Portuguese at Diaz Point. Sir, I understand that the hon. member for Karas, in whose constituency Luderitzbucht falls, would also like to say something about this matter.

That brings me to the second point I want to enlarge on a little, and this is the very question of more lebensraum for Luderitzbucht. Sir, you can imagine how little lebensraum the people have there when I tell you that when a man goes golfing there and plays the ball a little too hard and slices it, it would quite probably land in the diamond area and that he would then be in danger of being prosecuted when retrieving the ball. That gives you an idea, Sir, of how little lebensraum that community has.

The other point I should like to emphasize here is the relationship of large mining companies to the local communities in South West Africa. One finds that mining companies establish a mine at some small place and settle a more or less balanced community there. It redounds to their credit that the mining companies in fact took the lead initially in the development of South West Africa. In the past the mining companies have always adopted a kind of paternalistic attitude towards the local communities in that they established certain amenities for them there. Sir, it was said here in another debate that one is not one’s brother’s executioner; that one would rather be one’s brother’s keeper, when one sees how the community at Luderitzbucht longs for some lebensraum, one asks oneself whether the same does not also apply in respect of the mining companies and that community. It is a question of the viability of the community. If one speaks to people in that part of the world, people who have lived in Luderitzbucht all their lives, they tell one that they are in fact being strangled to death because they have no room to move about in on account of the fact that the two diamond areas, Nos. 1 and 2, on both sides of the town, actually leave them no lebensraum. I well recall the years when I was a member of the Executive Committee of South West Africa when one heard of the “strangle-hold” the mining company had on the community of Luderitz, this idea of being an executioner which was mentioned here, and then one finds that a certain resistance has built up in the community towards the mining companies. It is true that today one encounters further to the north in Africa the spirit which prevails among the people who see that all the wealth of the country is passing into the hands of the big mining companies. That gives rise to the idea of participation in or the take-over or nationalization of the mining industry. As one who knows the mining industry, I think it would be a sad day if something of this kind should ever happen in South Africa. For this reason I say it is a good thing for us to discuss it in this House since we should like to prevent communities in South Africa and in South West Africa from gaining the impression that they would be strangled by the mining companies, or that the mining companies, on the day they leave, would leave a worn-out area behind. For this reason I, as a member of this House, should like to bring it to the attention of the hon. the Minister that a certain responsibility rests not only on the State but also on the mining companies concerned that, under certain circumstances, they have certain obligations towards the communities which are developing in that area. Sir, you know that at present in South West Africa the feeling prevails that the people there are working for the progress of South West Africa and do not concern themselves with what is happening in the rest of the world. The large mining companies and the mining industry in South West Africa play an extremely important role in this hold we, as inhabitants of South West, have on South West Africa. Of course the idea which prevails in certain circles, i.e. that people are leaving South West Africa, is very far from the truth. It is precisely when people from the Republic visit South West Africa …

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

Sir, I am just pointing out the importance of the mining companies and their activities in this specific instance where the richest diamond fields are situated and the community of Luderitzbucht is in fact being forgotten. As I have said, the mining companies also have a certain duty towards the communities. We must consider what happened in Lesotho for example. The mining company which owns the diamond rights there is building a fine road for tourists up in the mountains, which is to the benefit of the community and considerably enhances the prestige of the mining company concerned in that area. On account of the tourist attractions of Luderitz, it is of course my privilege to ask whether attention will be given to the matter. For many years requests have come from the community concerned in respect of Agate Beach, to which the hon. the Minister also referred, but this is the first time that a reply has been furnished by the hon. the Minister. I think the community will commend the Minister for now having taken the initiative to negotiate with the company concerned.

†Just as the intelligent person—many of the people in the Luderitz area are certainly intelligent people …

Then they have to be supporters of the United Party.

No, they are not supporters of the United Party. The intelligent person must give thought to what makes for a more fulfilling existence for the community as such. The controlling organization, the mining company, must also consider this aspect. It must be concerned with what makes for a better environment for the people of Luderitz in which they can survive or prosper. Call it whatever one wants to, if I were a citizen of Luderitz or even the controlling company of the mine, I would call it enlightened self-interest on the part of the mining company as such and also on the part of the community of Luderitz. However, the general tendency is to call it generosity or altruism or, as some mining company has called it, a Father Christmas attitude. I say that we should avoid adopting that attitude towards any community because if you call it a Father Christmas attitude it bears within it the idea of enslaving the community. At present serious economic erosion is taking place and every attempt to maintain the present statu squo means slippage into the Atlantic Ocean. I have no doubt about that.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the subject of Agate Beach.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. If other parts of South West Africa are progressing, if other parts of South West Africa have Agate Beaches where the people can enjoy themselves on the beautiful sands of the South West coast, then there certainly will be an ever widening gap if the people of Luderitz cannot enjoy the same facilities. The trouble is that the people of Luderitz always say, “Look at the progress in the rest of South West Africa, but how can we progress in the limited area at our disposal?” I say that if we do not change that attitude and grant the community of Luderitz their request, there will be an ever-widening gap between the haves and the have-nots.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches are going to support this piece of legislation but, on the other hand, we would like to point out that the effect of the amendment of section 23 of the Diamond Industry Protection Proclamation is to afford the Minister—formerly it was the Administrator of South West Africa— the right to exclude any other portion of diamond areas Nos. 1 and 2 irrespective of the purpose for which it is required and without any limitation on the purposes or use which hitherto applied, as the hon. the Minister has pointed out. In fact, the only qualification to which the hon. the Minister’s right is now subject is that he must act on the recommendation of the Board. I think it must be noted that the previous statutory obligation on the Minister’s part has been removed and that further areas could therefore be interpreted as not necessarily being restricted for roads, aerodromes, etc. I simply want to sound a note of caution. Obviously the purposes for which this Bill has been brought before the House will be supported by us. We simply rely on the fact that the interests of the Minister, of the people of South West Africa and of the mining companies are going to tend to coincide and that there is no intention that any such areas may be taken out and that the restrictions will not apply to the vast proportion of diamond areas Nos. 1 and 2 in circumstances where there is any possible interference with the mining of diamonds, because that will clearly not be in the interests of the Minister, nor of the companies, nor indeed of the people who constitute the community which is based on that industry.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this legislation and am very pleased to be able to thank the hon. the Minister for the progress made in this matter. This has been the subject of applications and agitations over a very long period of time. Although it is only a small area which is being opened up for visits by the inhabitants of Luderitz and holiday makers, it is nevertheless of great value to them. As the hon. member for Etosha indicated, Luderitz is actually surrounded on one side by the diamond areas and on the other side by the sea. The people are in fact hemmed in and do not have much “lebensraum”. Originally Luderitz was dependent on its fish resources for an income. A few years ago this industry experienced a recession and the people had to turn to other sources of income. The one possibility which was investigated at the time, and which we are extending at the moment, is a tourist and holiday resort. At the moment the Administration is spending a great deal of money on tarred roads and a tarred strip for the airport there. In addition to this the Administration has also taken over the holiday resort to build a new one there which will be very attractive. To make a success of this project, we need all the worthwhile sights around Luderitz. This Agate Beach is a very popular visitors’ resort. Up to the present time this beach could only be visited by people with permits from the company. I do not want to cross swords with the company. I even want to thank them for this concession which has been made. However, I should like to suggest something else to the hon. the Minister. There are a few other places which could be extremely interesting to tourists, even if visits to those places were to be controlled. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to go into this in the future. I am thinking here of the ghost town Kolmanskop which is situated not far from Luderitz. Just a little way from there the constituents are those of the hon. member for Green Point.

It is part of my constituency.

Yes, it is part of the constituency of Green Point. Kolmanskop is a place very much worth seeing. It is an old mining town which became buried under sand and which people like to visit. Then there is also the remarkable rock which is called Bogenfels, which is also situated on the coast. There is yet another strip there, not far from that place, viz. Elizabeth Bay. I do not know whether it will be possible for the company to open that area for us to some extent. It will mean a tremendous amount to Luderitz, as I have said, even if the area is opened for visiting under control. However, one does not want to interfere with the security of this diamond industry, because the mining of diamonds in that area means a very great deal indeed to South West Africa. The operations of this company have shifted from Luderitz to the vicinity of Oranjemund, and Luderitz does not have any direct income from that area. I say thank you once more, and I hope that these few things which I have suggested will also enjoy some attention in the future.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I wish to thank the hon. member for Rosettenville and the hon. member for Johannesburg North for their support of this Bill and I want to assure them that it is very much appreciated.

*I also want to say thank you very much for the excuse which was offered on behalf of the hon. member for Von Brandis. He also made his excuses personally to me for not being able to be present on this occasion. I hope that he will soon be completely well and that he will be able to take his place in this House again.

I am very sympathetic towards the standpoint adopted here by the hon. member for Etosha. I have been in Luderitz myself on more than one occasion. It is really a beautiful place with an exceptional character. If it could be opened to tourists to a larger extent, it would have considerable viability and many possibilities from that point of view alone. There is not the least doubt about that. Because I was so impressed myself during my visits to Luderitz, I personally have also done my best to negotiate with the mining company concerned to have Agate Beach opened up. Previously there was a legal obstruction which rendered this impossible even though the mining company was prepared to lend their co-operation. While I am dealing with this, may I place on record my personal thanks—and I am sure that I am doing so on behalf of Luderitz and South West Africa as well—to the mining company concerned for the obligingness it has shown in this matter. As I have said. I have great sympathy with the hon. member for Etosha’s point of view in this regard. However, I should like to point out that this is an area which could possibly be rich in diamonds, as it has in fact been proved to be. It is an area which was placed under concession many long years ago. Where such a contractual concession exists, it is not for the Minister to pay scant regard to this matter and to detract from it In fact, it is not possible to do so unless statutory amendments are made. I am only asking for understanding of this. In the second place, I am asking for understanding of the fact that our minerals are a major source of income for this country. This is also the case in respect of South West Africa. Because of the large amount of capital which the mining companies have to invest and because of the large income which accrues to the country from this, it is the duty of the State to see to it that the interests of such mining companies are recognized in all circumstances and will enjoy the necessary attention. I want to tell the hon. member for Etosha that, against the background of these two facts which I have mentioned, it is the Government’s approach to be very careful not to grant unnecessarily large concessions over very large areas. I think the days are past when such very large areas were conceded to one company. Today the matter is investigated very thoroughly before a mining company acquires a concession. In recent times it has been highly exceptional for a reasonably large area to be conceded to one mining company. Therefore I share the view of the hon. member for Etosha in this regard, and I can assure him that it is my personal approach and that it is the policy of the Government not to grant concessions over too large areas. As far as the dangers are concerned to which the hon. member referred in respect of communities which become alienated, as they do in other territories of Africa, and other problems which the hon. member, to my mind, pointed out rightly and with good cause, I believe that those dangers no longer exist today in the Republic of South Africa.

†As regards the note of caution sounded by the hon. member for Johannesburg North, it is obvious, from what I have already said, that that note of caution has been accepted and that we will deal with this matter with great circumspection in order to see that the mines and their interests are safeguarded as far as is humanly possible. On the other hand, where the mine companies can assist in the opening up of certain areas to the public without undue problems to the mining companies, that is obviously what we must aim at, and I shall do so with all the means at my disposal. I believe that if it is done in a spirit of co-operation and understanding of the mutual interests involved, namely those of the inhabitants of such an area and, on the other hand, the interests of the mining company, then the results in the future could easily be the same as in this case. I want to point out that it was not all that easy for this particular mine company to open up that entire area, namely the Agate Beach, but they have seen fit to do so and I express my appreciation for that fact.

*Mr. Speaker, I should also like to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Karas for the thanks which I have received from him. In connection with the places which the hon. member mentioned, viz. Kolmanskop, Bogenfels and Elizabeth Bay, I just want to say that these are matters which we shall look into now that they have been brought to my attention. I want to add at once that, as far as I am aware, I have had no specific request in respect of Kolmanskop, Bogenfels and Elizabeth Bay. Now that the hon. member has drawn my attention to this, I shall undertake to have the matter properly investigated and to see, in the manner which I have already described, viz. by trying to gain the co-operation of the mining companies concerned in this regard, whether those areas cannot possibly be opened up as well. I think that, if this could come about, it would lead to possibilities of Luderitz Bay, which are very fine and considerable, truly being realized. In this way, Mr. Speaker, I want to express a word of thanks to members for the contributions made by them.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill is of the utmost importance to the future of the mining industry in South Africa, but because it is believed that the envisaged concise legislation will meet with general approval both within and outside the mining industry, I want to try to be concise and to confine myself to the main principles of the Bill.

Clauses 1 to 5: In respect of clauses 1 to 5, I want to say that clause 1 simply contains a few necessary definitions, and for the purpose of my explanation clauses 2 to 5 may conveniently be grouped together. At this stage I must first state briefly that since the beginning of the century already important statutory rights have in South Africa attached to the private possession of mineral rights. In this way, for example, the right to prospect, exploit and dispose of base minerals on any land vests in the holder of the right to base minerals in respect of that land, while preferential rights to prospect and to acquire mining rights from the State in respect of precious metals (gold, platinum, etc.), as well as in respect of diamonds, is vested in the holder of the right to precious metals and precious stones. These and related statutory principles have in our country resulted in a flourishing and well-ordered mining industry, but one of the few disadvantages which have resulted from these principles has been (and is) that, in many cases the mineral rights have been or are being divorced from the ownership of land, and that the mineral rights which are divorced in this way from the land become increasingly subdivided as a result primarily, of testamentary stipulations or the fact that the holder of such rights or of a share in the rights has died intestate.

This fragmentation of the mineral rights over which it is not at present possible to exercise any statutory control, has become so bad that there are people for example who have a claim to only 0,023 118 5 or a less than one millionth undivided share in the mineral rights in respect of a specific piece of land which, if it is calculated in proportion to the surface area of that land is sometimes equivalent to approximately one-fifth or one-tenth of a morgen. Such undivided shares have become almost worthless to the persons concerned, and in numerous cases with which we have to deal it is not even worth while for them to register cession of those rights in their name owing to the fact that they are so infinitesimally small. This problem of the subdivision of mineral rights is progressively assuming more serious proportions. Because it frequently creates an impossible position for individuals and companies that wish to prospect on such land, we are now proceeding in clause 2 of the Bill, to place a prohibition on the registration in deeds registries, except with the written approval of the Minister of Mines, acting after proper consultation of and in proper collaboration with the Government mining engineer and other bodies concerned, of deeds which would result in the further subdivision of mineral rights or an increase in the number of holders of undivided shares in mineral rights.

We already have an approximately similar position in the subdivision of Agricultural Land Act, and I need not elaborate any further on the matter, for control in respect of the subdivision of mineral rights has become an obvious necessity and not only enjoys the strong support of the mining industry itself, but also of the other sectors with which I personally, together with my department, had long talks on this matter. I want to emphasize that what is involved here is only the restriction of sub division of mineral rights since the subdivisions have become so infinitesimal that it has become necessary for someone to intervene in the interests of the mining industry in the Republic of South Africa.

Clause 3 of the Bill is modelled on similar provisions in the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act and merely prescribes what should be done by executors of deceased estates if, in respect of inherited mineral rights, approval should be refused for the registration of a deed which would result in the further subdivision of mineral rights. I want to emphasize that it confers no unconditional right upon any body or upon the Minister of Mines to take action in this case.

In respect of clauses 4 and 5 I need only say, by way of summary, that experience has shown that in cases where the mineral rights in respect of land are held by a number of persons in undivided shares, it is seldom possible for an intending prospector to negotiate successfully with all the co-holders. Attempts—frequently over a period of years—to conclude the necessary agreements, usually miscarry owing to one or more of the following factors: The fact that the registered holders of subdivided shares in mineral rights have been deceased for a long time or that the heirs to such rights also die without their having obtained a cession of the rights; refusal on the part of one or more of the co-holders to co-operate; attempts on the part of certain co-holders to negotiate a completely exorbitant consideration for themselves; unsuccessful attempts to trace all the co-holders in this country or abroad; and problems with the estate, especially when one is dealing with such extremely small subdivisions of mineral rights. These are the problems we have to contend with in practice in this regard.

†This state of affairs is obviously seriously retarding mining development, and because a healthy mining industry has an important role to play in the further economic growth of the country, provision is made in clauses 4 and 5 for the granting, by the Minister, of prospecting rights in respect of the land in question, i.e. in cases where such rights could not be acquired in the ordinary way, and, if the prospecting operations were successful, for the cession to the prospector of those undivided shares in the mineral rights not already held by him or in respect of which he was unable, for the same reasons as those mentioned in clauses 4(l)(a), to negotiate registrable prospecting contracts affording him an option to purchase those rights. In practice, a mining company is usually able to come to terms with some 90% or 95% or more of the holders of undivided shares in the mineral rights, and the provisions of clause 5 will therefore usually have to be applied in respect of only a very small percentage of these shares—usually shares held by people who have disappeared or who are trying to hold the company to ransom, etc., and some or more of the other reasons which I have already mentioned. The consideration payable for the cession of these shares to the successful prospector will, in terms of clause 5(4)(b), be determined on the recommendation of the Government Mining Engineer.

I can just add, in connection with this aspect, that elsewhere in the world where similar problems were experienced, it was recognized that the enforced cession of some of the undivided shares in the mineral rights was the only practical solution since this not only made it possible to simplify the remedial legislation, but also resulted in a reconsolidation of mineral rights which have become fragmented over the years to the detriment of the country concerned.

*Clause 6: This clause is completely separate. Its provisions are of particular importance not only to the mining industry, but also to the farming community. I have already referred to the existing principle in our mineral legislation in terms of which the right to prospect and to exploit base minerals such as coal, limestone, etc., on any land is vested in the holder of the mineral rights and not in most cases in the holder of the rights pertaining to the land. We are all only too well aware of the fact that such mining development frequently necessitates intensive damage to the surface area of the land.

In cases where the mineral rights have not yet been separated from the ownership of any land, the problems are not very serious because the mine developer then has to negotiate and reach an agreement with the land owner. However, where the mineral rights have already been separated from the land serious problems frequently arise owing to the conflict of interest between the mine developer and the land owner. In terms of the existing statutory principles to which no alteration can be effected, the holder of the mineral rights is at liberty in these cases to conduct a search for base minerals on the land and exploit such minerals on that land without the permission of the surface owner. The land owner does in fact enjoy protection in respect of his land and the structures on his land, dams, etc., but he cannot prevent some of his own land or grazing land being utilized for mining development and the land in this way being damaged or made unsuitable for farming.

The energy crisis has resulted in our now having to be far more careful in regard to the exploitation of our coal resources, and in strip mining having to be applied wherever possible so that the maximum quantity of coal may be recovered from every deposit. With conventional mining methods a great deal of coal is wasted which South Africa can no longer afford.

Although land on which strip mining is being practised will, as far as possible, be levelled again—and we insist very strenuously on the mining companies doing this —such land will of course be quite unsuited to normal farming activities for a considerable time, and owing to this and similar circumstances which sometimes arise in regard to the exploitation of other base minerals, special provision is now being made in clause 6, in conjunction with and with the concurrence of the South African Agricultural Union and the Chamber of Mines, so that if the State does not wish to purchase the land itself, the mine owner may be required to purchase the surface area of the land on which the exploitation of the base mineral concerned prevents or will prevent the proper utilization of the land for farming purposes, or where the remaining land will no longer constitute an economic farming unit. If the State, which is in clause 6 being granted the prior right to purchase such land, is not interested in it, either the land owner or the mine owner will then be able to approach the Minister of Mines with a request to the effect that the land or a portion thereof should be purchased by the mine owner or prospective developer but it is being provided that if such a request is made, the land owner cannot in the meanwhile request a court interdict against the exploitation simply in order to frustrate the developer who frequently has to incur considerable capital expenditure.

Sir, during the Committee Stage I shall move a number of amendments to clause 6, amendments which were requested by the South African Agricultural Union after the Bill had already appeared on the Order Paper. These amendments have appeared on the Order Paper for several days and will, as I have said, be moved by me during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I want firstly to thank the Minister for his explanation of the Bill. I found this Bill a most complicated piece of legislation. To me it was much more like a legal document, and I would have appreciated it very much if the Minister’s department could have issued a White Paper for our guidance. Sir, before I go into the provisions of the Bill, I want to say that we on this side of the House will naturally support the Minister at the Second Reading. We feel that unnecessary delays, caused by objections and obstructions, in prospecting and in the development of mineral resources must be avoided at all costs, and we on this side of the House will do all in our power to help to develop our resources in this country as efficiently and as speedily as possible. As the Minister has said, our economy may well be in the balance at some future date, and it is in our interests, of course, to develop our resources as quickly as possible now.

Mr. Speaker, I have gone through the Bill and I have tried to analyse the various clauses. The Minister must please correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation of any of these clauses. Firstly, we want to provide for a limitation to the division of mineral rights. If mineral rights and land ownership go together, they may continue to be divided by will or by registration. I take it that that is correct. If they are separate, the mineral rights cannot now be divided or the number of holders increased without the Minister’s approval. He can only object if the division or increase will hamper the acquisition of prospecting or mining rights. That is reasonable enough, I should say. If the Minister refuses a testamentary provision which does this, the executor must liquidate such rights or dispose of them. Even if we hurry matters we may find this leading to long legal wrangles. I do not know whether the Minister can act immediately in such cases, or whether access to the courts will still be available to those people who may be aggrieved by the Minister’s decision. If that is the case, again these legal wrangles may last for a considerable period of time, and I would like the Minister to give us the assurance that that will not be the case.

Then we come to the next clause, which provides for the permission to prospect when the rights are divided. The Minister has already explained to us that if a prospector cannot get prospecting rights because the holder is missing, because he did not obtain a cession or because he refuses to negotiate or makes unreasonable demands, the Minister may intervene and authorize the prospector to go ahead. The thing that worries me is what happens in the time needed for negotiations between the owners of the land and the Minister. How speedily can this be done? How quickly can the Minister act in these cases? Again I ask whether the aggrieved parties would have access to the courts. Where the person is missing or owns a portion of the area which has to be prospected, I can well understand that the Minister could step in immediately, but where there are people present, I fear that we may also have long protracted legal arguments. He cannot, however, direct that action be taken if there is anyone who holds more than 50% of the prospecting rights, unless the latter agrees. So we see that we are perhaps faced with difficult legal wrangles.

[Inaudible.]

Later on we come again to a provision which provides for the registration of the cession of shares in mineral rights in favour of certain persons. If the Minister is satisfied that there is a workable mining prospect, he may authorize that person to obtain a compulsory cession of mineral rights. That is fair enough, provided he has not exercised any available options to acquire them. Here again I can foresee delays because of arguments as to whether these rights have been obtained or not. The authorizing of cession by the Minister can only occur after the beneficiary has lodged an amount determined by the Government Mining Engineer in the light of current sales values. How long these things are going to take I do not know. This amount will be paid to the mortgagee, the Master or the owner. The Expropriation Act of 1965 shall apply to moneys received by the Master and costs will be paid by the cessionary. Well, to all of us this means that there are going to be legal difficulties. The lawyers must agree that there will be trouble ahead. There is also a clause to provide for the acquisition of land. If the holder of the mineral rights claims mining will prevent proper fanning, or that the unmined residue is uneconomic for farming, the Minister of Mines has the right to acquire the land for the State. Who makes the payment? The Minister of Agriculture may then either buy it for the State under the Expropriation Act, or direct the mining company to buy it. Here again I say that there will be serious delays. The Arbitration Act of 1965 will apply if the landowner disputes the offer. The legal people tell me that all this is going to take months and months of negotiations. I have spoken to some of our legal people and that is what they tell me.

Now we come to a most important point which the hon. the Minister mentioned towards the end of his speech when he dealt with strip mining. Under the circumstances he is quite right; we may have to start that. But he knows what destruction it causes the countryside. We have the coal mining operations in Western Germany where mining companies are obliged by law to submit to relandscaping plans before they proceed with strip mining, and I feel that similar provisions should be enshrined in our laws. I think that before people can start they must know that when they vacate the land they cannot leave it an ugly, unattractive, unworkable site. I think it should be a provision in the law that mining companies who are going to undertake strip mining must do something to retain the value of the land for other purposes later on. In Germany they actually improve the environment by replacing the top soil and creating lakes, forests and park lands. That should happen here as well. I believe that we should seek an assurance that we shall adopt a similar practice in South Africa. The present Bill does not refer to strip mining as such and I therefore see difficulty in moving an amendment at this stage. I suggest separate legislation if the Minister’s present powers are insufficient. Again I say to him that he must think again before the completion of the Committee Stage to see whether or not it is not possible to include another amendment in terms of which we can make sure that the environment is not going to be destroyed by strip mining.

This side of the House will support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, the hon. member for Rosettenville described the Bill as complicated, but I nevertheless believe that this Bill before the House is an outstanding one. I believe that it is a Bill which, when placed on the Statute Book, will be capable of working particularly well in practice. The hon. member is concerned about the question of the time that will be taken up, about the possibility of court cases and so on, but I believe that the Bill will alleviate and streamline the existing situation enormously. I believe that the Bill will be welcomed on all sides because it is in the national interest that there should be a proper ordering of the position and the rights of owners of mineral rights as well as those of interested persons as regards the question of prospecting and exploitation. We in this country are in the fortunate position of having enormous mineral wealth. In fact this is our greatest economic factor. It is necessary, therefore, that we set about it in the most effective way in order to ensure maximum utilization thereof. The position has developed over the years that there has been a tremendous amount of fragmentation of the mineral rights in our country. There are so many owners of small fractions who are not even aware of their proprietary right. There are owners who, one could almost put it, are scattered across the world and are unaware that they are the owners of mineral rights. It is often attempting the impossible to try and trace these owners. It is particularly in the Transvaal and the Northern Cape that one finds this to be the case. Looking at the advertisements that are often placed, we can only deduce that there are many people who are owners, but are actually unaware of the fact.

I want to indicate by way of a practical example, a factual example, the kind of problem that will fall under the Bill. I believe that this example is not an exception. If clauses 2 to 5 had already been on the Statute Book, all those problems would have been eliminated.

A mining company wanted to prospect for coal, but the question of the ownership of certain rights arose. The original owner of these mineral rights had died in 1904. The mineral rights had already been separated from the title deeds, but were undivided. He bequeathed these rights to his five children. He gave each an undivided one-fifth share in the mineral rights. Four of these children, again, bequeathed their rights to their children, 25 of them, in undivided shares. Twelve of the grandchildren of the original owner of the mineral rights are already deceased, and their rights, again, have been ceded to altogether 77 of their children. Because mineral rights are not always mentioned in estates, eight estates have already had to be reopened in order to transfer the mineral rights to the owners. The matter has been further complicated owing to one of the daughters-in-law of the original owners of the mineral rights having been married three times, while six of his grandchildren and five of his great-grandchildren were married twice. I do not even want to mention how many other matters could be included, matters that could further impede the granting of a prospecting contract. For example, there is the question of marriage in community of property where the permission of the husband is required. Then, too, there is the question of the perusal of divorce orders, and so on. It was then ascertained that one of the one-fifth shares which had originally been bequeathed had eventually at the time of the investigation, been split up by inheritance as follows: One person had a share, seven owners had a share and four owners had a share. One of these holders of a share had in the meantime left his share to his four children so that each of these children now possess a share in the mineral rights.

This is barely equal to a square metre of the surface area. This entire process took 11 years to reach this point and in spite of this, the company has not yet acquired full mineral rights to that property.

This Bill places a specific limitation on the further fragmentation of mineral rights among two or more persons, as set out in clause 2, where an increase in the number of owners of undivided shares, lodged for registration of the cession of such rights, would result. In prescribed circumstances the Minister may grant his approval to such registration. This limitation now places the matter on a very sound basis and any further fragmentation can be prevented. Naturally these limitations will have to be applied very carefully, because I believe that the very aim of the Bill is to settle the position where insignificant fractions of mineral rights are possessed by persons.

This Bill does not envisage depriving owners of mineral rights of their rights. In fact, heirs are now given the opportunity to make arrangements for the retention of their mineral rights if they inherit them. For example, they are given the opportunity to establish a company or to transfer the mineral rights to one specific person. It is only subsequently that the question of intervention will arise. This, of course, is in cases where the inheritance has resulted in a division or an increase in undivided shares. This specific clause also provides greater legal certainty in regard to the settlement of an estate as regards the disposal of mineral rights.

As is clear from the example, I have quoted, the procedure for acquiring prospecting permits has been substantially speeded up and streamlined. In terms of clause 4 a prospective prospector may obtain permission to prospect on one or more of four grounds or, in exceptional cases, on other grounds, whereas formerly it was only with great difficulty and expense that he was able, over many years, if ever, to gards the disposal of mineral rights.

In conclusion, I want to emphasize that this legislation, which is generally welcomed, is not summarily going to take away existing mineral rights, but will result in there being order in the mineral rights set-up, in there being no further fragmentation and in the procedure for prospecting and exploitation being speeded up considerably. Consequently it is a privilege for me to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to what the hon. member for Klerksdorp has said. I certainly take the point when it comes to difficulties in regard to subdivision and the necessity for tracing the owners of mineral rights. However, when one considers a Bill of this nature, it is necessary to strike a balance between the mining and prospecting companies, who are primarily the interested parties, on the one side and the general public of South Africa on the other. To us on these benches, I am afraid to say, this Bill seems to strike that balance far too much in favour of the mining and prospecting companies and we are therefore not in a position to support it at Second Reading. We shall oppose it.

I should like to enlarge on why we find it difficult to support this Bill and on why we feel the balance has been struck too much in favour of mining and prospecting companies. If one turns to clause 2, one finds it to amount virtually to an infringement of the rights presently enjoyed by individuals in regard to the transfer of mineral rights. If a parent is the owner of 100% of the mineral rights over a particular area of the country, but not the owner of the land, he is not now going to be in the position to allocate those mineral rights equitably to, say, two or three children. In terms of this clause, the Minister will be empowered to object to the subdivision of the ownership of such mineral rights. Indeed, clause 2(3), which also governs clause 3 itself, is extremely vague and permissive in the sense that it does not specify for what reasons the Minister may refuse or indeed approve the division to which such application relates. If it becomes appropriate to do so, we shall also move an amendment to clause 2(3).

Let us now proceed to clause 3 which deals with the ability of an individual to make a will. As the law now stands, if a person owns 100% of the mineral rights over land in any portion of the country, he is entitled to leave those rights freely in his will to as many heirs and in as many portions as he pleases. This is now going to come under the scrutiny of the Minister and the presumption generally is that he is going to refuse any further increase or division. Indeed, there is a further qualification. If, under a current will, mineral rights are divided up into say two or three portions and the heirs and beneficiaries are not able to come to an agreement in line with the Minister’s wishes, the executor of the estate in question shall realize the relevant right to minerals or any undivided share therein and dispose of the net proceeds. Obviously there are clear problems about this aspect. It is quite possible to foresee circumstances where people will disagree as to the value of mineral rights. For example, in the case of three brothers, one brother may not be in the financial position to accommodate to the situation the Minister requires. When one comes to wills, there is also always the question of minors or people who are legally disabled for some or other reason.

Let us consider the duties of the executor. What he realizes from the proceeds of such a sale will to some extent depend on what is happening in the surrounding area at that particular time and more particularly on the price at that time of the various minerals which might or might not be involved. For example, the value of mineral rights that have been established on an adjoining farm to a copper-bearing area will vary in relation to the price of copper.

I want to refer to clause 4. It seems to us that clause 4 is again an infringement of the rights of individuals because it states that in certain circumstances—these circumstances are set out in subsection (l)(a)(i) to (iv) and more particularly in subsection (l)(b)—the Minister may in effect grant prospecting rights over ground where the mineral rights are held by three people in the ratio of 40%: 40%: 20%. It is set out here that the only exclusion is where one of the people owns more than 50%. Therefore, if there are any number of people who do not meet that criterion, the Minister then has the right to grant prospecting rights to a mining company or to a prospecting company. It can readily be inferred by what is set out as the reasons for the granting of such rights that the Minister considers this to be a reasonable solution. I regard it as a fundamental infringement that the Minister should have the right to grant prospecting rights simply because of failure or refusal to enter into negotiations with a particular party. It seems to me to be one of the freedoms of the system in South Africa that you do not necessarily have to be forced to deal with one particular company which wishes to come and prospect to the exclusion of all others. The reasons set out in clause 4(l)(a)(i) to (iv) are readily understandable, but if the hon. the Minister has all those powers—where the person is not readily available or where he has not obtained cession under a testamentary disposition or where he refuses to enter into negotiations with any other person—I have already expressed my qualifications about that—or where unreasonable terms or provisions are demanded by the holder—then I cannot understand the necessity for the catch-all of clause 4(l)(b). I just want to repeat one point. You may have a subdivision among people which is reasonable and in regard to which there is agreement among the parties but because no one of the three parties owns more than 50%, that will now fall away.

I want to move on to clause 5. In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister said that the object of this clause was to prevent a small minority from holding out for ransom prices. We can certainly support that, but as it is drafted at present there is no definition as to what would constitute a small minority. The hon. the Minister has said that in all normal cases it will be of the order of 5% to 10%, but it is not set out in terms of this legislation. Then we are also worried about clause 5(4)(b) which says that in these circumstances the Government Mining Engineer will attempt to assess the price to be paid to those who hold out against presumably the majority interest. It also says that he will do so—

This is not an easy task and the hon. the Minister has had to devise some method of establishing the value to be paid. I can sympathize with him in the task which he has had. It has obviously been extraordinarily difficult to set out a procedure which will apply to all circumstances. There are clear dangers in such a measure because the Government Mining Engineer may perhaps be more conservative than some other people who might assess the value in a different way.

According to clause 5(5)(a) the Secretary shall dispose of the amount deposited with him in terms of subsection (4) in respect of the cession of any undivided share in the following manner, namely—“if such share was subject to a registered mortgage bond, the amount of the mortgage debt still outstanding shall be paid to the mortgagee”. One can understand that in one sense, but I want to ask the hon. the Minister what is going to happen if in fact the funds that are realized are not sufficient for that purpose.

As I say, it is important to strike a balance between the rights of the individual and those of mining and prospecting companies. I suspect that to a large extent clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5 have arisen from the fact that they would greatly facilitate matters administratively and would save considerable time and effort which would otherwise be spent on searching through the various sources of information in order to seek out and establish who the owners of the various mineral rights are and also to attempt to reach an agreement with them. I have sympathy, too, for the mining and prospecting companies because they put up the money and take the initial risk. However, as set out in clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5, the price which is asked and which will be paid by the individuals through the interference with their normal freedom of action, is such that in so far as those clauses are concerned, we on these benches cannot support this measure.

Happily, clause 6 is a clause which we can support with the amendments proposed by the hon. the Minister, amendments which are now on the Order Paper. As he has said, it has been devised to deal with the position of strip mining. At present there is only one large-scale strip mine in South Africa. I suspect that this clause is primarily, indeed totally, directed at the strip mining of coal. Clearly strip mining is going to increase in importance in South Africa in the years to come. It embodies great advantages for this country primarily because it will permit the mining of as much as 90% of the coal by such methods whereas under present conventional methods it is sometimes only possible to get 15% of the coal out and probably in more normal cases only 30%. Coal obtained by conventional methods would supply only one of Escom’s power stations, whereas if the strip mining method is used, it would be possible to supply three such stations.

It has other advantages too. It tends to be more productive and more capital intensive. It also has one further advantage, namely that by this method you can mine within 15 metres of the surface, something which cannot be done with normal mining methods. There is a great deal of coal within that level of the surface in South Africa. Calculations have been done to determine the area that has potential for strip mining in this country because, obviously, this is of concern not only to the mining industry but, indeed to the farming community as well. The conculations show that a very small area will be concerned if one considers the size of the surface area of South Africa. Looking at it optimistically from a mining point of view, it will probably be possible to work 0,42 million ha in South Africa by the strip mining method. That compares with a total area of the order of 2¾ million ha but it should also be seen against the figure given in the last financial yearbook for our country where the area under acreage is given as some 12½ million ha. I think too that this clause gives adequate safeguards to the farming community. It will be noted from the amendment of the hon. the Minister that it is proposed that a guarantee should be posted by the mining companies to protect the farmer against any possible damage up to a maximum of the total value involved. This is important too because strip mining is a continuous process in the literal sense and if mining companies are going to bring in very heavy machinery and expend the huge sums of money that will be involved, it is important that there should not be circumstances where they could unreasonably be compelled to suspend their mining operations. This factor and the interests of the farmer are covered by the arbitration clauses taken in conjunction with the amendments proposed by the hon. the Minister of Mines.

I just want to repeat that we can understand the reasoning behind this Bill, the increased administrative efficiency it will bring and the cut-back or reduction of effort that will be involved in checking out the owners of mineral rights. This process will be reinforced by the prohibition in regard to the future. However, I should also like to repeat that, as we see it now, we think that the price which is being asked of individuals in South Africa to permit of that increased administrative efficiency primarily for the benefit of mining and prospecting companies, is too high.

Mr. Speaker, I attempted to listen attentively to the hon. member for Johannesburg North I must admit, in all honesty, that some of his arguments amazed me. We know that the party of which he is a member, always takes up its stand on the so-called inalienable right of the individual. I am inclined to deduce from the argument of the hon. member for Johannesburg North, that his opposition and his party’s opposition to this legislation arises primarily out of that consideration. However, I think that in this country of ours it is necessary for us to try and preserve a happy medium between the interests of the individual, or the supposed interests of the individual, and the interests of the community. I think, too, that in this specific instance we are dealing with, where we do not have a clash between the interests of the individual and those of the community, but where there is a clash of interests between different individuals, we shall attempt to look at this Bill objectively.

Looking at clause 2, we see that the primary aim of this clause is to prevent the further fragmentation and subdivision of the mineral rights where they are separated from the ownership of the land in question. This will only occur in those cases where a further subdivision or a further fragmentation will impede the proper exploitation of minerals in the future. I am inclined to deduce from the hon. member’s speech, that it was his standpoint that the Minister will summarily disallow any further subdivisions. I want to suggest that the hon. member’s deduction in this regard is totally wrong. In terms of subsection (3) of clause 2 the Minister in question is obliged to exercise his discretion. When we look at this provision, we see that it specifically states that the Minister may, after consideration, refuse it—

In other words, in this instance it is not the intention of the legislator to impose a blanket ban on all further subdivisions. If that had been the intention, then the legislation would surely have stated this. This legislation requires the permission of the hon. the Minister for further subdivision. The hon. the Minister may refuse that permission once he has exercised his discretion and is of the opinion that it would materially hamper the future exploitation of the mineral rights in question.

Another difficulty raised by the hon. member was in respect of clause 3, concerning the inheriting of mineral rights. This legislation supposedly interferes with the free right of the individual to do what he wants with his property. I want to suggest that we are not dealing with anything unusual here. In the legislation concerning the subdivision of agricultural land we have an almost identical section in terms of which the State reserves the right to prohibit the further subdivision of agricultural land if it is in the interests of the community to do so. Likewise, the State has a material interest in its being able to prohibit unsuitable further subdivision of mineral rights, if it is in the interests of the community to prohibit it. As regards the hon. gentleman’s specific problem, namely that the executor could be faced by the difficult task of realizing the mineral rights in some cases, I want to concede to him that this is a real problem, because determining the value of mineral rights is not always so easy. The hon. the Minister’s permission is only a requirement where an application is made for the actual registration of a subdivision. It is a practical possibility that where one is dealing with an estate and the executor is experiencing problems in obtaining the co-operation of the various heirs in order to effect a joint settlement among them, those mineral rights will remain under the name of the estate and no further subdivision will take place. It is possible that the executor could choose the long way to bring about proper order in this regard.

A further problem raised by the hon. gentleman concerned the right of the individual. I refer in particular to clause 4(l)(a)(iv), in which the hon. the Minister is given the power to permit prospecting where one of the holders of the mineral rights demands unreasonable compensation. There are other cases where that particular holder cannot be traced or where he has not obtained a cession. The objection of the hon. member for Johannesburg North is that we are here interfering with the so-called sacred rights of the individual. This may be so, but the converse is also true. I want to illustrate this to you by means of an example. If there are ten owners of mineral rights who together own 99,9% of those mineral rights, and there is one owner holding 0,1% of the mineral rights, then the legal position as it stands today is that that one owner of a small insignificant part, can by acting unreasonably render the rights of the other holders totally valueless. The hon. gentleman pleads for the protection of the rights of the individual. As our law stands at present, one individual has the power to render valueless, through his unreasonable actions, the real interests of a whole group of other individuals. I really do not believe that if one supposedly feels so strongly about the rights of the individual, one should give a single unreasonable individual the absolute right to render the rights of other individuals valueless to them through his unreasonable action.

I think that this Bill as a whole meets a long-felt need felt by those of us who have dealt with this in practice and who have had to contend with many problems in this regard. We can only welcome the introduction of this Bill. We have had cases in practice where large companies—I refer now to the Eastern Highveld of the Transvaal—duly established, after having carried out prospecting operations, the existence of extensive coal deposits, but it became virtually impossible to determine who the owners of the mineral rights in question were in the area concerned, with the result that they had to give up and, for all practical purposes, those valuable minerals have become valueless to our country. In my opinion this Bill meets a real need of our community and is in the interests of the country as a whole.

However, I want to confine myself specifically to the provisions of clause 6 and I want to thank the hon. the Minister and his department for the assistance provided in this regard to the farmers of our country. It is to be understood that when this branch of our law was developing and our country was still wide open and agricultural land was plentiful, the rights of the owner of the mineral rights received preference over the rights of the owner of the surface, and the position in our law as it stands at present is that the owner of the surface, unless he has specific arrangements with the holder of the mineral rights or the exploiters of those mineral rights, is in fact defenceless against the exploiter of those mineral rights, and the holder of the mineral rights could interfere without hindrance in—I do not want to say encroach upon, although in fact he could encroach upon—the utilization of the surface by the farmer, and in fact the farmer was powerless against him. In clause 6 this Bill takes a small step in the right direction in cases where the scope of such encroachment on the farmer’s rights is such that it threatens his farming enterprise or makes it uneconomic. In that case the exploiter of the mineral rights is obliged to purchase that property as a whole, including the surface. This is a material alteration of the existing law and in fact I am amazed that the hon. member for Johannesburg North did not object to this, because in the past we had to do with people who acquired real mineral rights, and in terms of the Act as it reads at present, they have real rights which they can exercise. By means of clause 6 we are now materially interfering with those rights of the individual, again in the common interest. But apparently the hon. member has no objection to this.

In conclusion, I want to repeat that I believe that the mining industry in South Africa and the farming community in South Africa are satisfied with the provisions of this Bill. I am convinced of this in spite of the misgivings of the hon. member for Rosettenville concerning delays and legal problems that may arise, and I want to express the conviction that this Bill eliminates an absolute deadlock in many cases. This Bill is drafted in such a way that I cannot believe any possibility of misunderstanding as regards the intention of the legislator exists. In conclusion I can say that if the hon. member for Rosettenville has had difficulty in understanding what the legislation means, it reminds me of what my professor in Constitutional Law taught us at university when he said on one occasion: “You must not say a thing in such a way that everyone can understand you; to do so is impossible, but you must try to say something in such a way that no one can misunderstand you.”

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the argument of the hon. member for Rosettenville when he said that negotiations could continue for months and months. At present the situation is, as it has been clearly outlined by the hon. the Minister, that negotiations can continue ad infinitum. If they can be conducted for months and months it would be much easier than to carry on ad infinitum.

*I want to testify, from personal experience that I gained in Transvaal in regard to this matter, that the present position gives rise to impossible situations with the result that no progress can be made. One can argue until one is blue in the face, but one simply gets nowhere. Time and again one reaches a deadlock and this leads to stagnation. The hon. member for Johannesburg North mentioned the rights of the individual, but there are situations where the individual does not, in fact, exist. The hon. member is concerned about the rights of an individual who does not exist and I am therefore unable to grasp his argument. It seems to me as if he is engaged in scoring political points off someone. I can mention a number of situations similar to the fine picture drawn by the hon. member for Klerksdorp. Owing to bequests to 12 or 15 children, as has often occurred in the past, since at that time people had large families, a farm was divided into small plots. Because each had to have a share in the stream running across the farm, the land was divided in such a way that each plot bordered on the stream. Thus it occurred that there was sometimes a piece of land comprising 2 ha, suitable for leading water, while at the same time there was a larger piece of land in the hinterland on a slope, which was intended for grazing. Such a strip of land could comprise 15 or 20 ha with the breadth of a road, say 60 metres broad. Subdivision of surface and mineral rights in this way gave rise to a situation that could only be described as ridiculous. Then, when the question of mining activities arose, the situation had to be clarified, but when this occurred it was often found that the heirs were scattered across the world. It is situations of this kind that now have to be solved by means of this legislation.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North was also concerned about the powers given to the Minister. However, these are not unlimited powers, because in all the clauses the circumstances under which the Minister may act are clearly stated. There is a degree of limitation. If the hon. member considers the position with regard to coal in the United Kingdom, he will find that in England, for example there are coal fields that cannot be exploited for this very reason, viz. subdivided pieces of land. The British people are eager for that coal to be exploited and in the light of the existing energy crisis the necessity for exploitation is so much the greater. The stagnation in the development of coal fields in England was one of the major causes for the later nationalization of the coal mining industry. Does the hon. member want us to nationalize the mining industry in South Africa? That is what we are heading for under the existing dispensation. I challenge him to say whether he wants our coalmining industry, too, to be nationalized as has been done in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful for the discussion we have had here. In my opinion it was a very good discussion. It is very clear, with the exception of certain members of the Progressive Party, there is overall support in the House for this Bill. Then, too, I want to thank the official Opposition for their support of this Bill which was expressed by the hon. member for Rosettenville. I can inform the House that the Department of Mines has worked on this matter for more than two years. This penetrating and, in my opinion, important Bill was not lightly brought before this House.

I should like to reply to certain points raised in the course of the debate. In the first place I want to refer to what the hon. member for Rosettenville said in regard to “legal wrangles”, etc. It is quite possible, and we have this from our legal advisers, that as the hon. member for Rosettenville states, lengthy litigation may occur. We are not closing our eyes to this. But at the moment it is a fact that we have no power to permit the further fragmentation of mineral rights and prospecting rights where we are contending with real wilfulness or real inability to act. This prejudices the country on a very large scale. We do not want to interfere with the basic rights of any person with regard to mineral rights. This Bill definitely does not do so, as the hon. member for Klerksdorp and the hon. member for Barberton have already indicated in a very outstanding way. They replied very effectively to the hon. member for Johannesburg North. If, therefore, a choice has to be made, because we do not want to interfere with the basic rights of people nor with their right to go to the courts, between the possibility of litigation on the one hand and, on the other hand, the position that exists at present where the country’s interests are not properly served, I as the Minister responsible have no choice, if there is going to be lengthy litigation, but to face that position and try to solve it to the best of our ability. I can therefore give no assurance that there will be no litigation. In fact, it is quite possible that there will be. For me to give the assurance that there will be no litigation would result in my interfering with the basic rights of holders of mineral rights by withholding from them the right to go to court if they are of opinion that they are justified in doing so. I am not prepared to do this. In my opinion this is at the same time a very effective reply to the arguments raised here by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. We definitely do not envisage interfering with the basic rights of people by means of this Bill. All that we envisage here is finding a workable formula in an attempt to combat the unnecessary infinitesimal fragmentation of mineral rights. In addition, it enables us to allocate prospecting rights to persons in cases where one individual is being really wilful and, as the hon. member for Klerksdorp indicated, the rights of other holders of mineral rights are seriously affected in the process.

The hon. member for Rosettenville also raised another extremely important point here, namely that particularly where strip-mining is practised, mining companies should be compelled to leave the land in a decent condition after strip-mining has been practised there. This is a very important point. But surely it is a known fact that our mining companies and the Chamber of Mines, do go out of their way to regulate their activities in this way. Just as in Germany and in other countries, they try to leave the area where they have mined in a better condition than they found it. For example, I refer to what the Chamber of Mines has already achieved on the Witwatersrand with regard to the covering of old mine dumps with vegetation. This is a very difficult process. Consequently we must not simply look at the negative side or be blinded by it; we must also see the positive side in this regard. I can inform the House that the Chamber of Mines is engaged in intensive research aimed at practising strip-mining in such a way that after the mining activities have been completed, the landscape will be better than it had been before the commencement of these activities, in an even better condition than similar areas in Germany and in other countries. The Chamber of Mines is engaged in drafting a code in this regard in co-operation with the Department of Mines. On 27 February all these interested parties are to visit the Arnot Power Station to see how effectively reclamation can be done in an area where strip-mining is already practised.

Lastly, I want to say that my department and I have given this matter our earnest attention, viz. as to whether we should provide by means of legislation in what condition mining companies should leave land and how they should restore it after strip-mining has been practised. Of course the existing legislation already provides for this to a certain extent. However, having gone into this matter very thoroughly, it is the considered opinion of my department and myself that we should first give the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and the other bodies concerned a chance to prove to us what they are able to do in this regard without further legislation. As soon as we see that they are unable to do this as it should be done, we shall, without the slightest doubt, introduce legislation. We are therefore giving earnest attention to this whole matter.

I must make haste because I shall have to finish now. Because I think that the arguments raised by the hon. member for Johannesburg North have already been replied to very effectively, I do not want to deal with them in further detail now except to refer the hon. member to certain conditional provisions in clauses 2 and 4, etc. In these clauses the circumstances in which the Minister of Mines and his department can intervene with regard to the limitation of mineral rights and the allocation of prospecting rights, are clearly spelt out. The Minister and the department cannot simply limit or upset the rights of individuals. We definitely do not do this. I hope, therefore, that the hon. member will grasp the meaning of this legislation.

If there are further points to be made in this connection, we should like to do so in the Committee Stage, and as is my custom I shall give due consideration to any amendment in this regard from either side of the House. If it appears to be an improvement on this Bill, I shall give it very sympathetic consideration.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time (Progressive Party dissenting).