Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a short statement in connection with the aircraft crash in the Northern Transvaal today.

A pilot of No. 3 Squadron of the S.A. Air Force lost his life during an exercise north of Cullinan in the Northern Transvaal this morning. He was 29 year old Major F. W. C. Brits and is survived by his wife and seven year old son.

The accident occurred after he apparently watched a colleague, Captain A. Wasserman, who had ejected by means of his ejection seat after the engine of his Mirage F1 had a flameout in the air. Major Brits was apparently trying to ascertain where his colleague would land when his aircraft hit the ground. Both aircraft were damaged beyond repair. Captain Wasserman was not hurt. The Air Force appointed the usual board of inquiry to determine the cause of the crash.

Mr. Speaker, with your leave I should like to make another announcement of a more pleasant nature. It concerns the pay adjustments for national servicemen.

It has been decided to increase the pay of national servicemen with effect from 1 April 1979 from the present 33⅓% to 75% of the minimum notch of the pay of the corresponding ranks in the Permanent Force. This means that a national serviceman will in future receive R3,43 per day, or about R100 per month instead of R1,52 per day or R45 per month, as is the case at present. The pay of a national service corporal will increase from R2,85 to R6,41 per day—R192 per month.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, in the course of the Committee Stage various exchanges took place between the hon. the Minister and hon. members on this side of the House in regard to what we conceived to be certain improvements and better definitions of terms in the Bill. The hon. the Minister invited us to submit suggestions of how these improvements might be effected.

These improvements relate mainly to subsection (3) of section 1 of the Act, as proposed in clause 1 of the Bill. It has the effect of removing the exemption of certain persons from the application of the legislation. In the course of his addresses the hon. the Minister indicated—during the Committee Stage—that he had no objection to this improvement being made. The other improvements relate to the last subsection and aim at a better definition of the manner in which the funds provided for by this amending legislation should be disposed of—in other words, for what purpose the money should be applied.

If these two amendments are acceptable in the sense in which they are offered—not necessarily the precise words—we will have no further objection to the Third Reading of the Bill and will give it our support.

Mr. Speaker, on my return to my farm after a Parliamentary session a few years ago, I found my neighbour there. He asked me whether he might gather a load of firewood there. I said to him: “Yes, certainly. I am glad to do that for a good neighbour”. He replied: “Yes, thank you. I have already done so”.

In that spirit of good neighbourliness we are giving effect to this Bill today, as the hon. the Minister requested. He requested it so that he could do his work, and do it well. For that reason I should also like to call upon the hon. Opposition for their support—and with the hon. member for Constantia as their spokesman, they have already indicated that they would support the Third Reading—and also react, because I regard it as essential to do so, to some of the objections which the hon. Opposition has raised to this Bill. It has now become more imperative than ever before that we should have legislation of this nature, particularly in the light of existing circumstances in the world and the prevailing uncertainty. It is vital for us, in times like these, to be absolutely self-sufficient. This legislation affords the hon. Minister and his department the opportunity of planning more efficiently and of taking steps according to the changing circumstances. The creation of capital for this purpose from our own resources, has obviously become absolutely essential. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to make a few brief comments regarding this matter, particularly since it was also raised during the Second Reading debate. I believe it is perhaps not quite clear which standpoint I adopted with regard to this matter, particularly in the light of certain remarks made by the hon. member for Parktown. I stated that I was opposed to foreign capital being utilized for strategic projects in South Africa. I am well aware that it has been common practice in the past and is still being practised today and I also believe that we sometimes have no option, but we cannot get away from the fact that in the light of the enmity of the outside world, this puts us in a very vulnerable position, particularly when it comes to strategic projects.

The hon. member for Parktown mentioned, inter alia, the example of Escom and I just want to make a few remarks about that briefly. Personally I think the fact that we were able to finance Escom with foreign capital in the past was a big mistake. I think one should bear in mind that when capital became scarce in the past few years, Escom was virtually forced to meet its own capital requirements. That caused an exceptional increase in tariffs and was certainly not in the interest of the consumer in South Africa. The same principle applies to other strategic projects as well. For those reasons we welcome this Bill which further extends the principle of self-sufficiency. In the objections which the Opposition raised against this Bill, or in the reservations which they expressed, they are following the same pattern which the Opposition has followed over many years with regard to other important legislation. Once again they are objecting to the powers of the hon. Minister, to the method of financing, to the auditing of the Equilization Fund and to the restriction on the utilization of the Fund. This is also reflected in the amendment moved here this afternoon.

I think the official Opposition must realize that we are living in abnormal times and we must make allowances for that. I call on them—I believe they will do so—to afford the hon. Minister the opportunity of doing his job, of doing it well and to enable him to act efficiently, particularly in times of difficulty and crisis. I ask them, too, to accept the principles of self-financing and of creating one’s own capital from the sources which benefit by one’s doing so. I also ask them to forget about the normal market mechanism solving the problem. The regulation of the market mechanism to the benefit of all, is not only essential but is indeed, as far as strategic matters are concerned, the responsibility of the Government, not in order to undermine free enterprise, but in fact to protect it.

The objections raised by the hon. Opposition to the private auditing of the Equalization Fund is not only—I am inclined to say and I am sorry to have to say it—a sickly effort on the part of the Opposition, particularly if one studies the Press on this matter—to sow suspicion about the handling of public money …

You were bad yesterday, but now you are terrible.

… but it also stands as a serious charge against the integrity, the credibility and the professional code of ethics of the auditing profession. That is what this charge levelled by the Opposition amounts to. The Equalization Fund is surely not a departmental public fund to be audited by the Auditor-General; the Equalization Fund is clearly a corporative fund to be treated like other corporative funds.

I still believe this was a serious charge against the integrity of a very respected profession. The reservations about the utilization of the fund and the attempts at curtailing it are also to a large extent ridiculous, for this Bill not only restricts the utilization of these funds of its own accord, but as the hon. member for Verwoerdburg and the hon. the Minister have already pointed out, the utilization of the fund is also regulated by the provisions of the Companies Act. Therefore that argument falls away too. [Interjections.]

†To the hon. member who keeps on making interjections in the background, I want to say that if they come to Parliament merely to put up a show for the Press and not to assist in securing good and proper legislation, they should at least see that their facts are correct.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to indicate that, as I said at the Committee Stage, I was prepared to accept two principles in respect of the legislation. The first refers to the proposed clause 1A and deals with the exemption or otherwise, in part or full, of specific consumers. I want to make it clear that it is the product which is being taxed or not taxed and not the particular consumer. I shall formulate an amendment to that effect and move it in the Other Place. The hon. member for Constantia has sent me such a proposed formula by letter, but I have not yet had the opportunity of studying it. I shall consider his proposal, for in principle I agree with the concept that it embodies. I shall move an appropriate amendment in the Other Place. Next I come to the provision in the proposed section 1A(4)(a)(ii) which refers to an instruction which can be given by the Minister of Economic Affairs, with the agreement of the Minister of Finance, regarding the utilization of the fund for purposes other than specifically the equalization of the price of fuel products. Such an instruction must have a bearing on the acquisition, distribution, sales, etc., of crude oil. In this regard I also intend moving a relevant amendment in the Other Place. Once again I cannot comment on the specific suggestion, its wording or formulation, but I shall consider it in the meantime.

Since yesterday I have made significant progress in the sense that even the improved method is now acceptable to the Opposition. That shows once again what a sound persuasiveness on the one hand and sound insight on the other can do when combined.

With reference to that which the hon. member for Newcastle said, I just want to say that he replied to many of the Opposition’s arguments and also refuted some of them. But it is in my opinion still necessary for me to adopt a standpoint on one particular aspect which he raised. In this regard I have in mind the question of foreign capital. There is no doubt that foreign capital and the concomitant expertise have made a major contribution to the economic development of South Africa. In this regard there is not the slightest doubt that South Africa constitutes an important investment area for capital-strong countries. I believe it is our duty to ensure stability in our own country now and in the future so that our country will still be a safe investment area for other countries in future.

The fact remains that in various respects South Africa, with its limited resources, will not be able to carry out all the necessary research or possess the necessary technological development if we do not avail ourselves of foreign achievements or endeavours. In this regard it is as well that we in South Africa should keep our doors open to investments by other countries. I am one of those people who generally believe that the fewer obstacles we place in the way of the flow of goods, services, and capital between countries, the more we will be able to bring prosperity to larger sections of populations throughout the world, and also more specifically here in South Africa and in Africa itself. I believe South Africa would be mistaken to follow a course of isolation in this regard. On the contrary, I believe if we have a role to play, we must break down the walls of isolation and not build them.

In this regard I want to associate myself with the statement of the hon. member for Newcastle to the effect that it was important for us to ensure that the ratio between our capital and debts should in respect of all enterprises remain realistic. As far as Escom is concerned, it is essential for us to realize that since one cannot run a concern of that nature on borrowed capital alone, one has to have one’s own capital-generating elements in one’s capital structures.

I conclude by saying that in the spirit of the debate, I shall move the amendments in the Other Place. It gives me pleasure to express my gratitude to hon. members for their support in this regard.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very short Bill and contains almost nothing of a technical nature. So I assume you will allow at least one speaker from each party to speak briefly on the principal contained in it A system of government which perpetuates in its machinery the fixed and continued domination of one group over another cannot be supported. A system of government which excludes millions of Black South Africans from participating in the main body politic cannot be supported. We can therefore not support this measure, which is merely the precursor to a new constitution containing what I believe are those two major defects. We do not wish to support legislation the main stated purpose of which is to extend temporarily the life of the Senate prior to its projected abolition.

I want to refer very briefly to the attitude of the NRP towards this Bill. It is easy to see why the New Republic Party supports the Government on this Bill. A speech made yesterday, very much tongue in cheek, by the hon. member for …

Order! This has nothing to do with the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I have said at the very outset of my speech that there is very little of a technical nature in this Bill. At that particular moment I noticed that your attention was diverted elsewhere and I assumed that you had assented to my point that it is customary to allow one speaker of each party to discuss briefly the principle of the Bill. This has always been allowed in the past.

Such discussion must still be relevant to the Bill.

I believe that the arguments of the NRP were not true to the principles of that party. I do not wish to quarrel with the NRP, but I think the argument was purely based on self-interest, in that the extension of the life of the Senate in its present form will ensure that the NRP have far more members in the Senate than it would be entitled to if an election was held. The hon. member for Durban Central argued today that since 1974, and in the lifespan of the present Senate “the hon. member for Sandton also fell into the lap of the PFP cause like a ball of manna from heaven”. The hon. member for Mooi River has come to this House on occasion with spherical objects to explain their policy …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause. The only relevant point in this clause is whether the date should be 30 June or not.

Mr. Chairman, I believe 30 June is the wrong date. In reply to the argument of the NRP, I think it is better to be a ball of manna than to have a policy which is all manner of balls. Mr. Chairman, I cannot see …

Order! I cannot see how this “balls” argument is relevant to the clause.

Mr. Chairman, if you … [Interjections.] … bounce me, I shall sit down. [Interjections.] Sir, we cannot support the Government’s argument. I do not believe that any satisfactory arguments, in rebuttal of what we offered as objections, were put forward by the hon. the Minister. The extension of the term of office of the Senate, in this manner, denies the official Opposition its proper representation at a time of great significance and constitutional change. I believe that the proposed amendment, notice of which was given yesterday by the hon. the Minister, but which has not yet been moved, exacerbates the situation and stretches to 19 months the period in which this artificial situation will prevail. We believe that the sessions of Parliament which are to discuss the new constitution are going to be very important, and we believe therefore that the official Opposition should be properly represented. We consequently believe that by extending the life of the Senate, as is envisaged at present, such representation would be denied to the official Opposition. We therefore cannot support this clause or the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted, I should like to reply on behalf of the hon. member who is not present at the moment—the hon. member for Durban Central—who had the felicity of referring to that hon. member as “a ball of manna”. I think that I, as a person who has probably brought more balls into this House than any other member … [Interjections.] … can fairly say that in the position in which we find ourselves, the objection of the official Opposition to the present dispensation in the Other Place arises from the fact that if there were to be a reconstitution of the Senate, they would have more representation in that House. I think this is a case of the ball being on the other foot, if I may coin a phrase, because it would appear to me that there is a fixed idea in the minds of certain members of the Press that such a situation would create, for hon. members on my right, the position of official Opposition in the Senate. This is, however, not so, and I rise merely to bring to the attention of people concerned with reporting proceedings in this House accurately and fairly, that it was quite clearly stated yesterday that this is not so and would not be so, and I hope people will take notice of that fact.

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

As I intimated yesterday, I was thinking of moving this amendment I said yesterday that this would be done because the Government should have ample time to obtain the points of view of all interested parties and to give thorough consideration to the legislation with regard to the new constitutional dispensation which we propose bringing before this House at some stage. Another argument is involved as well. It may—I am not saying it “will”— give rise to consequential legislation to which we should also like to give thorough consideration. For this reason we believe, on the basis of our present projection, that we need time up to 31 December next year. I do not believe any new arguments have been advanced today, nor do I believe that hon. members on the opposite side expect me to elaborate on the matter.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a few questions, to which I hope he will respond. He has moved an amendment extending the life of the Senate even further, i.e. from 30 June to 31 December 1980. I think it is required of the hon. the Minister to take us into his confidence and to motivate more fully the reason for this proposed further extension. I cannot see the value of the amendment Parliament is not ordinarily in session between June and December of any year.

“Ordinarily” is the key word.

I think the sort of veiled statements across the floor should be made clearer. I should like to ask a clear question: Does this new extension augur that it is the intention of the Government to hold a special session in 1980 after the close of the parliamentary session for that year? Is that the Government’s purpose in proposing this amendment? If that is the case, why does the Government intend holding this session? Will the Government’s constitutional proposals not be finalized by the end of June 1980? Is it the intention of the Government or does the Government think that the finalization of those proposals may drag on beyond June 1980 right through to December of that year? I believe that the answers to these questions are very relevant to the attitude of the Opposition on these matters. I do not think that at the present time the further extension has in fact been properly motivated at all.

Mr. Chairman, my answer to the hon. member is that if I could have foreseen exactly the course of events this year and next year, I would certainly not have evaded him, but would have given him specific answers. As I have already said, we wish to give careful attention to the legislation and all representations. We are asking for further postponement only as a precautionary measure. We could be compelled by circumstances to convene a special session for some reason. However, I cannot hold out the prospect of that at this stage. As I have already said, we are requesting this further postponement merely as a precautionary measure, to ensure that we are not forced into precipitate action for some reason by the early expiry of the term of the Senate.

Mr. Chairman, with reference to the amendment which the hon. the Minister has now moved, I wish to ask him how he can say with certainty that all the changes which the Government has in mind will be completed by the end of next year.

He cannot.

What assurance can he give us that he will not come to Parliament once again before December 1980 to ask for a further extension? [Interjections.] If that possibility exists, I wish to ask him what good reason exists for not having the Senate reconstituted in the normal way under the provisions of the Constitution.

The hon. member for Sandton outlined the standpoint of this side of the House and in amplification I wish to underline a few aspects briefly. We cannot support the clause—especially in view of the amendment which the hon. the Minister has now moved. I just wish to give a few reasons why we cannot support it. The first is that the hon. the Minister did not even give one good reason why the life of the Senate should be extended and why—he did not even refer to it—the Senate cannot be re-elected and reconstituted in the usual way when the term of office of that body expires in May of this year. Can he explain that to us? The Parliament will be in session in May. We see no reason why the provisions of the Constitution should not be implemented and the Senate be reconstituted at its appointed time in accordance with the prescribed rules. During yesterday’s discussion all types of calculations were made about how much the one party would gain by it and how much the other party would lose by it. It is obvious that one would work out particulars of this kind.

Order! The hon. member must not deliver a Second Reading speech again.

Mr. Chairman, you will agree with me that there is unfortunately only one clause in this Bill. I can therefore only speak about that one clause and the effect it will have.

Order! No, the hon. member can discuss its effect at the Third Reading. The hon. member may now only discuss the particulars of the clause.

That is not the basis on which we should deal with the specific provisions of the Constitution. In our system political parties have certain rights. However, the Senate does not only consist of political parties; it also represents the interests of the provinces and also consists of individuals. Just as there are individuals in the Senate who wish to stay on as members, there are individuals outside the Senate who have the constitutional right to stand as candidates for the Senate. We are not really concerned here with the extension of the life of the Senate—the Senate still exists—but what the hon. the Minister is asking of us is that the period of service of politicians, of Senators, be extended, without his being able to give one good reason why this should be so. The extension of the life of the Senate is not at issue at all, because the Senate will continue to exist in order to help with any reforms which the Government envisages for the future. By extending the term of service of the Senators, individuals are in actual fact being deprived of their rights. Yesterday the hon. the Minister said that a precedent had been created in this regard in 1939. I just wish to point out to him the fact that it was not a precedent, because in 1939, due to circumstances, there was a purely technical reason …

Order! The hon. member is going too far.

The ruling rests with you, Mr. Chairman. However, I am using just a few minutes to discuss this one clause of the Bill. I wish to say to you in all friendliness that when a Bill consists of one clause, that whole clause should be discussed in the Committee Stage and again at the Third Reading. That has always been the custom in Parliament.

The hon. member must not question my friendliness, because I wish to be friendly. [Interjections.]

You look friendly enough.

However, Standing Order No. 63 provides that—

The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with you. However, I wish to say that the particulars in question are also the principle because there is only one clause. [Interjections.]

The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. I just wish to discuss a few more aspects. The only reason which the hon. the Minister advanced yesterday for this clause was that he wished to abolish the Senate at some future stage. In other words, when he now asks us to vote for this clause, it means that we are to commit ourselves in advance to the Government’s intention to abolish the Senate.

Order! The hon. member is going too far. The hon. member may discuss that in the Third Reading if he wishes to.

We are in any case opposed to it Our party is in favour of a bicameral Parliament.

In conclusion I wish to ask the hon. the Minister a question. If his proposed amendment is accepted, what assurances can the hon. the Minister give us that there will in fact be an election after December 1980 if the Senate still exists at that stage? The uncertainty which the hon. the Minister displays in this matter disturbs us and gives us the feeling that he will request a further extension and that he will be able to advance even fewer reasons for not following the normal procedure and allowing the Senators to be re-elected.

Is the hon. member saying that I shall again request an extension?

I fear that the hon. the Minister will perhaps again request an extension unless he can give us the assurance now that it will not happen.

Mr. Chairman, I now wish to inform the hon. member for Bezuidenhout quite frankly of my inability to give him a good reason. The hon. member’s view on this matter is so subjective that I shall not be able to advance a reason which he will regard as a good one.

Try!

Therefore I shall not make any further attempt to give him a “good” reason. Then, of course, I am not prepared either to give him the assurance that I shall not come again with a request for extension. All I can say is that the request which I have now made to the House is a request for such a reasonable extension of the life of the Senate that I regard it as highly unlikely that I shall come with a further request for extension. Mr. Chairman, I am also in danger now of being ruled out of order, but I nevertheless wish to say that if a body has itself voted, with only one dissenting vote, for a Bill which affects it so directly, it is surely a democratic and reasonable step to abolish it.

Mr. Chairman, it is significant that the hon. the Minister is now saying that he cannot give us the assurance that December 1980 will be the last date to which he will want to extend it For that reason I wish to say to the hon. the Minister that if he cannot give us a good reason, a reason which will satisfy me, if he does not have that confidence … [Interjections.] No, I have respect for this hon. Minister. He has lately been making good speeches here. Can the hon. the Minister then give me any reason why the period of service of the Senators must be extended and why he does not wish to follow the normal procedure? Why can we not re-elect the Senate in May?

Mr. Chairman, a very good reason was given yesterday, but the hon. member for Bezuidenhout does not consider it a good reason. I think, however, that any objective person would regard it as a good reason. Nobody is being prejudiced, and that includes the official Opposition. It will not change the composition to such an extent that the official Opposition will again any significant advantage from it, in other words it does not make any difference whether the life of the existing Senate is extended or whether we choose a new Senate for the short period in which we still want a Senate.

Mr. Chairman, I think the committee should just devote a minute or two to examining and analysing the reason which the hon. the Minister gave a few minutes ago for the introduction of this clause. The hon. the Minister said that since the Senate with a single dissenting vote had already voted for this Bill, since the body which was being affected here had therefore voted in favour of the Bill, we as good democrats should at once go along with the decision of those people. But is that logical in any way? There are a number of hon. Senators in the Other Place who voted for the extension of their periods of service. How can it possibly be said that they are in a position to decide about it more objectively than we? In my opinion the thing is completely topsy-turvy. What would the hon. the Minister say, for example, if the members of the board of a company should decide just before the annual meeting of the company that they would all like to be re-elected? Is the annual meeting of the shareholders then no longer necessary?

It also concerns the abolition of the Senate.

What would happen if the controlling committee of the SPCA should decide just before the annual meeting of that organization that they are going to remain in power? Would that be a reason for not convening the annual meeting which has to choose those very members? I am merely mentioning that as an example of how weak the arguments in favour of this clause really are and why it should be opposed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise solely out of respect for the hon. member and to say to him that I honestly have nothing further to add, except that I wish to say that we should nevertheless understand clearly that the members of the Other Place not only voted for the extension of their period of service. They also voted for the extension of the life of the Senate in the knowledge that its lifetime was limited.

Mr. Chairman, none of the arguments used by the hon. the Minister and hon. members on that side of the House have persuaded us to change our attitude towards the Bill in any way.

Speak up, please.

Give me a chance. The main argument which the hon. the Minister used is the reason why we feel that his discretion should not be widened in the manner as suggested by him. His main argument is that the courts have now adopted a more lenient attitude towards sending a person to prison. That, in itself, should be an indication to the hon. the Minister that he should use the same approach by not taking the very traumatic decision of deporting a person from the Republic for having committed an offence. We should remember that we are dealing with persons here other than those who qualify by their birth or descent.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member discussing the right legislation?

Is the hon. member discussing clause 1 of the Admission of Persons to the Republic Regulation Amendment Bill?

Yes. I am discussing the principle of the legislation, as the first Opposition Speaker in a Committee Stage of legislation is entitled to do.

†The hon. the Minister has said that he will exercise discretion, but we feel that it is not good legislation when provision is made for discretion in a law on the Statute Book. Different people might have different attitudes towards using that particular discretion. I want to emphasize the fact that the decision which the hon. the Minister is about to take in this regard, would have a traumatic effect.

Order! The hon. member must refer to the principle of the Bill when we discuss clause 3. Clause 3 embodies the principle of the Bill and not clause 1. Therefore I shall allow the hon. member to refer to the broad principle of the Bill when we discuss clause 3.

Mr. Chairman, I have been led to understand that the first speaker in the Committee Stage of a Bill is entitled to deal with a little more than merely the principle embodied in the first clause. Be that as it may, what I want to say to the hon. the Minister in regard to clause 1 of the Bill is that in terms of the provisions of the Railways and Harbours Control and Management (Consolidation) Act, 1957, where he has broadened his scope in order to allow people of this category to be included as police officers, the relevant section provides for the inclusion of officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, constables and special constables that would normally be there. In addition to that, however, the provisions of that Act also provides for the inclusion of reservists and reserves of the S.A.R. Police. The hon. the Minister must tell me whether he intends including reservists and reserves of the S.A.R. & H. into the category of police officers. I shall not repeat the argument in regard to the next clause, because the same argument applies to their being appointed as passport control officers as well.

Reservists do not fall under the definition.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to this clause and I apologize to the hon. the Minister that I did not give him prior notice of it. I move it as follows—

The reason for moving this amendment is that we want to remain consistent in our argument and attitude towards this Bill as it affects people who have been sentenced to prison as opposed to people who have merely been convicted. It has been argued that section 44A was amended last year to bring in the question of conviction. It also dealt with the same question as this clause deals with, namely the question of contravention of currency exchange control. On the question of exchange control, I think the time has come for us not to throw up our hands in horror at the mere mention of the words “exchange control regulations and contraventions thereof’. I think it is very harsh to refer it as economic sabotage. Not every case relating to exchange control regulations amounts to economic sabotage. Economic sabotage would be very serious. If anything, this House now has the opportunity to soften its attitude towards exchange control, in keeping with the trends of what I believe should happen and what the Government’s attitude should be.

I advance two reasons for this. I understand that in Israel, in terms of recommendations made by that eminent economist, Milton Friedman, an Israeli citizen can take 3 000 Israeli pounds and invest it anywhere in the world. Persons who immigrate to Israel have no limit placed on them for the first ten years with regard to where they invest that money. Secondly, it breeds security and confidence in the country if one can have exchange control on the basis that money can be invested overseas and that one is not scared of money leaving the country. Thirdly, as far as our own attitude is concerned, I want to quote a very brief extract from the De Kock Commission’s report, the Commission which inquired into the monetary system and monetary policy in South Africa. The report says on page 22, paragraph 148—

Instead of hardening our attitude, we should therefore be softening our attitude towards exchange control, and I use this as the motivation for moving my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hillbrow has moved an amendment. But the amendment which he has moved is not amending the portion which stands to be amended in clause 3 of the Bill before the House. He proposes to amend the existing wording of section 13 of the principal Act. Section 13(f) of the existing Act reads—

This existing section is not being amended by the Bill before us. An addition to section 13(f) is being proposed by this clause. I do not know whether the hon. member is in order in moving an amendment to a portion of the existing Act that does not stand to be amended by this Bill.

Order! I have considered the amendment and am unable to accept it as it is not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I just want to restate very briefly the fact that the courts have softened and changed their attitude towards imprisonment and have adopted the attitude of keeping people out of prison, is the fact that should have influenced the hon. the Minister to adopt a more generous attitude towards this matter. I think the hon. the Minister is aware—in fact, I think he made mention of this in his Second Reading speech—that the powers vested in him to exercise his discretion in deporting a person who is in South Africa, other than a person who is here normally, of course, by virtue of birth or descent, are very wide-reaching and that his decision is a very grave one, one that could have a traumatic effect upon the person concerned and his family. He may have to go back to a country he has not been to for many years, a country in which he has no relations and in which he cannot establish himself again. This could lead to untold hardship. Since the Minister concerned would have such far-reaching powers, one would have to rely on a Minister of great compassion when it came to the exercising of such discretion. We would therefore rather advocate the narrowing down of that discretion and greater emphasis on prescribing what is laid down in the law as a clear policy. We therefore regret that we cannot support this clause.

Mr. Chairman, the argument raised by the hon. member for Hillbrow is that the fact that the courts have now used their discretion, and are no longer imposing prison sentences, means that the courts, in fact, regard the offences more leniently. That argument, however, is not a valid one. The only argument that is valid is that there has been a change of attitude in the penal system. The penal system is such that the courts do not regard a prison sentence as being a valid sentence for those particular crimes. The crimes, however, are regarded just as seriously. In fact, a crime can be even more serious than it was in the past, even though no prison sentence is imposed. The change of attitude on the penalty makes no difference whatsoever to the seriousness of the crime as such. That is the only reason why section 43 of the principal Act is being amended to allow the hon. the Minister to use his discretion in terms of “conviction” rather than “imprisonment”. The crime, however, remains just as serious. It could be even more serious. That is why I feel that the argument of the hon. member for Hillbrow is certainly invalid. I shall leave it to the hon. member for Namakwaland to deal with the official Opposition’s attitude towards the exchange control laws, because I think there is a serious flaw in the Opposition’s argument as far as those laws are concerned. I think we should view this in a serious light. They seem to think that the contravention of exchange control laws is just something to be overlooked.

Mr. Chairman, I rise, not essentially to participate in this debate, but just to make quite sure that that last highly reprehensible remark by the hon. member for Klip River does not go unchallenged. Nobody has said that for one second. What has been said repeatedly during this debate and on other occasions from these benches is that, if a nation can so order its affairs that it does not need to apply a system of exchange control, that is something that is desirable. This is evidenced by the United States, Switzerland, Germany—in fact, by the most financially successful nations in the world. Nobody in these benches has said for a second that anything less than a very serious view is to be taken of contraventions of exchange control regulations and for the hon. member to suggest the contrary is a reprehensible tactic of the worst kind.

Speak to the hon. member for Hillbrow.

Mr. Chairman, I can fully agree with what the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, said about the question of exchange control. We should all be only too glad if our country could be in a position where no exchange control is necessary at all. However, in the circumstances in which we and all the countries of Africa find ourselves at the moment, it would be unwise and stupid to have no exchange control. In these circumstances we say that it is economic sabotage to allow …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: As far as I know, we have disposed of clause 3 and are now dealing with clause 4. The hon. member is talking to clause 3 and the question of exchange control. We have dealt with that clause.

Order! Yes, the question of exchange control is disposed of.

Mr. Chairman, I was merely replying to the previous speaker.

The hon. member for Namaqualand may continue.

As far as clause 4 of the Bill is concerned, much fuss was made about the question of the discretion of the Minister. The main objection of hon. members opposite was that the discretion of the hon. the Minister was too wide. However, there are a few elements which limit the discretion of the Minister. In the first place, the Minister has to consider the circumstances in which the crime was committed. Surely it would be absurd to take technical circumstances into consideration. The Minister will be led by the actual and real circumstances in which the crime was committed. Section 23 of the principal Act specifically provides that within 14 days after the beginning of a session, the Minister has to table a list of names of all the people he removed from the country or whom he did not allow to enter the country. Moreover, the Minister even has to indicate in the list the reason why he removed someone from the country or would not allow him to enter the country. That is my submission.

In the course of the Second Reading debate the hon. member for Yeoville emphasized the point that the other side should also be heard. I agree with that He said—and I quote (Hansard, 14 February)—

However, that is exactly what section 43, as now amended by clause 4, means. It means, in effect, that the Minister has no discretion and no power before the court has returned a verdict. The court has to convict the person concerned in terms of section 43 before the hon. the Minister has any discretion at all. In other words, there can be no reason for objection on the grounds of the discretion of the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite remarkable what hon. members can do with an argument such as that it was alleged that the other side should be heard; it is quite remarkable to see the kind of dialectic gymnastics which can be indulged in in this House.

You are a past-master at it.

The argument of the hon. the member for Namaqualand was that, because the court has heard the other side, this requirement has been complied with. That is, however, the very essence of the argument As the section stands, if a person on conviction is not sentenced to a term of imprisonment, it means the court has actually decided that the person concerned should be left at large in the community, that there is no danger to the community in his being left at large and that there are no circumstances indicating that deterrent measures are required and that he must be put in prison. Having come to that conclusion, after hearing both sides, the hon. the Minister then has the right to decide without hearing the other side that he should not be left at large at all, but should be removed in toto from the Republic. To my mind it is certainly no argument to suggest that the other side has been heard when the hon. the Minister can come to the opposite conclusion to what a court has come in regard to the circumstances. This kind of gymnastics in respect of arguments do not really carry any weight or consequence.

There is another issue I want to raise with the hon. the Minister. If it is correct that the other side must always be heard, what then could be the objection if the hon. the Minister came on another occasion—he cannot do it now—with an amendment in terms of which he amended this provision by saying that the Minister would exercise this discretion after an opportunity was granted to the affected person to have representation? What possible objection could there be to such a situation? I find it remarkable that the hon. the Minister is on record as having said publicly in regard to the Information situation that one must hear the other side before one comes to a conclusion, even though the evidence was overwhelming, was on oath and indisputable, and yet in regard to a matter which concerns individuals fundamentally he has not been prepared to give such an undertaking.

The second point I want to come to concerns the question the hon. the Minister dealt with in his reply yesterday. He said that he gave an undertaking on a previous occasion that nobody would become stageless as a result of any such action. I respect and value such undertaking, because an impossible situation would arise if persons were to become stateless. However, what does it help an individual who, let us assume for a moment, has been in South Africa for 20 or 30 years and then suddenly finds himself being given Russian, German or any other nationality one cares to think of and being sent to a country of which he is a citizen, but which is certainly not his home and with which he has no connection whatsoever? One can find this provision applying not only to a person who has recently been naturalized, but also to a person who has been naturalized decades ago.

To apply this provision in those circumstances seems to me to be unjust in the extreme. We can look at this position quite realistically. Yesterday I asked the question, to which the hon. the Minister did not reply, why a man must be punished twice. Why must he suffer twice? In law, as the hon. the Minister well knows, we have a principle that a person should not be placed in jeopardy twice. However, in this case a person is not only placed in jeopardy twice, but can also be punished twice as a result of the action of the hon. the Minister in these circumstances. As I have said, I have had great difficulty with the hon. the Minister’s arguments yesterday. I respect his approach, but I regret to say that I find it to have very little substance.

I want to mention one last thing. There is a provision in the UK relating to disloyalty to the Queen which is equivalent to our crime of treason. When a person commits treason in the orthodox sense of the word, he has quite obviously forfeited his right to his nationality, whether he was born or naturalized in that country, because then he has acted contrary to the whole concept of the State as such. In those circumstances it is a different position to the position where a man is convicted of culpable homicide as a result of a motor accident in which somebody was killed, not through intent, but through negligence, and who can then theoretically—I know the hon. the Minister will not reply to this—be deprived of his nationality. That is the kind of thing that is being enshrined in this type of legislation. That is why in my view the provisions of clause 4, which enshrine what is in section 43 of the principal Act, are of a draconian nature and that is why this side of the House could not find itself voting for this clause in the form in which it is presented to us.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place, what the hon. member for Yeoville was really doing was advancing arguments against the whole principle of deportation. Deportation is a very old principle, not only in the legislation of South Africa, but in that of all civilized countries. Therefore I do not believe that the question of deportation as such is relevant. What I do ask for here, is that I should be able to deport in the case of additional circumstances, circumstances attendant on imprisonment. The hon. member for Yeoville said that I do not give the person subject to deportation a chance to make representations. Although this is not written into the legislation, I went to a great deal of trouble yesterday to explain to hon. members what happens in every case. What it amounts to in effect, is that I spend a lot of time and patience on representations by people. There are lawyers who specialize in this type of case. Endless patience is exercised. Deportations are postponed for weeks and in some cases even for months, not only to give the person concerned a chance to make representations or to give his legal representatives a chance to make representations, but to give all concerned, e.g. clergymen and others, a chance. Only after all those representations have been considered do I decide whether I will deport someone, whether the deportation order should be effected or not.

But you will not be there for ever!

No, but I will be followed by a Minister who is subject to parliamentary control to the same extent that I am, who can be questioned to the same extent on specific cases of deportation and who must give the same account of his stewardship. I am the last person in this country to lay down the law to judges. I do not want to lay down the law to them. Nor can I lay down the law to them. It is, however, a fact that judges are individuals with different approaches to meting out punishment.

Just like Ministers?

Just like Ministers. It is true that some judges tend to impose a large fine rather than imprisonment I have no fault to find with this, but I want to reserve the right to be able to exercise the right of deportation in cases of flagrant trespassing of the law after conviction with the imposition of a large fine and not necessarily imprisonment.

I regret that I cannot enlarge on my reasons for not accepting any amendments.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause 6:

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

1. (1) On page 6, in line 45, after “Act” to insert:
   , with the exception of section 16
2. (2) on page 6, in lines 48 and 49, to omit “Contravention of section 18 of the Price Control Act, 1964 (Act No. 25 of 1964).”;
3. (3) on page 6, in lines 50 and 51, to omit “Contravention of section 2 (1) of the Indecent or Obscene Photographic Matter Act, 1967 (Act No. 37 of 1967).”.

There are references to three existing Acts in this clause about which we feel unhappy, three Acts that were not mentioned in the original legislation. The first reference is that to the Immorality Act, 1957. As we have already indicated to the hon. the Minister we believe that the Immorality Act covers a very wide scope. It encompasses many facets of immorality. In my amendment I merely ask for section 16 of the Immorality Act not to be included in the proposed new schedule 1A. Section 16 of the said Act deals with relationships across the colour line. Regarding the rest of the provisions of the Immorality Act, for example those dealing with the keeping of brothels, with abduction, with procuring or with offences involving children under the age of 16 or with female idiots, as well as with living on the earnings of prostitution, etc., those are provisions against which we do not argue in this instance. Therefore, those provisions can remain applicable. We are only worried about section 16 because we believe the provisions of that specific section are blatantly discriminatory. While, in these circumstances, we should be moving away from discrimination, I submit that the hon. the Minister now has the opportunity of taking this bold step and of removing discrimination. That is why we have adopted this attitude towards the matter.

The other two Acts that I have referred to, and about which we do not feel happy, are the Price Control Act, 1964, and the Indecent or Obscene Photographic Matter Act, 1967. We are relieved about the statement by the hon. the Minister that he will only consider deporting someone who has really exploited innocent people. Of course, in the application of the Price Control Act many other facets come into play. It is not only concerned with illegal overpricing of merchandise, but also with reticence. We honestly do not believe that a businessman contravening the Price Control Act should be subjected to being deported from South Africa for an offence under this Act.

Finally, the same argument applies with regard to contraventions of the Indecent or Obscene Photographic Matter Act, especially when people entering South Africa from other countries are involved. For these reasons I have moved the amendment to clause 6.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to request your ruling in this matter. The hon. member’s first amendment concerns the re-insertion into the principal Act of the existing section 43(e). In other words, precisely the same provisions as those that are now affected by the first amendment of the hon. member for Hillbrow, are contained in the present section 43(e) of the principal Act. They are only being removed from section 43(e) and placed in the schedule. The Bill at present before the House, however, effects no further amendment thereto. Consequently I should like to have your ruling on the question whether the hon. member’s amendment is in order or not.

Order! I rule that the hon. member’s amendment is in fact in order since all the offences to which reference is made in section 43 of the principal Act, are shown in the Bill as if they constitute an entirely new amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate our attitude to the amendments moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow. The first one deals with the exclusion of section 16 of the Immorality Act. We will obviously support this amendment and I do not think I need to motivate that to any considerable extent. We are not inclined to support the second and third amendments of the hon. member, however. Yesterday the hon. the Minister made out a very good case indeed in relation to the second amendment when he said that he wished to have power to deport people who make an absolutely shocking abuse of their business opportunities, etc., to victimize the less privileged members of our community. I think anybody who has lived in a country area can tell you of cases where this has happened and where it has really become a public scandal that things like this can go on. On conviction I feel that the hon. the Minister should have some power to enable him to end something which is only doing race relations in this country the most terrible amount of harm. I therefore do support the hon. the Minister as far as that is concerned.

As regards the third amendment dealing with the Indecent or Obscene Photographic Matter Act I would like to think that this country can be proud of the fact that people who deliberately peddle pornographic material, should be subject to a penalty which is probably the most severe that can be applied. People who do this for mercenary gain and knowing that it is a contravention of the statutory laws of our country should have action taken against them, and I therefore support this provision very strongly.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to respond to what was said by the hon. member for Mooiriver. The argument used here is that, firstly, we are now dealing with a conviction and not with a sentence of imprisonment in terms of the principle which has been accepted in the previous clause. We are now placing into the hands of an hon. Minister of the Interior and Immigration the power to deport a person where he has committed an offence through having one obscene photograph in his possession, the court having found that the offence is not so serious that it should impose a sentence other than a small fine. The hon. the Minister is no longer interested in the findings of the court in regard to sentence. He is merely concerned with the fact that the person has been convicted. If a person is trading in pornographic material, that is a different matter. I am not arguing about that. However, the powers are so wide and the discretion so arbitrary that we think this is not a power which should be placed in the hands of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with the hon. member for Hillbrow. As I pointed out yesterday, section 43 of the Act imposes an obligation on the Minister to take note of the circumstances of the offence. I think that any reasonable interpretation of that wording—“the circumstance of such offence” must be that it is my bounden duty to take cognizance of the circumstances and the seriousness or otherwise of the offence. It is therefore totally inappropriate to say that I shall deport anyone who, for example, had a naughty photograph in his possession. There are offences which are serious under certain circumstances and not under other circumstances. Culpable homicide, for example, can be a serious offence under specific circumstances and not so serious under other circumstances. Similarly, there is a degree of seriousness in regard to the majority of crimes, which varies with the circumstances. However, there are crimes that must be included here to enable the Minister to act in cases of flagrant contraventions. Now it is true that in cases of price control one can have minor offences, but also extremely serious offences. The same also applies in the case of indecent photographic material.

As far as section 16 of the Immorality Act is concerned, I advanced the argument yesterday that basically this is not a new offence being inserted in this Act, but merely constitutes a formal transfer in schedule 1A. I also pointed out that I do not administer the Act and moreover that I am not prepared to conduct a discussion of the merit of the provisions of section 16 of the Immorality Act here. Hon. members of the Opposition certainly have a right to discuss the merits of section 16 of the Immorality Act when the time and opportunity present themselves, i.e. when the vote of the Minister who administers that Act is being discussed. I am not prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member in this regard.

Amendment (1) negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendments (2) and (3) negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, we shall support this Bill because we accept that there is in fact a deficiency in the principal Act. I say this with reference to a court case in which a certain Mr. Brink was involved. The court case is regarded as vague and confusing. The deficiency in this legislation appears on the basis of this court case, to be serious because the offence is punishable by imprisonment without the option of a fine. Therefore it is of vital importance that we word this measure carefully. It appears from the court case in which Brink was involved that he crossed the Botswana border and penetrated seven miles into the country to hunt game with his brother. The two came upon an eland bull and Brink’s brother shot the animal dead. All they left of the eland bull was the stomach contents, blood and the head. The two brothers were then charged before the magistrate. According to the charge-sheet in the magistrate’s court they left the country with the aim of going to a place outside the Republic of South Africa, of course without the necessary permits or passports. Their defence in court then asked for further details and their first question read as follows—

The public prosecutor’s reply read—

Brink’s defence then objected and maintained that the charge-sheet was vague and confusing. Unfortunately the magistrate reached the conclusion that he had to dismiss the complaint. Brink and his brother then appeared before the North Western division of the Supreme Court on appeal. This court case is reported on page 91 of the law reports. The word “place” was very important in this court case. The judge who presided over the case said the following—

The court then decided as follows in regard to that section—

Who appeared on behalf of the State—

The court found that—

This appeal therefore succeeded due to the deficiency in the Act Because this is a very important provision, we shall support it. This case came before the Northern Cape Division of the Supreme Court in 1970. We are now in 1979 and I want to ask the hon. the Minister why we had to wait nine years to amend this provision.

Mr. Speaker, I note with gratification that the official Opposition supports the Bill. There is no doubt that it is an important Bill. Offences of this nature could very easily cause bad feelings between States in the past Not only does it constitute contempt of the Republic’s laws and its territory to depart from it, but it also constitutes absolute contempt of another country’s territory to enter that country without the necessary permission. It is therefore very clear that this cannot be permitted and must be regarded in a very serious light. This is in fact the case if one considers the penalties imposed.

I have looked at clause 1 of the Bill, in which it is provided that no one may leave the “Union”. I had problems with the word “Union”, but I take it that the Commonwealth Relations Act rectifies the matter in that “Union” is deemed to be the Republic wherever it occurs. This prohibition, which is imposed on everyone, does of course hinder any smuggling of arms and terrorist activities. That is right, of course. In the South African context, states must respect each other’s borders; if not we shall encounter difficulties on a large scale. It must not be possible to say that the Republic is lax in this regard.

Clause 2 of the Bill provides that no one may convey a person to another country. This of course refers to an accomplice who should be deemed just as guilty as the perpetrator himself. It is only right that it should be put in this way. Clause 3 refers to an accessory and makes it illegal for a person to assist anyone else to infringe the law. Now I come to clause 5. In the circumstances at present prevailing in our country, no fault can be found with the fact that the person must be able to prove that he had not intended to leave the country. I say this because in the first place, no one at all should leave the country without permission.

For these reasons I, too, should like to lend my support to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we have an interesting situation here this afternoon with the official Opposition, the Government and the NRP all supporting this measure, but for three different reasons, I feel. We bless this measure because we believe that it updates existing legislation, cleans it up and neatens it. Apparently the hon. member for Pretoria West sees better international relationships flowing from this particular piece of legislation. He talks of the recognition of international boundaries. I am, however, fascinated by the hon. member for Hillbrow’s address to the House this afternoon, because he tells us the story of a certain Mr. Brink and an eland bull. To me that just sounded like a lot of bull. Whatever the case may be, however, we shall join them in supporting the measure, but not for the same reasons they do.

Mr. Speaker, I must thank the hon. member for Hillbrow and the hon. member for Umhlanga for their support of this Bill. The only reason why we waited nine years before introducing amending legislation was because we had always hoped for a good test case to come before the Supreme Court Since such a case has not been forthcoming, we decided to introduce amending legislation now.

*I also want to thank the hon. member for Pretoria West for his contribution.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

An explanatory memorandum on the Bill has been tabled and consequently it is not necessary for me to occupy the time of this House with detailed explanations of the provisions.

Amendments to the Black Land Act, 1913, and the Development Trust and Land Act, 1936, seek to transfer certain powers pertaining to the approval of certain land transactions, by means of which Black people acquire land or rights in such land outside scheduled or released areas or by means of which non-Black people will receive such rights in such land within such areas, from the State President to the Minister, and to enable the Minister to delegate certain powers to the officials in his department. It also makes provision for a portion of the quota land which the Trust may purchase in the province of the Cape of Good Hope to be transferred to the province of the Orange Free State, in order to give effect to an agreement reached between the Government and the Government of Bophuthatswana concerning the resettlement of certain South-Sothos in Bophuthatswana.

Clause 6 is a consequential amendment. General tax consisting of a fixed amount has been abolished and consequently Black people no longer become liable for tax at a given age and the section can no longer be meaningfully interpreted. The concept of an age at which a Black becomes liable for payment of general tax is therefore substituted by the age of 18 years. Neither the interpretation nor the application of the section is being altered in any way. In other words, the status quo is being maintained.

†The Black Services Levy Act, 1952 (Act No. 64 of 1952), is being repealed and it is therefore necessary to delete references to that Act from sections 19 and 40 of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945, and the Contribution in respect of Black Labour Act, 1972, and to provide for the disposal of credit balances of moneys collected in terms of the repealed Act. The South Ndebele are being acknowledged as a national unit, the legislative powers of the legislative assembly of a territory that is not a self-governing territory are being extended and the sources of revenue of Black States are being increased to include revenue from General Sales Tax generated in their area.

The maximum of R2,50 placed on a levy in terms of the contributions in respect of the Black Labour Act, 1972, is being removed to meet present circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, the department was good enough to provide us with an explanatory memorandum on this Bill and the hon. the Deputy Minister has largely followed that memorandum. He has told us that the Bill introduces a few changes of some importance, and that one or two clauses in fact do not change the status quo at all. We have got something to say on two or three of these clauses. My hon. colleague, the member for Musgrave, will be dealing with clause 2 which involves the exchange of land in order to resettle the South Sotho, and with clause 10 whereby the South Ndebele become a separate national unit He will also be dealing in some detail with clause 13, which, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has just told us, is the clause that does away with the fixed amount of contributions levied on employers and gives the Minister the power to fix an arbitrary amount as he may deem necessary. We are not very happy about that clause, but I cannot say that it is a major issue with us. However, my hon. colleague will enlarge on that.

We have difficulty with clause 6. This is the clause which, according to the hon. the Deputy Minister, preserves the status quo as far as section 10 of the existing Urban Areas Act is concerned. He said it simply embodies a consequential amendment which results from the abolition of the special head tax of R2,50.

We have examined this very carefully and I would like simply to agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister’s interpretation of this clause. He knows there has been difficulty in this regard. I have spoken to him, the Minister and the department about it and unfortunately the legal advisers used by the hon. the Minister and the legal advisers we have used are not in agreement on this. It is because we do not want to take the risk of the status quo of section 10 being changed in any way whatsoever that we are going to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that I do not at all doubt his intentions. We do not believe that it is the intention of the Government to change the import of section 10 of the Urban Areas Act by the amendment being introduced today. I realize that there has to be a consequential amendment because of the abolition of the tax of the fixed amount of R2,50. However, the way in which it is being done will in our submission in fact introduce a far-reaching change to section 10(l)(c) of the Urban Areas Act. I want to explain this in some detail and, if the hon. the Deputy Minister can convince us in his reply that we are wrong, we may change our minds. We are not being obstinate about this. We genuinely believe that a change is being introduced in the status quo by this amendment.

I want to give a short history of the Urban Areas Acts so that we will understand what we are talking about. Act 21 of 1923, the old Natives (Urban Areas) Act, contained section 5 which referred only to the right of Africans, or Natives as they were then called—they were not even called Bantu in those days—to enter the proclaimed urban areas in the Union. Then we had Act 25 of 1945, which was a consolidating Act. That Act introduced section 10, which replaced section 5 of the old Natives (Urban Areas) Act. That section also simply referred to the matter of entry. As a consolidating Act, it made no changes.

Then we had the important Act 54 of 1952, which introduced section 10 as we know it now—of course, this section has been amended over the years—and printed in the Bill which is before us today. There is a slight misprint in the Bill here which the hon. the Minister knows about. In line 4 of clause 6 the words “or the” appear between the words “wife” and “unmarried daughter”, while the original Act—which should have been repeated verbatim in this line—reads: “Such Black is the wife, unmarried daughter or son under the age at which he would become liable for payment of general tax under the Black Taxation and Development Act, 1925 … ‘of any Black mentioned in paragraph (a) …’” As that Act has been implemented all these years, women—both the wives and the unmarried daughters of men who qualify under section 1(a) or (b) of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Act—were allowed to be in the urban area, provided, in terms of a later amendment, they had lawfully entered the area and ordinarily resided with their husbands. Sons of men qualifying under section 1(a) or (b) had the right in terms of this section to remain in the urban area for longer than 72 hours, as against the right of entry introduced by previous Acts. Males could only enjoy that right provided they were below the age at which they were liable for taxation, i.e. 18 to 65 years of age, the then prescribed age. As long as they were below the age of 18, they enjoyed, as we interpret it, the same rights as the unmarried daughter and the wife. It is my submission that at that stage the Act, as printed now in this Bill, could only have referred to males, i.e. the sons, because at that time women paid no tax at all and therefore the old law of interpretation that “he” meant “she” could not apply to women as they did not pay tax. As the law stands, section 10(l)(c) exempts wives and unmarried daughters, irrespective of age, and the sons only up to the age of 18, where after they lose this exemption. I cannot see how one can interpret this in any other way, because Black women did not pay any tax in this country at that stage. They only started paying tax when an Act was introduced in 1958. In 1958 a general tax was introduced which included a sliding income tax to which all adults, namely all people over the age of 18 years as defined by the Act, were liable, and which retained the local tax and the fixed tax which were payable only by males. My submission is therefore that before the 1958 Act was applied, Act 52, with its reference to the Black Taxation and Development Act of 1925, could not have included the unmarried daughter and the wives of men who qualified to be in the urban areas for longer than 72 hours.

I know it is not the intention of the Government to change this and in any way to narrow the application of section 10(l)(c), but I believe the wording as it stands does in fact do this.

It will remove the exemptions presently enjoyed by the wives and unmarried daughters of men qualifying under this section. Therefore in the Committee Stage I shall be moving an amendment—which will be on the Order Paper tomorrow—which will make it clear that the wife and the unmarried daughter of the men will remain excluded from the operation of this Act. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will accept this, because it will have far-reaching effects otherwise. As I say, intentions are not important. It is the wording of the law that is important. Indeed, the courts are actually precluded from examining the intention of Parliament Officials are certainly not going to look up Hansard to see that the hon. the Deputy Minister has stated during the Second Reading of this Bill that it is not his intention to change the status quo of section 10. They are simply going to look at the wording of the Act and it is going to read that such Black is the wife, unmarried daughter or son under the age of 18, and that means that everybody under the age of 18 will be allowed to stay in the urban area without getting any additional permission, but anybody over the age of 18, the wife, the unmarried daughter or the son, will now have to get special permission. Therefore, unless we can get the hon. the Deputy Minister’s assurance that either he will come with an amendment himself to change this or that he will accept the amendment which I have submitted to him, I am afraid we shall be voting against the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the hon. member for Houghton. We have thrashed out this matter with the Government’s legal advisers. I think the hon. member knows about that. The intention is very clear. As the hon. the Deputy Minister stated, it is in no way the intention, as far as this matter is concerned, to bring about a change in the legal position. It is not clear to me—I was too young at that time—why the then UP Government introduced such a strange provision into the Act regarding the reference to the age of the persons in question. I have followed the arguments of the hon. member for Houghton and I do not take it amiss her for arguing along those lines. She is not a lawyer and therefore I do not take it amiss of her. We discussed the matter extensively and in detail with the legal advisers. They assure us that the present wording—the substitution of that prolix definition—effects no change to the present Act at all.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

Just a moment. I should like to suggest that, in view of the discussion here and the representations of the hon. member for Houghton, it may be desirable for the legal advisers to re-examine the matter. If there is any substance—I cannot speak on behalf of the hon. the Deputy Minister, and I do not want to speak on his behalf—in the arguments of the hon. member for Houghton, it should be re-examined. I do not believe there is, but we may be wrong. It is in any case not the intention that there should be any change, and we submit that no change is in fact being effected.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Barberton has reacted in a most reasonable way to the comments made by the hon. member for Houghton on the point as to what the effect will be of the provisions of clause 6 of the Bill before the House. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will respond in a like manner, because I think it will assist us to get some unanimity in the House in regard to this particular measure. The hon. member for Houghton has advanced very cogent reasons for our difficulties in regard to this particular clause. I think the crux of the whole matter is what the position was in 1952 when this legislation was passed. The fact of the matter was that in 1952 there were no taxation provisions which were applicable to women. Therefore the interpretation that where one reads the word “he” one must also include the word “she”, could not have been the intention at the time that Act was passed in 1952. I think that is the crux of the matter and I think it might assist in clearing up the difficulty which has arisen.

I want to leave that matter there. It is, however, a difficulty which gives us very grave problems in regard to supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.

There are other matters on which I should like to comment though, in addition to those referred to by the hon. member for Houghton. As the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated, the Bill now before the House seeks to amend some seven Acts relating to Black people in South Africa. I am not going to deal at length with the technical amendments, such as those substituting “the Minister” for “the executive” in regard to approving transactions of the acquisition of land by Blacks from non-Blacks or vice versa. Those are matters that one would regard as of a technical nature.

However, I should like to deal with clause 2 of the Bill, the clause which relates to the transfer of a portion of Trust quota land from the Cape Province to the Orange Free State. The Bill indicates—so does the explanatory memorandum—that there are two reasons for this. One is to resettle some south Sothos who are resident in Bophuthatswana They are to be resettled outside of that country. Secondly, it is to settle certain Bophuthatswana citizens. There are a number of questions which I should like to put to the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to this particular aspect of the Bill. In the first place we should like to know who took the initiative in proposing the resettlement of these people outside of Bophuthatswana. We should like some information, too—in the second instance— about where the two pieces of land are which are being referred to in clause 2 of the Bill. We should also like to know whether there was any consultation with the Government of Qwaqwa in regard to this situation, as well as what the attitude of the Government of Qwaqwa is. We should also like to have some indication of how many people are affected by this proposed resettlement. I believe it is important. We wonder too whether any of them were consulted and what their attitude was to the proposed resettlement. We should also want to have some information in connection with the whole question of compensation for those who are to be resettled, because I think all hon. members will realize, and will agree, that where people are being moved about and resettled the matter of compensation is really of vital interest to them.

Then I should also like to know, in general terms—this is a question which does arise and which, I believe, is pertinent—why the Government does not simply add to the Orange Free State quota land rather than take away from the Cape. We know that this is the first opportunity the Government has had of showing how serious they are about consolidation of Black areas in South Africa, and how serious they might be in their possible intention to move away from the confines of the 1936 legislation regarding land settlement. It seems that this clause, coming at this stage, reflects reluctance on the part of the Government to depart from the confines of the 1936 legislation, otherwise they might easily, in order to meet the situation which has apparently arisen in the Free State, simply have added to the Free State quota land without, at the same time, having to subtract the identical number of hectares from the Cape quota land.

I also want to move on to the question of clause 10, something which has been referred to already. That is the question of the South Ndebele national unit. Again there are a number of questions here to which we should like to receive some information from the hon. the Deputy Minister. Were the people concerned, the South Ndebele, consulted about this situation. We should also like to be given some indication to how many people are concerned in this matter, to how many people will be involved in this separate national unit Could the hon. the Deputy Minister also give us some indication of how big the proposed homeland is, and could he tell us why it is necessary at this stage to create another national unit in terms of Government policy? One wonders too whether it is the Government’s intention to deal with this separate national unit in exactly the same way in which they are dealing with the other homelands. Does it envisage the appointment or the setting up of the same sort of infra-structure as in the other homelands. Does it involve the appointment of another commissioner-general, and the setting up of the same structure as does exist elsewhere? So these are matters on which we would like to have some information from the hon. the Deputy Minister when he replies.

Then I want to come to clause 13 of the Bill which concerns a far-reaching amendment relating to the Black Labour Act. It takes away the existing provision in the legislation which provides for a ceiling to be fixed on the contributions made in respect of Black labour by employers. Therefore I think that the existing position indicates, as is referred to in the explanatory memorandum, that there is a fixed ceiling of an amount of R2,50 in the first place. The Act also makes provision for an increase of this amount which cannot exceed 20% at a time. The Act also provides that before any increase can come about, there has got to be notice given in the Government Gazette of at least 12 months by the hon. the Minister. Therefore the situation was very much fixed by the existing legislation and, as I have indicated, there was provision going to fairly great extremes as to the amount of notice which has to be given and the increase that could be levied at any particular time.

We now have a complete reversal of the situation in that this House is being asked to give total discretion, unfettered powers, to the hon. the Minister to determine the amount of contributions to be paid by employers of Black labour and the Black employee. That is what is asked for and in addition the hon. the Minister has been given, or asked to be given, discretion to determine the area in which such contributions may be paid and to determine if necessary that a specified portion of that contribution shall be appropriated in such a manner as he may prescribe. Therefore it is giving to the hon. the Minister very far-reaching powers. One can think of a number of situations which can well arise. For example, he has the discretion to determine the area in which these contributions shall be payable, as I have mentioned. He could compel employees or employers in the Western Cape to pay a higher contribution than is paid in other parts of the country and this could of course have the effect of discouraging employment of Blacks in the Western Cape. This device could be used for this particular purpose because he can apply it in particular areas in different ways. Again, it has very far-reaching effects and far-reaching consequences.

The fact that, as is indicated in the explanatory memorandum, he can determine that a specified portion of the contribution shall be appropriated in such a manner as he may prescribe, suggests that the hon. the Minister could direct that a fixed amount of the contribution be utilized, for instance, for the purpose of housing for Blacks. This is interesting and I think all sides of the House would agree that one of the great problems of South Africa is the whole question of housing for the Black population, but at the same time one wonders whether this sort of power given in this sort of legislation is the way in which to deal with that sort of situation. It could impose an almost intolerable burden on the employers of Black manpower if a Minister, looking for revenue with which to attend to the whole question of housing, were to impose levies which were totally out of keeping with the situation in so far as the relationship between management and employee is concerned in South Africa.

Therefore this is a matter which does cause us great concern. We would like to know whether the hon. the Minister has had any consultation whatsoever with organized industry and organized commerce in South Africa, with the employers of labour generally in South Africa, in regard to this matter. Certainly the manner in which the hon. the Minister exercises these powers is going to be of very great importance in regard to the relationship between management and employee in South Africa because, as I have said, it is a power which is widespread, which gives the hon. the Minister a very considerable discretion and the abuse of which could certainly have a very bad effect on the whole relationship between employee and employer in South Africa.

Those are our principal problems in regard to this legislation. As the hon. member for Houghton has indicated, we have very real concern in regard to clause 6 of the Bill. Then there is clause 13 which is a problem area in regard to the contributions to be made. There are also the other matters which I have mentioned which cause us concern.

I am sorry to see that the hon. the Minister is not here, because in passing I want to say that I have an ever greater objection to clause 15 which contains the title of the Bill. Since this Bill will become the Laws on Plural Relations and Development Amendment Act, I wonder when the Government is going to decide what title it is going to give to this department, because I think the whole country would like us to move in a more realistic direction in regard to this matter.

I have indicated our general problems in regard to the Bill and, unless we can be satisfied by the hon. the Minister, we are going to find ourselves in the position where we shall have to oppose the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, for the most part the hon. member for Musgrave experienced problems and raised questions here in regard to clause 2 and also, pre-eminently, in regard to clause 13. Clause 2 of the Bill refers to the transfer of land quotas— in this specific case between the Orange Free State and the Cape—in accordance with the provisions of the Development Trust and Land Act of 1936. The clause also refers to an increase of 25 000 ha in the Free State quota and a corresponding reduction in the Cape Province quota. The hon. member wanted to know why the Free State quota is not simply increased without that of the Cape Province being reduced. In my opinion the particular problem the hon. member had has been resolved by the statement which the hon. the Prime Minister made here in the House, i.e. that there will be a new and penetrating re-appraisal by the Plural Affairs Commission, assisted by other committees, of the quotas as allocated by the provisions of the 1936 Development Trust and Land Act. In my opinion the hon. member is therefore anticipating this matter somewhat.

The land quota of the Free State was fixed at 80 000 morgen in 1936. In this connection I should like to recall an interesting piece of history, i.e. the standpoint of Mr. J. C. de Wet, the then M.P. for Wepener, when the 1936 Development Trust and Land Act was being discussed here in this House. In this connection I should like to quote an interesting passage from the book Die Naturelle-grondkwessie by Dr. Dian Joubert. In his book he summarized what Mr. De Wet had said here in the House of Assembly about the Free State quota during the Second Reading of the Development Trust and Land Act of 1936. He said—

At the time when the hon. member De Wet said this they were probably not cultivating maize in the Free State yet, and therefore he could not have known about the very good land at Bothaville and Viljoenskroon.

Mr. De Wet went further and advocated that the 55 000 morgen of land which comprised Thaba Nchu at that stage be regarded as part of the quota of 80 000 morgen for which the Development Trust anti Land Act, 1936, made provision. He went on to say—

He also said—

This wish of Mr. De Wet, i.e. that the 55 000 morgen be regarded as part of the quota, was not complied with at the time. The land was not purchased in the vicinity of Thaba Nchu either, the full 80 000 morgen being purchased in the territory at present known as Qwaqwa. Today, 43 years later, we are dealing with a clause which provides that 25 000 ha should be purchased at Thaba Nchu. I hope that Thaba Nchu will keep its word as expressed here 43 years ago by its representative, i.e. that Thaba Nchu will be satisfied with that.

This step is being taken at the request of Bophuthatswana—I am mentioning this with reference to the question put by the hon. member for Musgrave in this connection—for the purpose as set out in the explanatory memorandum.

To resettle South-Sothos resident in Bophuthatswana outside that country and also to settle certain Bophuthatswana citizens in the Orange Free State.

That is primarily the aim of this measure. This enlarged quota for the Free State was transferred to the Free State after careful consultation. The Free State Agricultural Union took decisions in this regard, and approved of the proposal, as did the NP congress of the Free State. In my opinion it is a commendable action on the part of the Free State once again to add White land to Black land. I wish to place on record the appreciation we have for the Free State action. Of the 25 000 ha of land which had to be added to the territory of Bophuthatswana, only 15 000 ha is being added. The other 10 000 ha is being added to the Qwaqwa territory, on the offer of Bophuthatswana, to resettle the South-Sothos resident in Thaba Nchu in this area.

This transaction is in my opinion a commendable and historic event, not only because the Free State has once again made White land available to Black people, but also because, as far as I know, it is the first time in history that one Black State is in this way ceding its territory to another Black State. This is being done for the sake of good order and for the sake of sound inter-State relations, and also because practical problems had to be solved.

If this is the spirit in which the peoples of Southern Africa act vis-à-vis one another, I foresee a great and peaceful future for the peoples of Southern Africa. I foresee that the children and the children’s children of all the ethnic groups living in this country will in future pluck the fruits of our labours and what we have with great thoroughness and successfully established so far with rejoicing and in peace. The particular event which finds expression in this clause can serve as an example to all the peoples on this powerful sub-continent of Africa, so that we may in this way, by means of negotiation and accommodation, successfully solve the problems awaiting us in future. I believe that a great and splendid future will then await us.

The hon. member had certain misgivings and objections in respect of clause 13. I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister will reply to that in detail. I do not think that the hon. the Minister will arbitrarily increase the levy, the ceiling on which is now being removed, and force it upon the parties concerned. I believe that the hon. the Minister, as a reasonable and sensible person, will most probably consult all the parties concerned before he decides to increase the levy drastically. Consequently I do not think that it is a great problem. But there is another problem. Under specific circumstances the levy, which has now in accordance with the Act been set at R2,50, would certainly be insufficient for the purposes for which it is required. Every time this amount has to be increased, it has to be approved by Parliament. This is impractical and for that reason it is a good thing that the ceiling on this levy is being removed and that it is the responsibility of the hon. the Minister to determine the amount from time to time: Provided, as indicated in the explanatory memorandum, that a certain portion may be utilized for specific purposes such as housing and other matters which are in the interests of our Black people.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made a very interesting contribution indeed, and I must say it is a pleasure to hear him sounding out as he does about the virtues of consensus, the means of working together and the means of resolving many of the very serious difficulties we are going to face. I think it is indicative of the feeling throughout the House that everybody can understand that what the hon. the Deputy Minister is placing before us in terms of clause 2 is the result of an agreement arrived at by three-way negotiation, as it were, and I think this augurs very well indeed for the future.

The hon. member for Houghton has raised a very interesting question indeed. It appears here that we have a difficulty involving interpretation. It seems that the hon. the Minister’s advisers are at odds with the hon. member for Houghton’s advisers. Disraeli was once asked whether he supported the teachings of Mr. Darwin. Disraeli replied that however much he might feel for Mr. Darwin, he would rather be counted on the side of the angels.

We are consequently in a difficult position of being unable to decide, in this particular case, whether the hon. the Minister’s legal advisers are the angels or whether the legal advisers on this side are. We shall therefore listen with very great interest indeed to what the hon. the Deputy Minister has to say. I believe that the intention is certainly very clearly not to affect the rights of people in terms of section 10 of the Act. If the hon. the Minister would give us that assurance and support what the hon. member for Barberton said about the matter being looked at very seriously again before the Committee Stage, I think we would support the Second Reading of the Bill.

We do, however, have certain other problems. The hon. member for Musgrave dealt very fleetingly with the question of the changes in the Bill, changes involving the replacement of “Governor-General” or “State President” by “Minister”. In the past there have been very fiery debates indeed on this particular question about whether it is proper for decision-making on a particular point to be taken from the hands of the State President, and the Cabinet by implication, and placed in the hands of the department. I want to reserve judgment on our behalf by saying that the importance of the matter to be decided will have to be the guideline in future when deciding whether the State President should retain that power in his hands or whether it should be transferred to the Minister. In the particular cases involved here, however, we feel that the technical details are such as to probably be hindering the people who want a decision to be taken by the Minister since the matter has to be referred to the Cabinet. That being the case, we are prepared to support the amendments.

We also have a similar problem with the question of delegation. Again it is a question of the Minister being able to delegate his powers to any official of the department. I say again that there will be cases in the future where the importance of the decision to be taken will guide the decision of my party when it comes to supporting the particular piece of legislation. In this case we are prepared to support it.

I now come to clause 13 in terms of which it is proposed to abolish the levy ceiling of R2,50. There was considerable debate about this when the measure was first introduced in 1972. The hon. the Minister was then the Deputy Minister who was handling the legislation. The point was made by the then hon. Deputy Minister that it was not the intention to build up in the Fund, to which these funds are paid, an unnecessary surplus. His own words were that no unnecessary surplus should be built up. At the time this was introduced, there was an amount of something like R26 million standing to the credit of the Black Services Levy Fund. What we therefore require from the hon. the Deputy Minister is an assurance that this idea of having no unnecessary surplus is going to be retained, and we should also like to ask him why it is necessary to abolish the ceiling altogether. The Black Labour Act was passed in 1972, and the figure stipulated then was R2,50. We are told in the explanatory memorandum that the amount has now reached only R2,15. The limit has therefore not yet been reached. So surely, in the minds of the hon. the Deputy Minister and officials in his department, there must be some idea of a ceiling?

I cannot understand why it is necessary to abolish that ceiling when it has taken us seven years to reach the situation we have reached today. I believe we have been through a period of extremely high inflation. Costs have been rising very rapidly. I sincerely hope and pray that we are entering a period in which this will taper off. I simply cannot understand why it is necessary to abolish the idea of a ceiling completely when that ceiling was introduced to reassure commerce, industry and the farming community, among others, that this would not be a matter concerning which the Minister and his department would have complete discretion to fix the levy at any amount they required. I would be far happier if the hon. the Deputy Minister could at least give us some idea of what he thinks the ceiling might be. We would have thought that, if he were to increase it from R2,50 to R5 over the period of a number of years, it would be adequate for his needs unless he can see a very, very special need for more funds to be raised in this fashion as a result of which the R2,50 is going to be obliterated altogether and the levy is going to be put into a totally different bracket. If that were to be the case, I think there should have been far-reaching consultation with the business community and the farming community. We therefore have a very serious objection to this. It is, however, not sufficient for us to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. We would like to hear the hon. the Deputy Minister’s comments on the matters I have raised.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to react to the remarks made by the hon. member for Musgrave about the South Ndebele. As I understood the hon. member, he was opposed to the South Ndebele now being recognized as a separate ethnic group.

No, I asked questions.

Yes, but what were the questions the hon. member asked? He asked whether it was necessary to duplicate the Government service once again. He also asked whether they had been consulted. He objected to the duplication of a system of government. He said that another Commissioner-General would have to be appointed. He went on in this vein. As I understood him, he has many objections to the recognition of the South Ndebele as a separate ethnic group.

I was only asking questions.

It seems to me that the hon. member does not quite understand why this change is necessary. As I understand the new policy of the hon. member’s party as they have explained it, they now recognize ethnicity and will protect the rights of minorities.

Another criticism which is always levied against us by hon. members on the other side is that we decide for the Black people and that we do not consult with them. I want to give this advice to the hon. member for Musgrave today: He should stick to his policy and try to protect minority groups in accordance with his party’s new policy. Then he, too, should first consult the Black people before he comes to talk about them in Parliament. He should first consult them before coming here to talk about them.

The hon. member does not seem to be aware of the fact that this population group is probably one of those with the strongest sense of identity among the Black people. They were initially classified with the North Sotho, but they asked to be recognized as a separate population group. What is interesting about the Ndebele is that they were probably the most widely dispersed of all the ethnic groups, especially in the Transvaal. They have a very characteristic style of building. There are special patterns which they paint on their houses. Wherever they have gone and wherever they have found themselves all over the Transvaal, they have held on very strongly to their traditions and their ethnicity. These people unanimously asked not to fall under the North Sotho but to be recognized as a separate population group. The hon. member would do well to visit the Cullinan area. This is the area which has been allocated to the South Ndebele. Those people are moving back quite voluntarily from all parts of the province and even from other parts of the country to resettle themselves in that area. As I have said, these are people who have held on very strongly to their ethnicity and their own customs. If the hon. member for Musgrave had been a Ndebele, I believe he would have been a farmer today and he would not have sat on that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank all the hon. members who have taken part in the discussion for their contributions. I think that some fine and valuable contributions were made. I also want to express my sincere thanks for the positive spirit in which the debate has been conducted up to now.

†I want to thank the hon. member for Houghton for accepting the fact that in respect of clause 6 it is not our intention to change the status quo.

*I now want to deal with the arguments that were advanced here. I should like to say to the hon. member for Houghton that we are dealing here with the question of interpretation. We do not interpret the old Act the way she does. According to our interpretation, the old Act provided for the wife of a man who qualified to remain in a prescribed area for longer than 72 hours to be exempted from taxation and, furthermore, for the unmarried daughter and the son below the age of 18 years to be exempted from taxation too, but for that provision to become applicable to them when they attain the age of 18 years.

The hon. member for Houghton said that the fact that the unmarried daughter was not paying tax at that time gave rise to her interpretation that that provision was not applicable to her. The hon. member and I spoke to each other on the telephone. However, I do not think we shall be able to solve the matter on the telephone, because we both have the same failing: we both keep on talking without listening to the other one. Consequently we cannot thrash out this matter on the telephone, because she does not listen to me and I do not listen to her. I then decided that it would be better to debate the matter in this House so that we could in fact listen to each other. In the meantime, I referred the matter to the law advisers and informed them of the arguments of the hon. member for Houghton. They now have to take another look at the matter. Before we begin the Committee Stage, I shall refer all the recorded arguments advanced here by hon. members to the law advisers again, on condition that the status quo be maintained, because we do not want to change the existing situation. In the Committee Stage we can then decide whether to accept the hon. member’s amendment, or to retain the existing situation, or to move another amendment to maintain the status quo. I just want to place on record the fact that the existing Act is not a taxation measure, but an administrative one. In the existing Act, reference is made to the age of a son and a daughter, but it is not stipulated that this age is to be 18 years. The age is defined in a roundabout way, a definition which we now want to delete with this Bill and replace with “18 years”. [Interjections.] I do not know either. The old UP Government consolidated the Act. They should have rectified the matter and should not have used those peculiar words for defining the age of 18 years. However, that Government did not do so and now we are saddled with the problem. We must now delete those words defining the age of 18 years and replace them with “18 years”. We do not believe that because the Bill gives a different description of the age of 18 years from the one in the existing Act, the status quo is being changed.

The hon. member also said that the word “he” in clause 6 could not be interpreted as “she” as well. I honestly do not think I can agree with her. I want to take another example. If an unmarried girl or a boy has to go to school up to the age at which the boy becomes liable for national service, the age at which the boy becomes liable is applicable to the girl as well, even though she is not liable for national service. That is what happens in this case. The girl used not to be a taxpayer. In 1952 she became a taxpayer in respect of income, but not in respect of the fixed amount. Therefore this is just a way of defining the age at which this proposed section becomes applicable to the daughter and the son. That is the explanation. As I have said, however, we are prepared to look into the matter again, because we do not want to change the status quo.

Now I come to clause 2, a clause which was discussed by quite a number of hon. members. I want to thank the hon. member for Parys sincerely for his contribution, and I also want to thank the hon. member for Musgrave. To begin with, I want to say that if there is one clause which has a very long history, it is clause 2. In fact, I think that someone who wanted to write a valuable book for South Africa, a book about the relations between population groups in South Africa, the solution to them and the co-existence of nations in South Africa, would find in clause 2 all the material one needs: The history and background which would enable him to write just such a book.

The hon. member asked me who had taken the initiative. I think it is difficult to say who actually took the initiative. It must be remembered that three Governments were involved. Therefore it would be difficult today to say exactly which Government took the initiative. The Governments of South Africa, Bophuthatswana and Qwaqwa were involved. These three Governments have been battling with this matter for quite a number of years; we have been dealing with it since before the independence of Bophuthatswana. While these problems were receiving attention, Bophuthatswana became independent.

However, consultations were held about this matter before Bophuthatswana became independent, and two years ago, in 1977, the Governments of the two States and the ministry of this department, which represented the South African Government, met in the Cape. On that occasion, after many proposals had been considered and they were still unable to resolve the issue, the Government of Bophuthatswana suggested that in order to solve this problem, it would make some of its land available to the Government of South Africa in order that it might be transferred to the Government of Qwaqwa, land on which the people of Qwaqwa could be settled so that they could be governed by their own Government.

Where was that?

I shall tell the hon. member in a moment. The problem arose from the fact that in Thaba Nchu— which now forms part of the independent Bophuthatswana—there are 30 000 Tswanas and 66 000 South Sothos. They are all good people, but the South Sothos are not satisfied with the Government of Bophuthatswana. They want their own Government, and the Government of Bophuthatswana cannot govern those people to their satisfaction. President Mangope has told me on more than one occasion that this is one of the greatest problems he has, i.e. to govern people who belong to a different ethnic group. Then they suggested that in order to solve this problem, Bophuthatswana would transfer a part of its territory in the Cape Province to the South African Government so that we could make it available to the Government of Qwaqwa. In other words, Bophuthatswana did not ask anything in exchange for it. The hon. member for Parys is quite right; I think that, South Africa excepted, this is the first time in the history of Africa that one Black nation has ceded land to another nation in order to solve a problem. I think we are justified in saying that Bophuthatswana may have seen its example in South Africa, i.e. in making land available to solve political problems and to obtain stability and peace in that way.

The land is not yet available, but if this legislation is passed, we shall do it as soon as possible. However, the tension was broken the moment that a solution was agreed upon. The moment we begin to implement it, we shall have a truly excellent solution. What is significant is that two Black Governments and one White Government are involved and that the three Governments came to a unanimous realization that there was no other way of solving the matter than on a geographic basis.

Consensus.

Consensus was achieved. Bophuthatswana took the magnanimous step of making the land available and Qwaqwa immediately accepted the proposal. When people talk about consultation, I wonder whether there has even been so much consultation as in this case, for when the three Governments came to an agreement, we all decided that a survey should be made in Thaba Nchu of the South Sotho people who wanted to move to the new area. At that stage, the new area had not yet been designated and we did not know how big and where it was going to be, because that would depend on the number of people who wanted to move. Without knowing where they were going, the South Sothos then had to indicate who was prepared to go and who wanted to go. Every man was given the opportunity to indicate to a committee, on which we served with members of the two Governments, whether he wanted to go. Everyone who indicated that he wanted to go received a card with his name on it which indicated that he had declared himself to be willing. That card, therefore, was proof that he had the right to live at Thaba Nchu and that he was one of those who would be moving later. During that survey, 66 000 citizens of Qwaqwa indicated that they wanted to move to the new area. Not a single man was left out. Every man got a chance. Those 66 000 indicated that they wanted to go to the new area.

I do not want to talk politics or anything of that nature today. However, I just want to say in passing—and I do so very seriously indeed—that this is one of the greatest and most striking proofs that the policy which the Government is implementing is the only one which can give satisfaction and can solve problems.

I have been asked why we did not simply reduce the quota land of the Free State. At that stage, the hon. the Prime Minister’s announcement had not yet been made. At that stage, the Government had not yet decided that the 1936 legislation was to be amended. That matter is in fact under discussion. We said at the time that the quota in terms of the 1936 legislation could not be increased. This was one of the problems with which we were faced. In order to solve that problem, Bophuthatswana declared itself to be willing to cede some of its territory so that it could be transferred. That was another stumbling block which had to be removed. The hon. the Prime Minister said that the question of Black land was to be thoroughly investigated in order to see whether problems could not be solved by approaching it in this way. Through this case we have gained the experience and we know that this is the only way in which problems can be solved.

The hon. member also asked me a question about the South Ndebele. Sir, I apologize for speaking at such length, but this too is a subject about which I want to tell this House a few things. The South Ndebele is one of the ethnic groups in Africa we can all be proud of. At the moment, the South Ndebele people has approximately 500 000 members. However, they were not recognized as a people. They were actually ignored by all the peoples in South Africa. This is the people which—I almost want to say, like the Afrikaner people—fought to get itself on the map. The fact that we are recognizing them here today is due to themselves. If they had wanted to, they could have disappeared. To tell the truth, we thought that they would simply integrate with the other groups and so disappear. However, this is precisely what caused the South Ndebele people to come forward. The leaders told me: “We have decided that we are going to work for ourselves, and that the day will come when we shall surprise you, the day when we are going to make our mark. Then you will not be able to ignore us, but you will have to accept us.”

If hon. members on the Government side who take an interest in these matters, as well as hon. members on the other side, wish to visit the Ndebele people during the second half of this year, we shall make the necessary arrangements for this. I should like hon. members to see what development is. The Ndebele people can really teach us what Black development is. I should like to mention a few examples. Because we ignored them, no budget was provided for them, nothing was done for them. However, those people taxed every man R15 a month. They began by realizing that they needed water. They then started to build dams. The only assistance which the South African Government offered them was the services of an engineer who measured off the wall of the dam for them. Then they began construction themselves. I was there and I saw for myself how small contractors—their own people— were bringing soil with their tractors and trucks. Five hundred women organized themselves under one person to do the work. While the men worked during the day, 500 women were mixing cement, stones and sand and casting the wall. When they had completed that dam, they dug the canals to the residential areas. When these had been completed, they laid out 500 ha as irrigation land and gave every woman a plot on which to produce food. I now want to tell you, Sir, that no communist or anyone else will take that dam away from those people, because it is their own creation. They built it, they ascertained the need and devised the method for satisfying that need.

I want to go further and say that those people built schools with their own funds. If one has to call for tenders in order to build a school, it costs one R30 000 per classroom. But those people built schools which compare favourably in every way with the schools built on contract at R30 000, and they build them for R12 000 per classroom. It is quite phenomenal to see. There one sees what development is. Development cannot be forced upon people from outside, but must come from within. As an outsider, one can then play a part and help. That is why it is a pleasure for me today to be able to propose this clause with regard to the South Ndebele, in terms of which the South Ndebele are to be recognized as an ethnic unit Now they are proceeding with their development in terms of the Constitution of the Black States of 1971.

On the same basis?

On the same basis. In terms of chapter 1 they can now obtain self-government with a Legislative Assembly. After that they can proceed to chapter 2. However, it is a fact that they are already proceeding towards this goal, and no one is going to stop them. They are a nation and they are making progress. I just want to add that those people are returning to their fatherland in great numbers from all over South Africa.

Then we come to clause 13, which deals with the levy and the ceiling of R2,50. It is true that the ceiling, the 20% and the year’s notice are all being abolished. This is a matter which we realize one cannot simply tackle arbitrarily. The reason for what we are doing here is that costs have risen, administrative costs and everything else. We must make the necessary provision to ensure that we do not come to a point where we have to stop short. The second reason is that in respect of housing, community facilities, electricity and that kind of thing, we have been saying over the past few years that the responsibility for housing rests with the employer, the employee and the State. The provision concerned is now being amended to make this possible for the hon. the Minister, and especially that aspect where he says that a certain amount may be used for a certain purpose. When the hon. the Minister goes to consult with the various bodies and says that an amount has to be paid which is to be utilized for housing, electrification or community development, the hon. the Minister must have the power to levy the amount and to ensure that it is in fact used for that purpose.

In the past we have not done this for the simple reason that we have known that the people have budgets which they have to draw up and to balance. If one does not consult people in good time, one can land them in a great financial embarrassment. Consequently there are negotiations about these things, and usually the negotiations are lengthy. The intention here is also to negotiate and to persuade the people that we want to use it for certain purposes and then to apply it.

There are reasons for making exceptions. I think, for example, of the case where mining companies provide their own housing for their employees, where such people are bound to their place of work. In such a case it would not be fair to impose a levy on someone who is providing accommodation for his workmen. One would then have to ascertain which employers do provide accommodation so that we may tax those who do not. For that reason, the Minister must have the discretion to act as he thinks fit, because he cannot treat everyone alike. That is why the measure is being amended in this way.

I should like to thank hon. members for their co-operation and I hope to be able to furnish more information about the various clauses during the Committee Stage.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

During 1920 a Select Committee of this House investigated a dispute between the London Missionary Society, the Congregational Union Church Aid and Missionary Society of South Africa and the Bethelsdorp Board of Supervisors. The dispute was settled by the passing of the Bethelsdorp Settlement Act, 1921, and the resolutions of the Select Committee were embodied in that Bill in the form of a schedule. These resolutions were mainly concerned with the take-over by the State of the land at Bethelsdorp which the churches had available to them at that stage, the circumstances and conditions on which portions of that land could be sold and the division of the revenue obtained from a saltpan on a part of the land.

In 1922 a local authority was established for the area. However, that local authority was unable to exercise proper control over matters such as public health, with the result that the Divisional Council of Port Elizabeth took over control of the area in 1945. However, the take-over entailed considerable expenses for the divisional council and application was made to obtain transfer of the vacant State land. This request was granted in 1947, and in 1949 all the vacant State land which was not required for State purposes was transferred to the divisional council by Crown Grant No. 148 of 1949.

†During recent years township development has taken place on portions of the land granted to the divisional council in 1949. This land is situated within the municipal area of Port Elizabeth and the city council has requested the removal of part II of the schedule to the Bethelsdorp Settlement Act as the restriction contained therein seriously restricts the development of the area. The restriction reads as follows—

In 1921 when the recommendations of the Select Committee were embodied in the schedule to the principal Act, Bethelsdorp was a small village with a limited number of building and garden lots. Since then the situation has changed considerably in that further township development has taken place on a large scale and the circumstances which necessitated the restriction on ownership of land are therefore no longer valid.

The object of the Bill now before the House is to provide that part II of the schedule to the principal Act shall cease to apply to the land granted to the divisional council in 1949.

Bethelsdorp is a Coloured area and the city council of Port Elizabeth has confirmed that the Port Elizabeth Coloured Management Committee agrees with the removal of the restriction contained in part II of the schedule to the Act. The divisional council of Port Elizabeth also has no objection to the proposal.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place it is a great privilege to me to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister and member for Graaff-Reinet on his new appointment to one of the portfolios which I consider to be most important, that of Agriculture.

We on this side of the House will support this amending Bill for the following reasons: When a piece of land approximately 6 000 ha in extent was added to the old Bethelsdorp in 1949, the provisions of the Bethelsdorp Settlement Act became applicable to that newly acquired land. One of the provisions prevented owners of two or more plots from acquiring additional plots. This meant that modern and economic building methods could not be used to provide the housing required in that Coloured area. This was a harmful restriction, and its removal therefore meets with our approval. We therefore support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Wynberg, I too wish to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on his first Second Reading speech in this House. This short Bill proposes the abolition of certain restrictive measures in the principal Act. It now makes community development possible in the area. Now that the hon. the Deputy Minister has outlined the history of this Bill, it is obvious that these restrictive measures must be abolished so that the development of that Coloured community may proceed successfully. We therefore support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet on his elevation to the post of Deputy Minister of Agriculture. We wish him well in his new post. We know that he will acquit himself well and do the job as it should be done. He is dedicated, and if his motivation and the clarity with which he delivered his Second Reading speech is an indication of things to come, it augurs well for the future. We have pleasure in supporting this Bill, because we see it as something which is going to improve the lot of a number of unfortunate Coloured people in the Bethelsdorp area. It is a welcome measure and we hope it is the forerunner of many similar measures for areas where similar conditions as those pertaining to Bethelsdorp exist.

Mr. Speaker, as a native of the Eastern Cape I feel it is appropriate that the first legislation handled by the hon. the Deputy Minister should be legislation which will benefit our region. I wish him everything of the best in his new office. We are sure that he will contribute towards assisting the Eastern Cape. I do not want to deprive other areas, but as the hon. the Deputy Minister knows, the Eastern Cape needs an injection, and we therefore hope that he will be able to help us to stimulate this region.

†Mr. Speaker, this Bill has been the subject of negotiation between my party, the hon. the Minister of Community Development and the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. In reply to our appeal during the 1978 session to amend the Bethelsdorp Settlement Act, the hon. the Minister of Community Development undertook to support us and to make submissions to the Minister of Agriculture for this to take place. I want to thank the Ministers concerned, the Department of Community Development, the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, the Port Elizabeth municipality and the management committee for their cooperation in making the Bill now before the House a reality. The Bethelsdorp Settlement Act of 1921, which is being amended by this Bill, stipulates, inter alia, that—

This restriction has caused difficulty in the past few years in the development of the Bethelsdorp area, particularly in regard to churches, creches and shops. It is possible to overcome the problem partially by leasing the land to churches which, for example, own more than two plots, but the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree with me that, in this particular case, merely granting leases is no way of passing title. That is why we are very pleased that when this legislation is passed, he will no longer have to lease the land to churches, for example. It can be sold to them if they own more than two plots.

If a Coloured entrepreneur wanted to invest in land in the area, he was also restricted to only two plots. If, for example, a builder wanted to develop and keep his costs down, it is obvious that he would want far more than two plots in the area. If he had more than two plots in the area he would be able to concentrate his building and work force there and keep his costs and units down, instead of having scattered development. Scattered building development means that the builder has plots very many miles apart, and this results in additional transport, fuel, managerial and staff expenses. This all adds to the cost of the end product, the house. By introducing this amendment, this legislation will encourage people of other races to build up assets and to share further in the free-enterprise system.

The building development at Bethelsdorp has hitherto been hampered by this restriction, and relief from this restriction, together with the capital formation by the building societies, the banks and the Urban Foundation, should ensure that the development of this area continues unrestricted from now on.

Since this Bill emanated from the Sap, it is with pleasure that we support it.

Mr. Speaker, with your permission I wish to avail myself of this opportunity of thanking the hon. member for Wynberg, the hon. member for Umhlanga and the hon. member for Walmer for their words of congratulation. I sincerely hope the good wishes they have extended to me and the good relations will continue in agricultural debates and that we shall, at all times, endeavour to create a happy farming community.

*I should also like to convey my thanks to the hon. member for Bethal for his kind words. I think I am very fortunate in this post to have a chairman and committee of an agricultural group such as I have. I believe that our co-operation will be very cordial. I also thank hon. members for their support of this Bill. I should like to express the hope and belief that in passing this Bill, we shall give that community at Bethelsdorp, which is a very fine community, opportunities which they did not have in the past, and that we shall not hinder the further expansion and development of that area through this legislation. I hope the legislation will only serve to benefit that community.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill constitutes a revision and consolidation of the Dental Technicians Act, 1945, and is along the same lines as the other Acts relating to health professions adopted over the past few years. As it happens, it rounds off a legislative programme of five years. We have reached the stage where almost all the Acts of this nature have now been revised. I am not therefore going to deal with the provisions of the Bill in detail but will only touch on certain aspects of importance.

In terms of the existing Act this category of personnel are known as dental mechanics. Appeals have been received over the past few years to change this name. The amendments which would have had to be effected would, however, have been of such a wide-ranging nature that a decision was taken to postpone this until such time as an opportunity arose to revise the Act as a whole. The opportunity was also used to rectify certain shortcomings and bring the Act into line with similar legislation relating to other categories of personnel. Like the other health professions, this profession is controlled by a statutory body, viz. the Dental Technicians Council. At present the council consists of seven members and the number is now being increased to 11 by bringing in a dentist attached to a university, a dental technician attached to a training institution, a person who is not registered under the Act and the Medical Professions Act, i.e. a layman and an additional dental technician contractor. The basis of composition was proposed by the council itself and I am of the opinion that it will now be more balanced, particularly since expertise in the sphere of training is now being brought in for the first time.

Until now the profession has been linked to the Industrial Conciliation Act, 1956, and was not really included in the classification of health professions. As you will note, the profession is now no longer to be governed by that Act, and the power to determine the conditions of service for dental technicians who are employees, is being vested in the Dental Technicians Council. This step, and the fact that legal control will be on the same basis as that of other health professions, will hopefully lead to this profession now being fully integrated with the family of health professions. Moreover, further powers are being vested in the council to enable it to determine the tariffs which dental technician contractors may charge in the future. Hopefully, this provision will give rise to better regulation of the cost structure for dental health services than in the past.

On 10 December 1978 the following article appeared in one of our newspapers—and I leave it to hon. members to guess which newspaper it was—

The report then goes on to give a few other opinions.

The fact of the matter is that nowhere in the present Act, in the draft Bill published for information and comment or in the Bill is reference made to race or colour. Nowhere in the present Act or regulations is provision made for unqualified persons being able to carry out the work of a qualified person, and any person who has done so thus far and any employer who has thus far employed a person to do this, has acted illegally and may be prosecuted. To a large extent the council has succeeded in eliminating unlawful practices but it may be realized that in practice it is very difficult to combat this kind of conduct. That is why it has been found necessary to define clearly the acts which an unqualified person may perform in clause 28. The provision is not aimed at taking away any legally established rights but it is aimed at defining the acts which such persons may lawfully perform.

In the article, the standpoint of technicians to the effect that the acts of such unqualified persons are illegal, is also stated. Because, therefore, the newspaper was aware of this fact, the motive behind the slant of the article must seriously be questioned. The fact of the matter is that any person with the necessary training, irrespective of race or colour, is and was free to obtain registration as a dental technician and that everyone does and will receive the same treatment under the provisions of the existing Act and the Bill. The department has received representations from about 20 people concerning this matter and not a single association representing any interested party, or any Black, Indian, Coloured or White employer, has made any representations in that regard.

Until 1972, dental technicians received their training by way of apprenticeship. Until that stage the council had only received one application from a Black to be trained as a dental technician, but he gave up his training after three months. Since 1972, training is being given at Colleges for Advanced Technical Education and at present training is being offered at the following institutions—

The council has already liased with the Department of Education and Training concerning the training of Blacks and it is understood that training at the Medical University of South Africa is being envisaged.

A draft Bill was published for information and comment and this Bill was drafted in the light of the comment received.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon a colleague of mine spoke about manna and other spherical objects, but I should like to raise the level of the debate and confine myself to speaking about people’s teeth. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister was good enough to grant me an opportunity yesterday to have an interview with him to discuss certain aspects of this legislation before the Second Reading debate.

I should like to deal with that particular aspect because it is the aspect of this legislation which causes the greatest deal of concern.

You should have your teeth out, Horace.

No, because I have my teeth in for this one. At the outset I should like to point out that on Tuesday of this week I had the opportunity of having a very thorough meeting with the executives of file association which represents dental technicians. They indicated to me that as far as this legislation was concerned, they had no fault to find with it, with the exception of one provision. They have studied the legislation and as far as they are concerned, they are very happy with it. They believe it very largely meets all the requirements of their particular profession. But they were equally adamant that one aspect was very far from their expectations. This aspect relates to the composition of the council envisaged in this Bill.

In order to understand the objection, one must understand that the dental technicians are a discipline on their own, a discipline which is not integrated with the discipline of dentistry. They render a service to dentists. It is a service which they can render to nobody else. So, from that point of view there is an interdependence between themselves and the dentists, but they remain a discipline on their own and, as is the case with any other discipline which falls under the control of a statutory council, they would like to have a statutory council on which, as far as the professional qualifications of the members are concerned, their discipline has a majority. In this particular case, however, that is not so. In this particular case the legislation envisages a statutory council on which five qualified dentists will serve, as well as five qualified dental technicians and one layman who will be appointed by the hon. the Minister. This means that there will be parity between the number of dentists and the number of dental technicians on that council. The differences that normally arise between dentists and dental technicians concern contracting for work, carrying out orders which are placed, payment for those orders and determining the tariffs and the fees which apply. When such differences arise between the dental technicians on the one hand and the dentists on the other hand and these differences have to be attended to by the council concerned, the situation is that the technicians feel that the parity between themselves and the dentists on the council will not be in their interest and will in fact make it very difficult for them to achieve satisfaction as far as their interests and their requirements are concerned.

They have already made substantial representations to the hon. the Minister and these representations have apparently failed. In fact, the dental technicians circulated a memorandum, which has also been given to the hon. the Minister, to all their employees. There are 577 dental technicians in South Africa: 356 are employees, 85 are employed by 66 dentists and the others are employed by dental technician contractors. They circulated to all their members a memorandum objecting to this particular provision and to date they have received 358 replies from members of the association supporting them in the objections which they have made. Yesterday I handed to the hon. the Minister the 358 letters, addressed to the Secretary for Health, in which the members object to the provisions in the Bill and support the representations made in the memorandum which accompanied those particular objections. I had the opportunity yesterday of discussing this matter with the hon. the Minister, putting this particular problem to him and asking him to accept an amendment to the particular provision, an amendment which will in effect reduce the representation of dentists on the council in order to give the dental technicians a majority there. I believe that if the hon. the Minister is prepared to accept that particular amendment, it will have the required effect. It must be remembered that this Bill exists for the dental technicians. This Bill exists to serve the profession of dental technicians from the point of view of training, the registration of dental technicians, the standards which are applied, the administrative and other arrangements which are necessary and also as far as the establishment of fees and tariffs is concerned. I believe that since the dental technicians are happy with the balance of the provisions of the Bill, since they find all the other provisions completely and totally acceptable, it is vitally important that the hon. the Minister should meet them on this very important matter and accept an amendment which will change the composition of the council and thus give them the right to control their own house, make them master of their own home. In this matter we must be fair to them so that the council can operate in the interests of that particular profession. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider favourably those representations.

I should also like to thank the hon. the Minister for the assurances he has given in respect of Black South Africans who may want to qualify and become registered and employed as dental technicians. The hon. the Minister has given the House the assurance that there is no restriction or impediment whatsoever standing in the way of any Black South African preventing him from becoming trained, in other words, from registering for training, from undergoing the necessary training and after that, when he has qualified, from becoming registered as a dental technician and in fact practising as a dental technician. I understood from the hon. the Minister that there is absolutely no restriction or impediment to stop Black people from either training, qualifying, registering or practising as dental technicians. Is that correct?

Yes.

If that is so, I am very pleased. I am very pleased that that assurance has been given. In this connection I should like to draw attention to a provision which, I think, is not satisfactory at all. It concerns something which I have already discussed across the floor of this House with this hon. Minister on a previous occasion. That deals with the disqualification of members of the council. That disqualification affects any person who is not a South African citizen, because no such person can become a member of the council as envisaged in this legislation. That simply means, in terms of the Government’s policy—I think it is as well that we should now ask the Government to reaffirm whether their policy remains the same in respect of the following matter—that, on a previous occasion, the previous Minister of Plural Relations and Development said in this House that it was the policy of the Government that as soon as all the homelands have become independent States, there would not be a single Black South African citizen. Subsequent to the making of that statement there has not been a denial of it by either the hon. the Prime Minister or by the new hon. Minister of Plural Relations and Development.

Just don’t turn this into a political issue again.

No, Mr. Speaker, I am not talking politics. It directly affects the matter I am discussing now. Neither the present hon. Prime Minister, nor the previous Prime Minister, nor the present hon. Minister of Plural Relations and Development has on any occasion said that the specific, unequivocal statement of policy made by the previous Minister of Plural Relations and Development, to the effect that when the Government’s homeland policy has been carried to its conclusion, there would not be a single Black South African, was not correct. There has been no statement repudiating, denying or amending that statement of policy. I would like somebody to tell me whether that policy stands. Is there anybody opposite who is prepared to say whether that policy stands or not? If that policy stands, it simply means that no so-called citizen of the Transkei or so-called citizen of Bophuthatswana—irrespective of whether he is qualified or registered and practises as a dental technician—can qualify to serve on this council. That would be harsh discrimination against such a person. Now, I would like to know whether that is so. It also means that if more of the homelands become independent … Let us say the impossible should happen and all the homelands in South Africa became independent. Then, in terms of the Government’s present policy, say by the year 2000, when there will be something like 20 million to 25 million Black people permanently resident within so-called White South Africa, not a single Black dental technician, representative of those 20 million to 25 million permanently urbanized Black people in so-called White South Africa, could, in terms of the provisions of this legislation, become a member of the council representing their particular profession, their particular discipline. If that is so I can only conclude that that is the harshest possible form of discrimination, based purely on race and aimed at the Black people of South Africa.

I believe it is very important that, on this occasion, somebody on the Government side should tell us whether this is so. It might be very unfair to expect the hon. the Minister of Health to deal with such a difficult question. However, I do not believe it is unfair to ask such a question of, for argument’s sake, one of the other senior Ministers. I was hoping that the hon. the Prime Minister or the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development would be in the House in order to deal with this. However, since they are not here, I believe they might have to advise the hon. the Minister of Health, and I ask the hon. the Minister of Health, when he replies to the Second Reading debate, to clear this matter. Firstly, we want to know whether that policy stands, the policy that no Black will be a South African citizen if the Government’s policy is taken to its conclusion. Does that policy stand? Let us have it in unequivocal, clear language, and not so circumscribed and so vague that we do not know what they are talking about. Secondly, if that is so, does the hon. the Minister then accept that in this legislation there is included an aspect of very, very harsh discrimination?

I should just like to mention one or two other matters. I am pleased to see that provision is made in this legislation for the council to elect its own office-bearers and for the council to appoint its own officials. This is one of the bones of contention I have had with one or two hon. Ministers across the floor of this House on previous occasions. That was that where statutory councils were created provision was made for the Minister involved to appoint the office-bearers of that council and to appoint the chief executive. This is something which, I felt, was a very unfortunate inroad into the rights and functions of the council concerned, and which was unacceptable regarding the democratic principle on which such a council should operate.

One further point I want to mention is the exception which is made in clause 12(l)(a), which reads as follows—

1. (a) the conditions of employment of dental technicians who are employees, except dental technicians who are in the employment of the State or a provincial administration; …

Now, I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that I think it is unfortunate that this exception appears in this particular legislation. It is unfortunate, simply from this point of view. Dental technicians have now been given the status of a profession. They have been given the status of a council which will control their affairs. I believe they should be allowed to have control of all dental technicians and of the whole profession, and that no exceptions should be made regarding the State or the provinces. In doing that, one is detracting from their status and also from the status of the council and of the profession.

Then there is one further provision to which I should like to refer. That is the provision which applies to the right of inspectors to call upon premises in order to carry out investigations. In another Bill we will be discussing later, the Pharmacy Bill, there is a provision stating that inspectors must call at reasonable times. This is one of the rare occasions I have come across in legislation brought before the House by the Government on which it is stated that inspectors have to call at reasonable times. Normally they are allowed to call at any time they wish. In that particular Bill, which is still to come before the House, the provision states that they should call at reasonable times.

Order! The hon. member cannot refer to Bills that are still to come before this House.

Mr. Speaker, I shall abide by your ruling. I knew in fact that I was out of order. However, I succeeded in getting away with it for a little while. The point is actually that I should like to recommend to the hon. the Minister that he should take a leaf out of another Bill and include the word “reasonable” also in this Bill.

From the point of view of the PFP I believe this is good legislation. I think the hon. the Minister should be congratulated with the fact that he has now, as he put it, rounded off a five-year legislation programme, during which we have seen a large number of new Bills in the health field go through the House, Bills which have modernized and standardized the entire health field from a legislative point of view. As far as those bits of legislation are concerned, I must state that they are all very good and very effective pieces of legislation. I believe that this Bill adds to the programme of legislation which has already passed through this House, and I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister that he should not extract the teeth of this particular council with the provision relating to the constitution of the council. What the dental technicians do not want, is a toothless council, a council which cannot effectively operate in connection with their interests.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bryanston said that he would like to conduct a debate at a higher level and do so at the level of teeth. Unfortunately his knowledge of the anatomy of the mouth is very limited and there is a certain tooth in the mouth which is called the wisdom tooth. I think that his was either removed very early or he has not yet had it in his mouth. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to tell the hon. member for Bryanston that he made a reasonably good contribution except that he wanted to drag politics into a debate concerning the statutory council and something which promotes health in South Africa. I also want to tell the hon. member that I have the feeling that he approached the Dental Council through a specific dentist I also want to ask him whether he did so or not and whether this dentist told him that he thought that this was sound legislation. I want to ask the hon. member this in all courtesy. Did he do so?

The Dental Council?

Yes.

Whether they said what?

Whether they are satisfied with this legislation.

Yes, they are.

When the hon. member was not yet satisfied he went to the dental technicians and asked them whether they were satisfied. They then said that they were very satisfied with the Bill except in regard to this specific problem they had to deal with.

Now I want to tell you, Sir, that I feel that if the person with whom the hon. member for Bryanston spoke told him that the Dental Council was dissatisfied with the Bill, the hon. member for Bryanston’s conduct today would have been quite different. I therefore do not think—and I say this with great respect—that he has the necessary knowledge or background to hold a discussion on this Bill. Therefore to a certain degree it was pure opportunism, first to determine whether satisfaction prevailed. The hon. member therefore tried to see by making inquiries whether any embarrassment would be caused the hon. the Minister of Health.

But why does he look so despondent?

Moreover he tried to play politics by asking who may serve on the council and who not. I find that a pity, because this is an important Bill. In my opinion the hon. the Minister should be felicitated on this Bill.

Basically, this is a statutory council in which there is parity between the dentists and the dental technicians. It must be realized that one of the dentists is a person representing the department. This profession has very close links with the profession of dentistry, to the extent that this profession would never have been able to survive without dentists, because it does not form part of the training of dental technicians to work directly with patients. If this is realized it will also be realized that dentistry and dental technicians constitute integral parts of the wider concept of dental health. If relations between the dentists and the dental technicians in South Africa are in order—and I have no doubt that this ought to be the case—then I foresee no problem in a statutory council in the sense that the one will try to undermine the other.

Basically, the council deals with two aspects, namely training and tariffs. One could also put this in purely hypothetical terms. If the dental technicians of South Africa were to find that this statutory council was not functioning as they expected and that the dentists were misusing it to limit tariffs or to keep them low, then it is my conviction that the hon. the Minister would effect changes. It would be a pity if suspicion, fear or concern about this Bill among the dental technicians were generated from the outset. I believe that, given an attitude of co-operation and good relations between the professions, this Bill will have a favourable effect, since it is in the interests of the dental technicians, and there must be no doubt about that.

I wish to express sincere appreciation today. The dentistry of today is not what it was 10, 20 or 30 years ago. Today a dentist does not have the time to do the work of a dental technician. There are dental technicians today with artistic talent who do fine work, work which promotes the health of our people. Therefore there must be a sound relationship between the profession of dentistry and that of dental technicians. I think that if men are appointed to the council, men who regard this as an opportunity to undermine the dental technicians, they will not promote the concept of a statutory council. However, I am not in the least anxious as far as this is concerned. Nevertheless, I want to repeat that if the dental technicians do not feel happy about the composition of the council, and if it were to happen that the council functioned in such a way that their case could not be stated, there will always be the opportunity to approach the Minister concerned. I believe that he will give attention to the alteration of the composition of the council. I think that at this stage this is a particularly fine Bill in the interests of the health of our people.

Mr. Speaker, one might start in a debate like this by saying that it is not every day that we discuss legislation that we can really get our teeth into. One might continue by saying that the Bill before us offers 47 pages to chew on, but from the NRP’s point of view I think we can say that we have not had much toothache as a result of that. Looking through the 52 clauses of the Bill covering every possible aspect of matters relating to dental technicians and dentures, I am sure that there must be many hon. members in this House who are very happy and rather relieved that they still have their own teeth today.

The legislation, as has been said, is largely a consolidation of previous legislation, and to that extent there seems to be consensus that the Bill before the House is worthy of support. The technicians themselves have expressed support for the measure and I think that that, in itself, is an indication that it will be welcomed by the people most concerned. I think, however, that a couple of points should be made in this regard.

I should like to start by saying to the hon. the Minister that we welcome his specially mentioning the fact that the training, facilities and all matters relating to the Bill are clearly for the benefit of all race groups. We welcome that and applaud the hon. the Minister for making it as clear as he did. I should have thought, however, that the hon. the Minister might have taken the opportunity of telling the House just how many Blacks, Coloureds and Indians are, in fact, qualified in this field. My worry is that, although the situation we have is such that the legislation before us is thorough and acceptable, I wonder whether the position would not have been much more acceptable in toto if we had been able to welcome the legislation in the light of the fact that it affected larger numbers of the other race groups. My worry is that there are insufficient numbers of Black, Coloured and Indian dental technicians qualified in this field today. I believe that this is an aspect we should discuss, because clause 3 on page 4 of the Bill deals with the objects of the council, the first of which is the following—

1. (a) to assist in the promotion of dentistry in the Republic;

I agree with the hon. the Minister that this provision surely relates to all race groups. I am worried that there are insufficient numbers of dental technicians of the other race groups who are qualified to deal with their own communities. One can look at this in the light of the comments by a previous speaker who referred to the fact that people who are not citizens of South Africa cannot belong to the council. I think the point made in that regard was a fairly reasonable one. I also support the previous speaker who intimated that the dental technicians would prefer a change in the composition of the council so as to favour their numbers, rather than having parity between themselves and the dentists. I cannot agree with the reasoning of the hon. member for Rustenburg who supports parity because he feels that there should, of necessity, be good relations between the dental technicians and the dentists. I believe that that is a requirement in any event, but I do not think that a good relationship between the two bodies should detract from the necessity and relevance of having a larger number of technicians who are, indeed, the subject of the legislation. I think it is reasonable to expect that they themselves, since the legislation concerns them so specifically, should be in the majority. This seems logical if one takes into account the composition of their council. I hope that if the hon. the Minister’s motivation is sound, he will let us know what it is, because I for one cannot understand why it should be necessary to have the number of dental technicians remain exactly the same. I should think that to any reasonable man it would seem obvious that the dental technicians should be in the majority on a council which intimately concerns itself largely with their affairs. I should appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could elaborate on that aspect for our benefit.

I believe that the Bill before us is similar— as the hon. the Minister has indicated—to legislation, affecting other professional bodies, which has been before the House in recent years. I do not believe that there are any issues of great controversy on which we have to take issue or with which we have to find fault. I welcome the fact that Bills like this are coming before the House in 1979, which has been designated as Health Year, because after all dental health, and the services that go with it, are also an important part of the overall health legislation which comes before the House from time to time. I want to end by saying that the NRP will be supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill before the House is a new measure because the existing Act has virtually been rewritten in toto in order to create this fine Bill. Normally the Opposition enquires who has been consulted or why the consultation has not taken place. This Bill is the result of long deliberation, consultation and collaboration with all the bodies and persons concerned. There was consultation with the existing council and the association. In September 1978 a draft Bill was published for commentary. That commentary was obtained and together with all the evidence available it was used as a basis for drafting this Bill. In this Bill an effort is made to eliminate the problems and the deficiencies of the existing Act.

It is appropriate for us in this health year to have before us this new legislation for the proper regulations of matters concerning dental technicians and—as the hon. Minister said—to round off the five year plan. The hon. Minister and his department deserve our gratitude for this. The Bill is based on legislation relating to other professions and retains the same sound pattern. A professional council with an ethical code which can take disciplinary action is being established. This affords the dental technicians the required status. The council compiles its own register, controls its own training institutions, courses and examinations and conducts its own inspections. What is good about this is that it co-ordinates the work. Co-ordination, which is such an important aspect, between the dentist, the technician and the contractor is embodied in this Bill. The important aspect in the composition of the council is the greater involvement of everyone concerned with the profession. The hon. Minister will furnish a comprehensive reply to all the reservations expressed in this regard. I want to associate myself with what hon. members on this side of the House have said in this regard. I do not find fault with this. On the contrary, I find it very balanced. If there is any reason for changing it in future, this will undoubtedly be done in good time.

I want to refer to the question of Blacks in this profession. We have learnt that there is a total lack of interest in this field among Blacks in this country. I believe there is a profession here which is wide open to our Black community. I believe the department and other bodies should appeal to the Black people and advertise this aspect—the Opposition can also do a great deal in this regard—so that the Black population can have their own people trained as technicians.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members who took part in the debate. I think all contributions were motivated by an interest and I am glad that as usual with legislation of this kind we have a wide consensus of opinion.

†The hon. member for Bryanston was concerned about the composition of the council because he had been approached by one of the bodies representing the technicians. I do not want to elaborate or go into detail on the various clauses during the Second Reading. We can cross that bridge when we come to it in the Committee Stage. I can, however, tell him that if these dental technicians want a board of their own, they can become one of the supplementary health services. They would then fall under the aegis of the Dental and Medical Council and only then would I be prepared to consider giving them representation so that their representatives would outnumber the dentists. At present this is a mixed council and is, as such interdependent. As the hon. member for Kempton Park has said, we have consulted all the bodies concerned. We have not ignored anybody. This Bill has been formulated after consultation with the council, which consisted of one public servant who is a dentist, three dentists and three technicians. The dental technicians were in the minority on the council. At present the council consists of four dentists, five technicians and one public servant and one person appointed by the Minister, who might be a legal man or something else. We do not think they are any worse off. They fall under a mixed council, but if they want a council purely for dental technicians, they can appoint a board such as is provided for in all other health legislation. However, they must come under the aegis of the Medical and Dental Council. I think I have said enough about that When we come to the Committee Stage, the hon. member can raise this issue again and we can cross swords about it further.

As far as the question of South African citizenship is concerned, it is not for me to elaborate on opinions whether Black South Africans will be able to serve on this council in the far future or not. The four congresses of the NP decide on policy and opinions expressed by Cabinet Ministers will eventually be discussed and decided upon at NP congresses.

What is the present policy?

I am not talking about the present policy. At the moment there are many opportunities for thousands and thousands of South Africans to avail themselves of these facilities. If this eventually materializes— which I am not so sure about in any case— then we can cross this bridge.

The hon. member has also said—and this bears on what I have just said—that he finds it difficult to understand why non-South Africans will not be able to serve on this council in future. That is impossible. Somebody from another independent country or State cannot serve on a statutory body of this country.

We are referring to South African Blacks.

The hon. member says they refer to South African Blacks. I can assure the hon. member that at the moment the S.A. Dental Association makes provision, as far as membership is concerned, for members of all races to be elected on that council. If they regard a Black dentist as being good enough to be appointed to this council, there is nothing that prevents them from doing that. We have an Indian serving on the S.A. Medical and Dental Council at the moment.

What about a former citizen of Transkei?

Transkei is an independent country.

[Inaudible.]

I am not going to discuss this matter across the floor. It is a question of kicking the ball to the Opposition and they kicking it back. That will never get us anywhere. As I have said, I am not going to elaborate on that now. We shall cross that bridge when we discuss clause 1 in the Committee Stage.

*The hon. member for Rustenburg presented a sound and balanced view of the matter. At the moment, the council is mixed and it operates on an interdependent basis between dentists and dental technicians, and that is how it will stay. However, no law is the law of the Medes and the Persians, particularly in the medical field. We are being guided by circumstances and the way things develop. The dental technicians may perhaps feel in due course that the law which they are subject to ought to be amended, or that they should be placed under another authority.

†The hon. member for Berea was worried about the training facilities for dental technicians. He was also worried that not enough people were coming forward to avail themselves of these opportunities. I agree with him that it is one of the tasks of this new council to promote the profession. That is where this council comes in. If they need advice or aid, they can approach the department or the universities. I completely agree with the hon. member in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he can give us up to date figures of the number of people from the various race groups who are qualified at the moment?

No, I cannot One can obtain these figures from the departments which are actually responsible for these people, such as the Departments of National Education, Coloured Relations, Plural Relations and Development and Indian Affairs. I might be able to obtain these figures from them.

The hon. member for Berea was also worried about the question of parity. I think I have already answered his argument as best as I could.

*The hon. member for Kempton Park has in my opinion expounded the issue of consultation very well. I believe the question of consultation can best be dealt with when, as I expect, the aspect of equal representation is again stressed. I just want to say that there was consultation with everyone who should have been consulted. According to my information there were quite a lot of people who came much too late for these talks or who acted on a sectional basis. When they had the opportunity of putting their case, they remained silent, but as soon as the Bill was introduced here, they started to complain. If one should draw a comparison between the present and the originally published numbers and ratios between dentists and dental technicians, one sees that there is no difference and that no change has taken place. The only change which has taken place, is that there is now another kind of representative appointed by the dentists or the Minister. There has been co-ordination. Finally, I just want to stress that in this case I am convinced that there was enough consultation on all levels and with all interested parties. I am also convinced that we introduced a Bill here which ought to satisfy everyone at this stage. Perhaps we shall have to make changes to this Bill again in a year or two.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, I am now more confused than I was in the beginning.

Order! The hon. member must ask a question.

Suppose a Black man lives in the Cape, where his family has been living for the past 300 years.

Order! The hon. member must ask a question.

This man is a qualified dental technician and he is a prominent member of the profession, but because he is Xhosa speaking, he lost his South African citizenship when Transkei became independent.

The hon. member can raise that matter at the Committee Stage. His question is too long.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Fertilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act, 1947, was amended in 1977 to make provision for the registration of and control over fertilizers, farm feeds, agricultural remedies and stock remedies. The products controlled under the aforementioned Act do not contain any substance included in the schedules to the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act, 1965. The present position is therefore that farm feeds and stock remedies which do not contain any substances included in the schedules to the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act, are controlled while farm feeds and stock remedies which do contain such substances, are not controlled.

The Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Association of South Africa made representations to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services that control should also be introduced in regard to such products. In order to avoid the duplication of control measures as well as the establishment of another body similar to the Medicines Control Council, it has been decided to amend the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act, 1965, to provide for such control under that Act.

Since the products in question contain substances included in the schedules to the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act, the sale thereof is already controlled in terms of that Act, and this position will not be affected. However, it will be required that in future all such products will have to be registered before they can be sold. In terms of section 1(3) of the Act, regard shall be had only to the safety, quality and therapeutic efficacy thereof in order to determine whether or not the registration or availability of such products is in the public interest. The purpose of introducing control over these products, therefore, is to ensure that they comply with an acceptable standard.

Since the manufacture of the products in question will be controlled by the Medicines Control Council, provision must be made for the appointment of a veterinarian as a member of the council, and of a veterinarian as a member of the council, and of a veterinarian as a member of the Medicines Control Appeal Board.

The other amendments are aimed at the elimination of problems with the administration of the Act. Section 18, for instance, contains strict directions about particulars which shall appear on labels and in advertisements. Some containers of medicine are so small that it is impossible to print the particulars on the labels and, if printed, the type is so small that it can hardly be read. The matter can be dealt with more efficiently by regulation.

Section 22 requires the Medicines Control Council, with the approval of the Secretary for Health, to furnish medical practitioners, dentists and pharmacists with certain information about medicines registered with the council. It has been impossible to comply with this requirement for want of money. The amendment will enable the Secretary to find other ways and means to furnish the information.

The requirements in terms of section 22A, that permits can only be issued on the recommendation of the Council, cause unnecessary delays. In order to expedite the issue of such permits the amendments in clause 9 provide, inter alia, that the Secretary for Health may issue permits in regard to activities which are regarded as purely commercial. The council’s main function, namely to ensure that medicines of an acceptable standard are made available to the consumer, will not be affected.

Section 28 requires that a sample must be divided into three by the inspector who takes such a sample. In the case of single samples, the provision presents no difficulty, but when 100 or more samples are taken, or as in a recent case 500 samples at one occasion, it is impossible to comply with the requirement. It has therefore been decided to amend the provision to bring it in line with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977.

I have briefly dealt with main principles of the Bill. I also wish to add that a draft Bill was published for information and comment, and that the draft Bill was revised in the light of comment received.

Mr. Speaker, as far as this legislation is concerned, we shall support the Second Reading. I believe that the legislation is largely in accord with the requirements of the Medical Control Council and that they have approved of the provisions contained in this legislation. The legislation largely makes provision for the inclusion of veterinary medicines and it also makes provision for including veterinarians in the various bodies and committees. The hon. the Minister has indicated that provision is made for bringing about improvements as far as packaging is concerned and also as far as the description of the medicines in these packages is concerned. Provision is also made for better control as far as advertising is concerned.

Clause 13 deals with notice for prosecution. The proposed new subsection (2) reads as follows—

It is felt by the people in this particular field that they would prefer to retain the original 21 days because they believe that the time it takes for such documents to reach their destination and the time it requires for an investigation to be made for the preparation of a case with regard to such a matter, that they require 21 days. Fourteen days will make it very difficult, and may interfere with the proper course of justice. I therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister to drop his proposal to decrease the period of time from 21 to 14 days.

There is only one aspect of this Bill which causes one some concern. In many of the provisions there is a clear indication that some of the functions, rights and responsibilities, which are now held by the council, will now be transferred to a greater or lesser extent to the Secretary. In other words, there is an erosion of the responsibilities of the council and those responsibilities are now transferred to the bureaucracy concerned. I counted about 10 different cases where this is so. I believe that that is a bad principle, i.e. when a council of this nature is created in order to deal with a field of activity of such a professional nature; then in effect status is given not only to the council but also to the whole profession. If their rights, responsibilities and functions are then eroded one will be detracting from their status. I believe that that is an unwise step. The hon. the Minister should desist from that particular tendency, both as far as this legislation is concerned and in any further legislation which he might bring before this House. It is said that it is an almost irresistible urge on the part of bureaucracies to take unto themselves more and more powers and to remove powers from other bodies, such as these statutory bodies, in order to increase their own particular stock of powers. I think that an enlightened Minister and an enlightened department will attempt at all costs to resist that particular temptation and not to fall for it.