Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia and several other hon. members referred to the unsatisfactory economic growth rate which South Africa has been experiencing over the past few years. I immediately agree with them, of course, that our economic growth rate has not been what it should be over the past few years. However, this is partly a normal cyclical phenomenon. We all know that in every developing economy based on the principle of private enterprise, there are periods of prosperity and periods of recession. In other words, there is an economic or a business cycle, and there are years in which the growth rate rises above the average, for example in 1974, when it stood at more than 7%. Then again there are years in which the growth rate drops below the average long-term rate. I also agree at once that in South Africa, as in most other countries, there have also been certain non-cyclical factors in recent years which have aggravated the problems of insufficient growth.

Surely it is common knowledge that the world economy has performed poorly in recent years, as a result, among other things, of the effect of the large increases in the oil price. Naturally, certain political complications in Southern Africa, over which we had no control, have not been conducive to economic growth either. Since the end of 1977, however, there has been an upswing in the South African economy. In 1978, the real growth rate was around 2,5%. As I have already said, I expect a further appreciable rise during 1979. I do not intend to give a way any budget secrets how. A great deal has been said about the need for stimulation, for further stimulation of the economy. I shall not be able to say much about that today, but I anticipate that our policy will be more successful for the South African economy as a whole in 1979 than it was in 1978.

†Mr. Speaker, I should just like to add a word to this argument on the stimulation of the economy. It is, of course, true that, especially during the last 15 or 16 months, we have taken a number of steps to put a little more life into our economy which suffered from the adverse effects of the serious recessionary conditions in the world economy, and of course from the long lasting effect of that very substantial oil price rise which started in 1973. If one quantifies the steps we have taken in this comparatively short period, in terms of rand it adds up to a good deal more than R1 billion already. One must, of course, realize that we do have very considerable responsibilities ahead of us. The whole oil scene is permeated with uncertainty and doubt. The whole energy picture is unclear, and it is quite clear that we in South Africa are also going to be subjected to further substantial inconveniences and cost rises on that score.

However, I believe we have it in us so to order our affairs, also our financial affairs, to withstand the disruptions that could so easily set in as a result of this latest further energy set-back. I am not pessimistic, but I believe we have to be realistic and, when we talk about further stimulatory measures, bear the whole picture in mind. At the moment I do not want to go beyond that on this particular point.

I now want to deal briefly with a few of the points that were raised during this debate. I am not going to do so in any particular order.

*In the first place I want to refer to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North. He is regrettably unable to be here this afternoon. He referred to problems experienced by pensioners and others. The hon. member said that one of the reasons for this was the problems arising from increased property rates levied by municipalities. It is true. There are major problems in this connection. However, I want to assure the hon. member that we appointed a senior inter-departmental committee quite a while ago. The committee is under the chairmanship of the former Secretary for Finance, Mr. Browne. We call it the Browne Committee. The committee is making a thorough study of these matters. They are investigating the whole question of the financing of local authorities. They are also investigating the financial problems of municipalities and other authorities and they are examining possible solutions to those problems. As I expected, the committee found, as its investigations progressed, that the problem was actually much greater than it had originally thought Very good progress is being made, however, and I shall keep the House informed. I really hope that we shall be able to have something useful within a month or two which will enable us to give attention to this very serious problem.

The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke referred in an interesting speech to the financial problems in agriculture and in our farming community. It is true. There are problems. In some areas in South Africa there are serious problems. He mentioned the interesting idea that we could perhaps approach some of these problems in the light of the assistance given to marginal mines in the form of subsidies. We shall make a very thorough study of the implications of that I want to say at once that as my hon. friend will understand and agree, there are certain differences, of course. The mines are a wasting asset. We cannot exercise any discretion over the prices received for those minerals. The price is a given fact. This also applies, of course, to agricultural products that are exported.

But as far as the internal market is concerned, the authorities do have a certain discretion with regard to the price. I am just mentioning these aspects and I want to assure my hon. colleague that as a result of representations made to us from the agricultural industry, the Minister of Agriculture and I recently appointed a working committee under the chairmanship of the General Manager of the Reserve Bank, Dr. Jacobs. This committee has made very good progress. In fact, they have completed their investigations and we shall examine their recommendations very carefully. I hope that I shall be able to say more about this in my budget speech. I consider it a very urgent matter. The Government sympathizes with our farming community. There is no doubt about that.

†Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville raised a number of points. He questioned me about the new insurance association, the company that has been set up to provide cover against riot damage. If I understand him correctly, I think he asked why this was not left to the private insurers. That has been left to private insurers, but representatives of the industry themselves proposed that they should get together and form a company, or association as they call it, and then administer this company and do business. Anybody wanting this type of cover, would do business with them. They would have to meet the administration costs and would, of course, obtain a premium income. In that way this company would build up a fund which would be used to meet claims arising from riot damage.

They also decided that if, especially in perhaps the early years, that fund was not sufficient to meet all the claims, they would find an additional amount themselves; a certain limited amount, up to a certain figure, they would be prepared to add under those conditions. If the claims go beyond their own fund as worked up out of premiums, as well as the further amount they are prepared to find, the Government will come in at that stage as what I call the reinsurer of last resort. Only in such a case will the Government then be liable for participating in the settling of claims.

This company or association has its own board of directors and is functioning. I think it is a very good example of private enterprise doing something which is also very much in the public interest, eventually backed by public funds, if necessary. Then the hon. member for Yeoville also raised …

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. the Minister tell us what the amount is of the capital commitment of the private insurers and the amount of the capital that they are prepared to put in before they call on the State for the re-insurance commitment?

The first amount, i.e. their own reserve funds, depends on the amount of business they do and I can therefore not give a figure in that respect. In regard to the second amount, they have a figure of approximately R5 million in mind at the moment. Beyond that it depends on what the balance might be, for which the Government will then be responsible.

The hon. member for Yeoville also asked us to look at the sales tax and incentives for industry, at relief from GST for the lower income groups by either abolishing GST on basic essentials or by subsidizing certain essentials, etc. The hon. member for Parktown also mentioned something of interest in his speech in this respect. The House will remember that when I introduced a Bill last year which finally authorized us to go ahead with general sales tax, the hon. Opposition fought it tooth and nail, despite the fact that I had repeatedly stressed that one of the main objectives of this new tax, if it succeeded, was to put the Government in the position where it would have some manoeuvrability to reform the tax system and, if possible, particularly to reduce the incidence of direct taxes such as income tax. I pointed out the imbalance that had come into our fiscal structure, i.e. that approximately 70% of tax revenues were coming from direct taxes, such as income tax, company tax, etc., and just over 30% from indirect taxes, such as customs duties, excise duties, etc. To correct this imbalance is our great objective, and I see that the hon. member for Parktown—if I understood him correctly— urges me to reduce income tax. Last year I told him that he was going to ask me to reduce income tax without wanting to allow me to introduce the new general sales tax. Now we have come to the point where I can say that the general sales tax seems to be working very well. It is working well for two main reasons. One reason is the incredible effort the Department of Inland Revenue has put in and the great efficiency with which they have worked, and the other is the extremely constructive response on the part of the tax-paying public. We shall therefore proceed on that basis and see how far we can redress this imbalance in the tax structure in order to bring about a better incidence overall.

The hon. member for Yeoville further suggested adjustments to liquid asset ratios and lending limits. In this regard I can assure him that the Reserve Bank keeps a very close look at fiscal objectives and monetary policies, especially in the light of, among other things, fiscal objectives, and the monetary authorities will not hesitate to make adjustments whenever they may deem it necessary. He also mentioned the issue of exporting incentives, which is also very important. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and his department have been looking at the matter again, and there have been certain proposals to broaden the base of this type of incentive. We shall shortly have to make up our minds as to how much we can afford in that respect, but the amount which is asked for is getting bigger and bigger.

The issue of unemployment featured quite a good deal in a number of speeches. My own view is that I always regret unemployment, because it means individual hardship. Someone is out of work. The family of such a person usually suffers, and it is something one does not like. All I can say in this respect is that I think that the overall proportion of this problem in South Africa has been a great deal less than in many other countries. Australia, for example, is a very homogeneous society and their latest unemployment figure is approximately 500 000. I am led to believe that this is the highest unemployment figure in their history. It does not help us, however, to refer to others. We have to battle with our own problems, and we are indeed very much aware of the need here particularly to see that there is a better rate of economic development in the whole economy. So we shall be bearing that in mind as a very substantial priority.

I might be able to come back later to one or two other points raised by the hon. member for Yeoville.

The hon. member for Walmer in a short speech raised quite a number of points. Among other things, he referred to the building programme and the R250 million which had been made available in November 1977 to be spread over the next three years to add impetus to the building industry. Of course, it takes a little time for a big programme like that really to get under way, but the Department of Plural Relations, which is looking at housing for Blacks, and the Department of Community Development have been very active indeed. My information is that the Department of Plural Relations in the first 15 months already spent more than half of the R50 million allocated to them under this programme. The Department of Community Development has spent well in excess of R50 million and the tempo there is rising quite substantially; so that already between R80 million and R90 million has been spent and, as I have said, they expect a considerably higher tempo of development under this programme in the next 15 to 18 months. In this connection, as much as the Government wants to contribute towards the alleviation of the general housing problem for all race groups, I do feel very strongly that private enterprise must also contribute its share. There is a very fine response from certain sectors of the private economy, such as parts of the mining and manufacturing sectors, as the hon. the Minister of Community Development will bear out. But I think in some parts of the private sector a bigger and more concerted effort is necessary in order to bring the amount up to the maximum contribution the economy can make to housing. I do not right now propose an injection of an amount of this kind, simply because the project still has about 18 months to run. A lot of money is of course being poured into housing by the Government through the main budget. The normal amount being voted, apart from this R250 million, is higher than it has ever been.

I agree with the hon. member that the question of the salary scales in the Police Force is a matter which needs sympathetic consideration. But as far as the Government is concerned this matter has been receiving sympathetic consideration for some time. A considerable additional amount has been voted already and further investigations are taking place into the pay structure. If I understood the hon. member correctly, he wanted to free the Services, i.e. the police and the military, from the Public Service Commission. I think we must be very careful in this regard. It is easy to think that, if one allows the police or the military to be on their own, it will necessarily mean they can improve their conditions of employment and remuneration. In practice this is not so. The Public Service Commission is anything but a restraining influence in this connection. On the contrary. The Public Service Commission is constantly looking at these fields of activity in the broad public sector to see how matters can be improved. One can imagine that the salaries Bill, for the public sector as a whole, has today assumed enormous proportions and, here again, one has to see what the State can afford. At what point can one say that one is simply going to place more burdens on the taxpayer in order to meet this type of problem? We are looking at the matter. From time to time there are regular improvements to the pay scales and conditions of employment, not only of the police and military personnel, but of the whole public service. The initiative for much of that comes from the Public Service Commission. It is reviewing the situation the whole time. So I should like to put in a word here for the Public Service Commission and pay tribute to it for its unceasing efforts—within the capacity of the country to pay for these things, especially when one bears in mind that the Bill is already enormous—to improve the lot of all public servants, highly paid and low-paid, in all the services.

But the uniform men do quite different work and should therefore be treated differently.

But the fact that there is overall surveillance by the Public Service Commission does not mean that all public servants are treated exactly the same. There are indeed substantial differences. The hon. the Minister who is responsible for the Public Service Commission, the hon. the Minister of the Interior, will immediately bear me out that there are in fact substantial differences, and these are taken into account. One only has to look at the different structures and the different dispensations governing their employment to see that Let me therefore say to the hon. member for Walmer that I agree with him in his broad objective constantly to see if we cannot improve the lot of these people who perform such selfless services for all of us. I ask him, however, to look very carefully at the very constructive role being played by the Public Service Commission with the immense stock of experience and knowledge it has built up, before concluding that the Services should simply be free from Public Service Commission control. One must also remember that the Treasury works in very close liaison with the Public Service Commission in all these matters. My own conclusion would therefore be the opposite of his. If they were to break away from the Public Service Commission, I think the Services would suffer.

The hon. member for Walmer also referred to the motor industry. Obviously the motor industry is a very important one. In that connection, let me merely say that he should bear in mind that the very substantial investment and other allowances that apply to industry also apply fully to the motor industry. When one adds it all up, one finds that the initial allowances and the investment allowances contribute a very substantial improvement to the position of an industry which is of front-ranking importance and put it in a much stronger position than it would otherwise be. I cannot now go into the state of the motor industry, but I can assure him that the Government is in no doubt about this industry’s very great importance to the economy.

*The hon. member for Griqualand East raised a few interesting matters. He spoke about the general sales tax, and I think he felt that there was a case to be made out for its scope to be widened. I think so too. Of course, we are constantly investigating matters of this nature. I may just repeat my attitude and that of my departmental heads. Any proposal of this nature, i.e. any proposal concerning finance, taxation, or something of that nature, is immediately referred to the department concerned and carefully studied, and if we can accept a proposal, we do so. So there is nothing which is said here, nothing which affects us directly or indirectly, which is not very thoroughly investigated.

The hon. member made a plea about estate duty. Perhaps I did not hear him correctly, but I think he said the revenue from estate duty was R8,7 million. In actual fact, it is closer to R50 million. That is the approximate figure for the year 1977-’78. This year it is a little higher. We should note the fact that of the 25 271 estates administered during 1975—that is the latest year for which full statistics are available—only 1 314, or 5%, were liable for the tax. I also want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that the rebates allowed in calculating the taxable value of estates were considerably increased last year.

As regards the levying of estate duty on the value of farming assets, I just want to point out that in the case of farm property, the administrator has the right to elect to have the value of the farm and its Land Bank valuation—which represents the production value rather than the market value—taken into account for estate duty purposes. This in itself is a major concession, and when we bear in mind that the maximum investment of R70 000 in Government securities, Land Bank securities and insurance policies, which is excluded from the taxable value of the estate, is enough, in the case of an estate where there is a surviving spouse and two children, to cover the tax on an estate of just under R500 000, I believe that it ought to be clear that estate duty is not the bogy which it is so frequently made out to be. Therefore it should also be within the means of the vast majority of our people to provide in good time for the payment of this tax without causing the heirs to suffer privation or to be forced to sell some of the assets.

How do you know when you are going to die?

Allow me just to say to my hon. friends that I have no great liking for estate duty either. However, R50 million is R50 million. One must also bear in mind the enormous demands made on the Treasury by defence. Four years ago, R600 million was appropriated for defence. Today, it amounts to R1 800 million and more. That has been the increase over a period of only four years. During those four years we have not had a very good growth rate either. We must bear these things in mind. However, let us remain optimistic. If conditions keep improving satisfactorily, we shall be able to reconsider this matter sympathetically. I have only tried to put the matter in some perspective. I hope I have succeeded.

Then there is the question of the exchange rate of the rand. That is a very important subject, at the moment even extremely important. It has been raised by several members in one form or another. I believe that all the hon. members who referred to this expressed their satisfaction with the Government’s acceptance of the De Kock Commission’s report in this connection. Some members—I think they included the hon. members for Yeoville, Walmer and Parktown—were somewhat critical of the way in which the recommendations had hitherto been implemented or not implemented. Certain hon. members on this side of the House—including the hon. members for Schweizer-Reneke, Malmesbury and Eshowe—quite rightly emphasized the importance of the expeditious and purposeful implementation of the new exchange rate system. I want to thank them for their constructive approach to this very important matter. I fully agree with these hon. members that it is extremely important for the new system to be implemented with decisiveness and efficiency and not in a piecemeal fashion. In fact, I have emphasized this from the start. It was also one of the main themes of my Second Reading speech on this Bill. I have taken the necessary steps to ensure that the new system will be implemented in accordance with the Government’s decision in this connection. If there was still any doubt about this, I think it has now been finally removed by my statement in this House and by the steps which immediately followed. The new system of controlled floating of the rand came into operation on 27 February. The rand is now in fact an independent currency, with an exchange rate determined by supply and demand in the South African exchange market under the supervision of the Reserve Bank. I may just add that the new system was off to a good start in the first two days, and it seems that it is working well. In the future, therefore, the rand/dollar exchange rate will be more flexible. Sometimes the rand will appreciate in terms of the dollar and sometimes, of course, it will depreciate. As I said on Monday, however, I do not expect the rand/dollar exchange rate to deviate very much from the existing ratio under the present circumstances. The initial effect during this week was a small appreciation of the rand.

†The hon. member for Parktown expressed his agreement with the principle that the exchange rate of the rand should essentially be determined by supply and demand in the market. In this regard he asked me to comment on the presumption that any adverse trend which developed in the balance of payments would be allowed to exert its impact through exchange rates. I want to comment on this by saying that as matters stand at present, we have a large surplus on the current account of the balance of payments and rising net reserves of foreign exchange. I therefore do not anticipate any difficulties in respect of the balance of payments in the period immediately ahead. On the contrary. As the situation is now developing, the rand might well appreciate in terms of the dollar. However, from experience we know that the balance of payments of an important trading nation like South Africa will inevitably show cyclical and other fluctuations and that there will therefore be periods in which there will be deficits as well as periods in which there will be surpluses in the balance of payments. Under the new system the rand might therefore be expected to appreciate at times and to depreciate at other times. I believe that this flexibility should be extremely beneficial to the economy as a whole.

The hon. member for Parktown also asked me to clarify the problem in regard to the Reserve Bank’s purchases and the sales of dollars in the foreign exchange market as part of its so-called intervention policy. He asked whether other currencies than the US dollar should not also be involved in this regard. The exchange rate between the rand and other important currencies, such as the Deutsche Mark, the pound sterling and the Swiss frank, are indeed important to us.

The reason why the Reserve Bank confines its so-called intervention transactions to the dollar, is a technical one. In most foreign exchange markets in the world the US dollar has become the main so-called intervention currency. In most developed countries the central banks influences conditions in the foreign exchange market and are buying and selling dollars mainly, if not exclusively. The S.A. Reserve Bank will do the same, but in doing so, it will of course also be influencing the exchange rate between the rand and other important currencies. The dollar is merely used as the most convenient instrument to attain that end.

Several hon. members also made statements or put questions to me about exchange control and the new financial rand. The hon. member for Yeoville stated that the significance of the recommendations made by the commission in this regard had to some extent been watered down as a result of the fact that the recommendations had not yet been implemented and are not likely to be implemented in the immediate future, and those who believe that exchange control will disappear as a result of the commission’s report, he said, will be disappointed.

I want to state my approach to this important matter as clearly as I can. The commission did not recommend the complete abolition of exchange control. For the short term it recommended the retention of substantial exchange control over both residents and non-residents. For the longer term it recommended the abolition of exchange control over non-residents and the introduction of a unitary exchange rate for the rand with limited exchange control over residents. These recommendations have been accepted by the Government. Exchange control has performed, and still performs, an essential function in South Africa, but in South Africa, as in most other countries, exchange controls cannot be relied upon to protect the official reserves against substantial erosion at all times and under all circumstances. Controls are effective up to a point, but experience all over the world has shown that they can be circumvented both legally and illegally in various ways. Another major disadvantage of exchange control which applies to non-residents is that it constitutes a serious deterrent to the inflow of foreign capital. Our firm objective is therefore to move in the direction recommended by the commission and to reduce our reliance on exchange control as we go along. The first step in this direction is the introduction of the new financial rand and the eventual objective is the abolition of exchange control over non-residents and the merging of the commercial rand and the financial rand into a unitary currency.

The hon. member for Walmer welcomed the new exchange arrangements and stated that the new financial rand would act as a strong inducement to foreign investors to buy assets at a discount in South Africa. I would agree with him. He mentioned the possibility of a special overseas campaign to encourage foreign investors to invest in South Africa through the financial rand. My department will certainly give still further attention to this, although I can say that we have in various ways, through different channels overseas, been making this new scheme known as much as we could. In the meantime I again wish to stress that the new financial rand system will be implemented and will be expanded just as rapidly as possible. It has not gone unnoticed here and overseas that our whole approach in this regard is to simplify, streamline and, wherever possible, to liberalize our exchange controls. With a strong economy like that of South Africa, with such a remarkable growth potential, too much of what I would call red tape—for want of a better word—is undesirable and is a detriment to economic progress. It will therefore remain my endeavour to cut down on these unnecessary inconveniences as much as possible in the interests of growth.

There is a final point in this regard. I do not want to belabour this point too much, but I think it is so important a matter that with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should just like to refer to one further aspect, in fact to something which the hon. member for Yeoville asked me. He asked me to comment on the potential losses still to be realized by the Government in respect of forward cover on loans by public corporations and municipalities in German marks, Swiss francs and other currencies which have appreciated considerably in recent years. It is true that these potential losses run into many hundreds of millions of rands. That, of course, is nothing new. It has been common knowledge for many years. In fact, I referred to this in detail last year in the House when I dealt with the revaluation of the Reserve Bank’s gold holdings on which of course, we made a substantial profit. If hon. members want to put the word profit in inverted commas I shall not object either.

It must be remembered, however, that these potential losses will only be realized as and when the loans in question reach maturity and have to be repaid. In other words, the losses will be spread over many years. Moreover, in anticipation of these losses, we made provision in the amended Reserve Bank Act, 1977, for setting off such losses against the profits made by the Reserve Bank on its gold holdings as the gold price moves upwards over time. In addition, a part of the gold revaluation profit in 1978 was put into a special contingency reserve account, which is also available to meet forward cover losses. It is impossible at this stage to predict how the Reserve Bank’s profits and losses on gold, foreign exchange and forward cover will work out each year, as this will obviously depend on the future movement of the gold price and the various exchange rates in question, but any net losses which might be realized or incurred in this regard should be viewed as a contribution made by the State towards assisting the public corporations in moderating the increases of electricity tariffs, steel prices, etc. The rate of inflation would clearly have been higher if these forward cover facilities had not been extended to the public corporations. The new forward cover arrangements which have now been introduced should also serve to reduce losses on forward cover in the future.

*Perhaps I should also refer to one other matter. A great deal has been said about our pensioners and the state of pensions at this moment. I know better than some hon. members, perhaps, how the cost of living bears down on the aged, and more specifically on the pensioners. I can assure the House that in so far as I am able and in so far as the Treasury is able to bear the burden, we shall reconsider the interests of our pensioners very thoroughly now that we are drawing up a budget I believe that we have nothing to be ashamed of as far as the record of the Government in this area is concerned. [Interjections.] I am only concerned with facts. I really do not want to refer at this stage to the achievement or the lack of achievement on the part of hon. members opposite when the United Party was still in power. That amount stood at R10 for goodness knows how long. [Interjections.] How long did that amount stand at R10? [Interjections.] In 1970, the social pension amounted to R35 a month. At the moment, it is R88 a month. Therefore the increase has been considerably higher than that of the cost of living. Surely this is a fact. I have it in front of me. It has been a fairly substantial increase in real terms. Of course, I am not saying that it has solved all the problems of our pensioners. I want to repeat, however, that when we look at the state of pensions when the UP was in power, I would have a great deal more to say. That was something to be ashamed of. Of course, it is also a question of what the country can afford. Then, of course, there are civil pensions as well, which have been regularly increased. We also have to consider homes for the aged. We have to consider children and children’s allowances. These are amounts running into millions and millions of rands.

However, we are now approaching the next budget. It will be presented in four weeks’ time, I believe. Let us reconsider this matter then. In the debates which lie ahead there will be sufficient opportunity to say more about this.

I hope you will do something about the means test. It has been the same since 1972.

Well, I certainly would not wish to become involved in a dispute with the hon. member for Umbilo. I have a very great respect for what he has done over many years in this important field. I also have respect for the way in which he has done it. He is someone who gets on with his job. He assists the Government wherever he can. He puts facts before us, as did another person who is long since retired, Major K. Ueckermann. Maj. Ueckermann is also a man for whom I have a very high regard. He is still in regular contact with us and gives us a great deal of information in a most constructive way. But I leave that for the moment and will come back to it when we put our new proposals in the budget.

Of course one must remember that it is not merely the incidence of the pensions to be defrayed from the Consolidated Revenue Fund that is dealt with in the main budget. The hon. the Minister of Transport has a very big bill, too, that has to be met when it comes to the question of Railway pensioners. There are also the Post Office pensioners and many others. When the matter of pensions is discussed at the next opportunity, we should perhaps give the House the details of the total amounts that are paid out year by year in different forms of pensions in different fields so that we can get the whole picture. We should then perhaps make comparisons and go right back to 1948.

I should think we ought to go back to the years before 1948.

Yes, we could do that, but then it would become pretty sordid. [Interjections.] The hon. Leader of the Opposition put certain questions to me. He talked about The Citizen …

Mr. Speaker, may I, before the hon. the Minister starts with another subject, ask him a question?

Mr. Speaker, I have really tried to deal at great length with the points raised by the hon. member for Yeoville.

Before you get on to politics, I should like to ask you about the copy …

Well, let us see how we go. The hon. Leader of the Opposition referred to the sale of The Citizen, which he says was the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. I am quite prepared to bear my responsibility as a member of the Cabinet, but let me say that any decisions taken in this respect were taken by the Cabinet very deliberately and in close consultation with the Pretorius Committee, a highly responsible and able committee, which has made very considerable and very substantial investigations into these matters.

The hon. member put a whole number of questions on this issue. In fact, he put them so fast that I myself in my own brand of shorthand could not keep up with him. In the meantime I had a look at his Hansard, which I unfortunately obtained only just before lunch. I think it is unedited. I looked at this pretty carefully, but some of the questions are not clear to me at all. I should therefore like to suggest to the hon. member that if, in the light of the answers which the hon. the Prime Minister gave him yesterday, he has further questions, he might care to put them on the Order Paper. I shall then certainly do my best to reply. I think that is a fair way in which to deal with his questions because in the course of his speech he mentioned certain figures and I am not at all clear what he was asking.

The hon. member also raised some questions in regard to the amount of R14,8 million. Actually the amount of R14 million in question was authorized in the normal way for, as we may call it, the secret activities of the Department of Information. That amount was approved of by means of the budget. At the time that department, like other departments, put its case to the Treasury. The department asked for more, but the Treasury cut them down and finally this amount was arrived at. It is also quite correct to say that the amount was dealt with through the new Secret Services Account. The hon. member asked me whether I could give the assurance that I dealt with the matter strictly in terms of the requirements of the relevant Act. I can give that complete assurance to him and I take full responsibility for that. In fact, because this was a new procedure which arose because of the new Act, I asked the Treasury, despite the Treasury’s own very clear view of how this should be done, to check with the law advisers. They did that and I acted strictly in accordance with the requirements of the Treasury and the law advisers. That, I think, is quite clear.

The hon. member also referred to a document from which he said I had withdrawn my initials. Of course I cancelled my signature. It was not a question of withdrawing it. I cancelled it. I was not prepared to have it said later that I had been approving anything because I simply did not know what those things were. That was put fully to the commission of inquiry, the commission took evidence from all the parties involved and the commission completely upheld me. If the hon. member or anybody else is not happy with this, he is under a bounden duty to go to the Erasmus Commission … [Interjections.]

Order!

Let us be calm now. One talks under considerable provocation on this matter. The commission, having heard all the evidence—and it heard a great deal of evidence—completely absolved me from any irregularity whatsoever.

It also said that you cancelled your signature on a photocopy of a document, but not on the original.

I am going to tell that hon. member that he is going to go before the commission, because I am going to ask for it.

What? [Interjections.]

Order!

If anybody, inside or outside this House, casts any reflection upon me—and I went to the commission voluntarily and answered every question they put to me—I am going to go straight to the commission and ask them to call that person before them on oath … [Interjections.] … and we can start with the hon. member for Umhlanga. [Interjections.] I did not say a word when he spoke. I listened to him, although it was not much worth listening to. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: There is a rule of this House relating to freedom of speech. It states that nobody may be threatened with any action … [Interjections.] Is it therefore proper for the hon. the Minister to threaten a member of this House with action against him on account of something he has said in the House? [Interjections.]

Order! I do not interpret the hon. the Minister’s words as a threat. I see it as an invitation to give evidence before the commission. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: With respect, the hon. the Minister threatened me by saying that if I … [Interjections.]

Are you afraid?

Order! I did not understand the hon. the Minister to utter a threat. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me as if some hon. members are starting to squeal before the fight has even started. [Interjections.] A number of us on this side of the House have had to put up with extreme provocation for quite a long time. There has been free talk of deception, and yesterday we even heard about stealing and theft in relation to what has happened …

And you will hear a lot more about it.

Order!

That hon. member had better contain himself. He is making a complete fool of himself in the House again, and he will never again make Umhlanga in this House; of that I can assure him.

I want you to come and oppose me there. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Umhlanga must contain himself.

I am quite prepared to stand there, but one would like to have opposition worthy of one’s mettle. [Interjections.]

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

No. I have now been interrupted for 10 minutes. I showed the House the courtesy of answering the questions put to me on financial and other matters at length, and I went to a lot of trouble on this myself at short notice. But the moment I come here and start putting my case in regard to the Information issue, then I must not be given an opportunity to say what I want to say. Nobody is going to shut me up. I have had to stand a great deal of defamation, and it is still going on. [Interjections.]

In this House?

Order!

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday evening, we on this side of the House were indicating that it was not our intention to start a political debate with the hon. the Minister of Health, nor to wage some sort of political war with him. We in the NRP shall continue to examine legislation dealing with health matters, and matters relating to health, on its merits wherever possible. However, when fundamentals of the legislation cut across our philosophy because of political connotations and motivations, we shall debate the legislation on its merits and the political aspects on their demerits. The political aspects of this Bill we have already dealt with thoroughly, and I am therefore not going to repeat arguments that have been raised before, except to say that clause 6(1)(c) does, in effect, exclude any person, from an independent homeland, from being a member of the council. We see this as an extension of the systems of exclusion so favoured by the Government. I believe these systems of exclusion operate to the detriment of our legislation and to the detriment of the peoples of South Africa.

In moving the Second Reading of the Bill, the hon. the Minister made it clear that the Bill contained no discriminatory aspects. He told us that people of all races could study to become dental technicians under exactly the same conditions of training and education. He said there would be no discrimination on the grounds of race against people wishing to become dental technicians. Because we support that concept, we welcomed his announcement. We feel, however, that the phraseology used by the hon. the Minister created the distinct impression—and this is how many hon. members interpreted his remarks—that there were no obstacles in the way of individuals of any race and that as a result of this there were in fact an acceptable number of dental technicians of all races available to serve their communities. The definite impression was created that in South Africa today there are enough dental technicians of all races to serve their communities. It seems that we were wrong in our interpretation and that the hon. the Minister may inadvertently have created the wrong impression, because I asked the hon. the Minister in the Second Reading debate and later on in the Committee Stage how many Black, Coloured, White and Indian dental technicians there were in fact. He was not able to supply us with the numbers of each race so qualified. During the Committee Stage, however, the hon. the Minister elaborated on this point and indicated to us that there were in fact no Black dental technicians. There lies the rub. It is not enough that the hon. the Minister runs an efficient department and does a good job—for that we in this party have often congratulated him in the past. The real issue is that he is a member of a Cabinet representing a Government that has discriminated shamelessly against other races over the last 30 years. When that policy results in the chickens coming home to roost, he as a member of that Government must carry his share of the consequences and the blame. Furthermore, if through the policy of the Government independent homelands are created that are not really independent as far as their health services are concerned, this clearly shows deficiencies in government and in the Government’s planning over the last 30 years. The debate on this Bill has once again highlighted farcical aspects in this respect. I hope the hon. the Minister realizes that we are not criticizing him as a person, that we are not criticizing his competence, but that we are criticizing the system under which he is forced to operate. I hope that he constantly brings to the attention of his colleagues the results of their policy of inequality and apartheid over the 30 years they have been in power.

There is one small point I wish to deal with before I resume my seat. I refer to the clause which gives the council the power to determine the conditions of service of dental technicians other than those in the employ of the State and provincial institutions. I accept the hon. the Minister’s reply to a query raised in the Committee Stage when he indicated that pension benefits and other such matters could be different for employees of the State and the provinces to the conditions enjoyed by people in the private sector. I should, however, like to ask the hon. the Minister not to use the exclusion provided for in that clause to the disadvantage of any dental technician in the employ of the State or the provinces in respect of his salary. There are fields in which State employees are paid rather less than their counterparts in industry and commerce and in private practice and I do hope that this will not apply here as a result of the exclusion provided for in the Bill. With those comments, I conclude my remarks.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had to listen to the hon. member for Bryanston for 12½ minutes, which is the length of time it took him to put a simple, straightforward question to me.

I should like a simple, straightforward answer to it.

He was harping on the same old string that we have had to listen to for the past week or so. I am not going to waste the time of the House giving my straight answer to that question again. I have furnished an answer already. It can be found in my Hansard of last Thursday. The hon. member can read it there.

Is it Government policy?

If he wants to entertain the fancy idea that he might create some confusion in the ranks on this side of the House as a result of the opinion I have expressed here, he is free to do so. I can explain why I said what I did say. He is entitled to an explanation and I gave him that explanation, but I find it impossible to endow him with the intelligence to understand it. I just want to say that I stand by what I have said. It is in Hansard for him to read.

I want to tell the hon. member for Berea that we do not shy away from politics. If we are drawn into a political discussion which is relevant—we do not mind being drawn into such discussions, as has indeed happened in the past few days. However, I feel that if legislation contains a common sense proposal, one should not at all inopportune times side track these issues by turning them into political issues thereby wasting the time of this House. That is where I feel that I can reproach the hon. member for Bryanston.

The hon. member for Berea also asked me to see to it that we should not use this proposal as far as dental technicians in the employ of the State are concerned, to their disadvantage. I can assure him that there are two sides to this question. We live in a country in which there is a system of free enterprise, but I as a kind of custodian of these people, can definitely give him the assurance that at all times I shall try to create the best conditions for them.

*Mr. Speaker, I think I have replied to what hon. members have expected of me, also to the hon. member for Bryanston, from whom I often differ, and to the hon. member for Berea, from whom I also at times differ. I thank them nevertheless for their participation in this debate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, in clause 1 the words “unqualified assistant” are changed to “pharmacist’s assistant”. We have no objection to the increased status given to this person as such. We accept that we have to protect the status of the pharmacist. An assistant is a person who now has to study for four years at a university on a full-time basis and has to do one year apprenticeship. His training, therefore, lasts five years. I think the profession must be made attractive enough for these people to become pharmacists, because one year after they become pharmacists, they can qualify as general practitioners. I therefore think that we should protect their status.

I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to another point. When the 1978 draft Bill was published our attention, and no doubt also the hon. the Minister’s attention, was drawn by the Pharmaceutical Society of South Africa to the fact that in that draft Bill there was actually a definition of “dispensaries”. In this Bill the definition of “dispensary” has fallen away. The Act itself does not specifically deal with the word “dispensing”, but there is a provision in section 29 which states that if a person performs any act pertaining to a pharmacist, it is an offence. Section 49 gives the board power to frame regulations. I do not have the regulations in front of me, but I imagine that they use the word “dispensing”, otherwise they would not seek a definition for it. They say that they are unhappy about not having a definition because it creates uncertainty and could lead to possible areas of dispute. Therefore they respectfully urge that every effort should be made to find an interpretable definition. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can help the board and the society at this stage and tell us why there is no definition and whether, in fact, attention could be given to the definition of “dispensary” if it is so required.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I am unable to help the hon. member here. The technical aspects as to whether a definition is necessary or not, is usually dealt with on the departmental level, and there is ample opportunity for it there. It is true that the acts a pharmacist may perform as pertaining to his profession are defined in section 29, and we assume that dispensing is included in those acts. If the hon. member feels, however, that he has raised a point in this regard, one to which I do not have the answer, we shall try to find and let him have the answer. But I do not think that we can do anything about it at this stage as far as this legislation is concerned. It is a good thing nevertheless that the hon. member has raised the matter, because that has brought the matter to my attention.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, there are one or two points I should like to raise in connection with clause 2. There has been a great deal of argument with regard to South African citizenship. The hon. the Minister has referred us to his Hansard where he has dealt with this matter and we fully understand what he said. But we do not understand whether that is also Government policy. The same principle applies here. In other words, the pharmacist, if he is no longer a South African citizen, no longer qualifies to be a member of the board. I do not want to get involved in a long political argument, but as far as this legislation is concerned, there is no clarity at present whether if he loses his South African citizenship he is no longer a member of the board.

There are some other points that I should like to raise with regard to this clause. As proposed in the new subsection the board shall consist of 16 people as opposed to 12 previously. There are six pharmacists who are elected, five persons who are appointed by the Minister and five who are nominated. The proposed new subsection (3) states that these members of the board shall hold office for a period of five years. The hon. the Minister will appreciate—I think he did tell us during the Second Reading—that, should they no longer represent the organization on whose behalf they were appointed, they could remain in office for the full five years unless they resign of their own accord. We have given this matter considerable thought because what we are dealing with here is legislation for all time. I do not believe it is good legislation which relies on the whims and fancies of an individual to decide whether or not to resign. There is a similar provision in the Bill which we have just passed with regard to dental technicians, but there this problem is cured by the clause which states that if he no longer holds the qualification, he ceases to hold office. We have therefore placed an amendment on the Order Paper which I would now like to move. It reads as follows—

If the hon. the Minister will give this amendment consideration I think it ought to meet the point. The other point I wish to draw to the attention of the hon. the Minister is that if the organization requested to make the appointment fails to do so, the hon. the Minister is then given the power to make such appointment. We have no objection to that. However, strictly speaking the hon. the Minister is then not obliged to appoint someone from that organization. I think that is a shortcoming. Nevertheless, I know he will do so. I have not moved an amendment to cover that possibility, although I believe it is actually a gap in the law.

Finally, I want to express my disappointment with the fact that in the composition of the board, as it is now, the Pharmaceutical Society of South Africa does not have full control over the profession. In the medical profession, for example, people belonging to that profession control the profession themselves. I think we are moving a little bit away from that in this instance. Quite frankly, we also do not understand the logic of the one-third, one-third, one-third representation if it means a profession loses control at the hands of its own enemies.

Mr. Chairman, I think I should start with the middle aspect referred to by the hon. member for Hillbrow, i.e. the actual amendment as it appears on the Order Paper. It reads as follows—

I believe the hon. member has a point here. He made a statement for which I am in fact grateful to him. As far as I am concerned, this was a matter for which provision had not been made in the legislation when we increased the membership of the Pharmacy Board. For example, we made provision for a member of the S.A. Medical and Dental Council, as well as a member of the Nursing Council, to serve on the Pharmacy Board. Therefore, as far as this matter is concerned, the hon. member is technically correct. Again I have certain technical problems.

†Section 5(3) of the principal Act actually deals with the tenure of office and the filling of vacancies. It is in this respect that the hon. member has moved his amendment. However, it should actually fall under section 7 of the principal Act. Section 7 of the Act deals with that aspect about which the hon. member is so worried now.

*So this is actually a technical problem. I should like to point out to the hon. member, however, that provision exists in section 7(1)(g) in the principal Act, until such time as this matter has been remedied, for the State President to terminate the tenure of office of any member if it is in the public interest to do so. Therefore, we shall be obliged to invoke that provision, if necessary. Moreover, we shall be able to invoke it until such time as this amendment or correction has been made to section 7 of the principal Act. I am referring to the amendment the hon. member has just moved in respect of section 5(3) of the principal Act. The problem is that one does not like to repeat things or duplicate the same provisions in drafting legislation. That is slipshod legislation. It is not the correct way of drafting legislation either, as we have been told by the legal draftsmen. Every stipulation in every clause has to be defined in way to render it sufficiently comprehensive with regard to the particular legislation, if, of course, it is possible to do so. For this reason I believe the hon. member will understand why, on account of a technical reason, I am unable to support his proposal at this stage. Nevertheless, I concede that the hon. member has made a valid statement in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, as far as clause 2(2) is concerned, I would like to put a case to the hon. the Minister for his consideration. The position is that the pharmacists of South Africa elect six of their members to the Pharmacy Board. The situation that exists at the moment is that a province the size of the Transvaal gets representation by one pharmacist on that board while Natal gets two representatives, the Cape Province two and the Orange Free State one. There is provision made in the regulations that each province shall at least have one representative. I feel that a province of the size of the Transvaal, with its number of pharmacies and pharmacists there, should have a greater representation than just one on the Pharmacy Board.

While I have listened to the case made by the hon. member for Hillbrow, and the answer of the hon. the Minister as to why he feels that the composition of the board should stay as it is. I believe a good case can be made out—indeed I think he has motivated the case well—for these extra people who are needed on the Pharmacy Board to represent colleges, universities, etc. I think it is necessary, and I do not think that anybody can really deny that necessity. However, the point that is really important, is that their number have increased out of all proportions to the number elected by the pharmacists themselves. As we heard earlier, that number has increased by 500% over the last few years.

In view of that fact, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would at this late stage be prepared to consider an amendment to the proposed new section 5(1)(b) by omitting the word “six” and insert the word “eight”. I should like to move this formally—

Mr. Chairman, I want to support the hon. member for Berea on the question of giving the profession its due representation. Apparently one other point that was worrying the Pharmaceutical Society is why the hon. the Minister is giving the Colleges for Advanced Technical Education the extra member and the association the right to make the appointment. I think thy would prefer the hon. the Minister making the appointment. Personally I do not feel very strongly about it, but apparently the society does.

There is one point about representation which I asked the hon. the Minister to take into consideration, and here is another reason why I want to support the hon. member for Berea. When a person represents an organization on the board like the Medical and Dental Council, the S.A. Nursing Institute, technical colleges or universities, I want to know whether that person is there on behalf of that organization to look after the interests of the organization or is that person there to identify himself with the interests of in this case the Pharmaceutical Society? If there is a clash of interests between one of these organizations and the Pharmaceutical Society, whose side is that person going to take? Is he then going to act in the interests of the Pharmaceutical Society or in interests of the organization he represents? A true representative on a council such as this should in fact sink his identity and interests into that of the profession he represents. That is the point which I would like the hon. the Minister to give consideration to.

Mr. Chairman, there are more questions by the hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Hillbrow to which I have to reply. I shall reply to them jointly as their questions mainly relate to the composition of the board. The matter of the South African citizenship of members of the board has been raised and in this regard I should just like to say that in this case it is the expertise of the people who are available to serve on the board, and of those already serving on the board, which is the decisive factor. I am referring to the members who are not elected. Those who are elected, are South African citizens. This is the requirement laid down in this regard. Here we allow ourselves to be guided by the suggestions of the board, because this is a board of experts.

As far as the board itself is concerned, I should like to say that when it comes to the question of what the number of board members ought to be and what the ratio of appointed members to elected members to members serving on the board because of the position they occupy in some* association or council, one would like to have the widest possible representation on the board, but the people who serve on the board have to be experts. Such people should not try to further group interests. From the nature of the case it is very important for us to keep that aspect of expertise in mind at all times. The composition: one third elected; one third appointed because of the position they occupy in some association, and one third nominated by the Minister, has worked very well in the past. It has also strengthened the idea of expertise being required on the board. I should like to say, for the benefit of the hon. member for Hillbrow, that it is expected of an expert to apply the expertise he has gained from the sectors he represents and in which he is a specialist, but not to apply his expertise sectionally. The Pharmacy Board is a board which deals with aspects of training, of trade and of discipline. Therefore, in the light of this, different kinds of people have to serve on the board. We cannot have an excessive number of representatives of, for example, the retail trade on the board. Nor can everyone serving on the board, be representatives of training colleges. I think this would be wrong. It would also place the Pharmacy Board in a position of not being able to obtain the best people from all the sectors.

The hon. member referred to the technical college which ought to have one representative on the board. At present there are virtually as many technical colleges as universities, and in both groups we find institutions for the training of pharmacists. Therefore I am morally obliged to give to both of these groups of training institutions equal representation on the board. I think that is only fair. The colleges have their own association and are under one umbrella, as it were. Therefore they may nominate two representatives, but as far as the universities are concerned, there are two, viz. the University of the Western Cape and the University of the North which also train pharmacists, while, unfortunately, they do not have representatives on the Committee of University Principals at this stage. I feel that I should bring about a balance in this regard if it is possible to do so, so as to afford those pharmaceutical training institutions an opportunity to state their case as well. That is why the Minister appoints those two members in this case. It is desirable, however, that the institution nominate its own representatives. I do not know whether I have replied to all the hon. members’ questions, but I believe this is more or less what they wanted to know.

Amendment moved by Mr. N. B. Wood negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. A. B. Widman negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the appointment of an executive by the board in terms of section 10 of the Act. The clause reads as follows—

instead of—

The clause reads further—

What I do not understand in this regard is: Who are the “other persons” and why is this provision necessary? We have just discussed the composition of the board and the appointment or election of the members for various reasons. I should imagine that the purpose of this clause is to extend the principle so that an executive or a subcommittee will in future be able to appoint persons who are not members of the board but who may be experts in for instance a technical field. Will the hon. the Minister please inform the House whether that is the intention in respect of “other persons”.

Mr. Chairman, it is precisely the intention to relieve part of the pressure on the board. At the same time, as I said a while ago, the board has quite a few different duties to perform. It is an educational board which lays down tariffs and quite often has to deal with financial matters. We felt that, although such people as may be appointed are not members of the board, to meet specific requirements as far as the board’s actions and duties are concerned, the board should be able to appoint these people to subcommittees.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister will recall the argument we had with regard to the interpretation of the new words proposed to be inserted by this clause, viz. “except in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed”. How is our difficulty to be solved? The word “prescribed” means that it will be prescribed by regulation. The board is given the power to do so. Let us take for example a smallish town near a hospital which does not have a pharmacist to do the necessary work there. The pharmacist in the town can then leave his chemist in order to assist the hospital in its dispensary. While he is at the hospital, an urgent case may crop up at his pharmacy requiring the dispensing of a prescription. The pharmacist will then not be available. How is this problem to be overcome? The view of the members of the Pharmaceutical Society is—and perhaps the hon. member for Berea will confirm this—that the first priority should be the pharmacy itself and the dispensing done at the pharmacy and that, if the hospital requires medicines, they should obtain them from the pharmacy. Obviously the requirements of the public attending the hospital must also be taken into consideration. It may be that the hospital urgently requires medicine to be dispensed or the hospital may be too far from the chemist for them to take their prescriptions there. These factors must also be taken into consideration. If possible, the hon. the Minister should give guidance with regard to the sort of regulations he expects will be passed under the provisions of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I think that a lot of what the hon. member for Hillbrow has said is quite true. A memorandum from the Cape Pharmaceutical Society was circulated to all hon. members of this House to give them an idea of the thinking of the people involved and who would be affected by this clause. I think the need and the reason for the proposed amendment goes back to a question I raised with the hon. the Minister in a previous debate, viz. the question of the remuneration of employees of the State. There is dissatisfaction amongst pharmacists employed by the State as regards their salary scales. This is the reason why in many instances the State finds it difficult to get the services of pharmacists, whether on a full-time basis or on a part-time basis, for these hospitals in the outlying areas. I sympathize and accept the fact that there are difficulties, in certain outlying areas, in getting the part-time services of a suitable pharmacist for a hospital that might not want the services, of a full-time pharmacist. If the scale of pay were improved, however, I believe that some of the retired or semi-retired pharmacists might be prepared, or more prepared, to accept such positions. I just want to give a very brief example to the hon. the Minister of the prevailing pay scales. This point was put to me only this morning and I have consequently not yet had the opportunity to check up on it. I shall, however, endeavour to do so. At the moment a pharmacist in the employment of the State has the same maximum grade scale as that of a principal chef with a Std. 6 qualification. I do indeed feel that the dietary needs of patients in hospital are just as great as their drug needs, so I have nothing against a principal chef getting a good salary. Let me, however, illustrate my argument with a brief example. If a principle chef puts a teaspoon of salt instead of a pinch of salt into a dish he is preparing, he might at worst have to throw away the dish he has prepared. However, if a pharmacist puts a teaspoon of stryghnine into a preparation instead of a pinch of strychnine, one might have to throw the patient away. I am just using that ridiculous example to illustrate that a professional person, with the training of a pharmacist, is entitled to a decent wage. I accept the hon. the Minister’s reassurance in the previous debate about people in these positions, professional people occupying important posts, being entitled to reasonable remuneration. Let me put it to him, however, that we do not find the proposed amendment satisfactory. We should like a stronger motivation for the case than we have had up to now.

Mr. Chairman, I think that the hon. member for Berea and I are ad idem when it comes to the remuneration and other conditions of service of these people.

*There is, however, something else I want to add to this. In the rural areas a doctor is not always able to be at his practice either, and there, too, the lives of people are just as often in danger. A person may be in a serious condition and often emergencies may arise. Therefore we have to lay down rules and have ways and means of solving problems. A person can leave his telephone number somewhere or make other arrangements of that kind. One can, in fact, make arrangements to solve the problems. I accept, of course, that we do have problems.

The tasks a pharmacist has to perform are defined in section 29, and we do not want constant pressure to have unqualified people perform the tasks of pharmacists. Through the operation of the normal laws of demand and supply there might be certain places where pharmacists are simply not available. In the rural areas one often has hospitals which do not have permanent pharmacists in their employ. Consequently we want to make the whole matter somewhat more flexible, but at all times we want to have the registered person doing that work. Pharmacists can render assistance on a sessional basis. In the extensive rural areas they can render assistance at the Department of Forestry, at the Department of Prisons and even at farmers’ co-operative societies, if necessary, but these are local arrangements which they themselves have to make, just as any doctor makes his own arrangements. Therefore I do not believe that a major distinction can be drawn between the position of the doctor and that of the pharmacist. Hon. members must realize that a pharmacist is not being placed under any obligation to do certain work on a sessional basis. He may close the doors of his pharmacy. He is able to make certain arrangements because today systems of communication are no longer that bad. We should not make our legislation so rigid that it is impossible for people to request the assistance of a qualified person who is the only one of his kind in the neighbourhood for this very important work with regard to all the scheduled substances. We must make our legislation more flexible. This is a request that actually came from the Pharmacy Board itself. In a sense they feel that this is an aspect which we ought to consider. It was said that 30% of the people going to the provincial hospitals ought to be sent to a pharmacist with a prescription. In that case the same principle should apply in respect of doctors as well; in that case the doctor in private practice would also be able to demand—ultimately we shall come up against other aspects as well—that he should not treat people in hospital, but that they should come to him, etc. We must understand that if the principle, not of indigence, but of ability or inability to pay, is strictly applied by the provinces, more and more people will turn to the hospitals for help. Sometimes a hospital in the rural areas may need a pharmacist urgently while there is only one pharmacist in the town. I think we should be practical in this regard. We should be accommodating towards our own profession. In a case like this we cannot word the legislation in a way which leaves no way out. I am sorry, but I am unable to share the view of the hon. member in this regard in all respects.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry but I am unable to accept the arguments of the hon. the Minister, and I am sure that most pharmacists in the country will not accept them either. I just want to quote briefly from the comments of the Pharmaceutical Society—

†I do not think the hon. the Minister has given us a case we can support and I therefore move as an amendment to omit all the underlined words in the clause.

I am sorry, but I cannot allow such an amendment. The hon. member can vote against the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that the opinion which he has just quoted and which has been circulated here during the past two or three days, emanated from the Western Cape branch of the Pharmaceutical Society. Moreover, I have not received any major objections from the Pharmaceutical Society as such to the amendment proposed in this clause. I am just mentioning this. The hon. member has quoted the comments of a small section of pharmacists, people who only came forward during the last few days at a time when the legislation was already before this House. Of course, one does not always know where something like this originates. I respect the hon. member’s arguments, but unfortunately I am unable to accept his proposal.

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

Clause 12:

Mr. Chairman, this clause concerns deceased estates. When a pharmacist passes away, the executor has a fixed period in which to dispose of the estate, subject of course to the laws relating to the administration of estates. As we all know, these laws as they are implemented in practice, show that it is not terribly easy to wind up an estate in the space of 12 months. Some estates are complicated. Advertisements are often required. Speaking from experience over many years, I can say that there are very few estates I can remember that were wound up within 12 months. Be that as it may, this provision goes even further. Economically speaking, times change and, when a business is to be wound up, it may not be favourable to put that business on the market at the time when the owner dies. The only persons who are going to suffer are the widow and children of the particular family. I have canvassed amongst members of the Pharmaceutical Society to obtain their opinion, and as I understand it, some feel that the period is too short, whilst others again feel that it is perhaps not too healthy a situation for a widow to hang onto a pharmacy business once her husband is gone. I drew attention, however, to the latter part of the proposed section 37(a), which stipulates that a pharmacy business should, in any event, be “conducted under the continuous personal supervision of a pharmacist”. Members of the public are therefore protected by having a qualified pharmacist conducting the pharmacy business. Taking all this into consideration, and in order to give the widow, her children and family an opportunity of getting the best out of the pharmacy business instead of forcing them to sell it or allowing competitors to buy it up, let us arrive at a compromise, that is if I can persuade the hon. the Minister to do so. Although the principal Act provides for a period of five years, and this Bill for a period of 12 months, I want to propose that we change the period to three years. I want to apologize to the hon. the Minister for being so late giving notice of this amendment, which is a very simple one. All we are asking is for the hon. the Minister to consider allowing three years instead of 12 months for disposing of the business. I accordingly move the following amendment—

Mr. Chairman, we shall support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow. I do not wish to cross swords with him, but I feel that one should just briefly put right an impression which he may have created in motivating his case. He said that the proposed section 37(a) makes provision for a pharmacy business which is part of an estate to be under the continuous personal supervision of a pharmacist. This should not be interpreted as meaning that all pharmacies are not always required to be under the continuous personal supervision of a pharmacist. That is not really the point at issue in this proposed section at all. While I agree with the hon. member in his motivation for an extension of the period from 12 months to three years, I think that one should make it clear that the point he used to motivate his request was not relevant to the issue. I think that must be recorded.

Mr. Chairman, I think I must explain this matter. I want to illustrate my point by saying that certain pharmacists may criticize the fact that the running of a pharmacy business is left in the hands of the widow, and this may create uncertainty in the minds of the public.

That is not the point.

However, they need have no fear of an unqualified widow herself conducting the business even if she had helped her husband all her life or been in the business herself. The public is protected because the pharmacy business is under the continuous supervision of a pharmacist.

Mr. Chairman, the pharmacists are always in difficulty because of the practical problems they experience. However, hon. members must not think that I take the wrong view of the fact that they raise these matters. The amendment is being effected at the request of the Pharmacy Board. They felt there should be uniformity, but I am unable to accept an amendment to this clause since it also has a bearing on the proposed section 22(6)(b)(i), which has already been agreed to. There is uniformity in the sense that the family of the pharmacist is still able to share in the benefits attaching to that pharmacy for a year after his death. On the other hand the board felt that 12 months were a sufficiently long period for winding up the estate. If there is any delay, the matter may drag on indefinitely. In order to attain uniformity, the council felt that a period of 12 months would be more fair to both sides as we are dealing here with a complete exception to the rule that a person other than a pharmacist may control a pharmacy, something which was requested by all hon. members who participated in these debates. The next-of-kin of pharmacists who gain control of such a pharmacy, should be encouraged to wind up their affairs, but if they are unable to do so within a year, it will be very, very wrong of the board not to take that into account in exercising its powers in terms of this provision.

†If the hon. member looks at clause 12, he will see that it contains the following qualifications—

*The hon. member will agree that this ought to be the case. There is no question about that. Because this is the case, I feel that this provision will act as an incentive to the executors. The hon. member asks me to effect an amendment which I am unable to agree to at this stage because of an agreement with the board that there should be uniformity between these two clauses.

Mr. Chairman, now I find myself somewhat in disagreement with both the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Hillbrow. I think one must make it quite clear that the hon. member for Hillbrow has created the impression that a widow can continue to run a pharmacy.

No, I did not.

Well, that is the way we understood the hon. member. However, as long as it is quite clear that a widow who is not a pharmacist cannot run a business, I am happy with the motivation. [Interjections.] That is the way we on this side of the House understood that hon. member.

I now want to respond to what the hon. the Minister said when he referred back to clause 9. In some ways he might have a valid point in referring back to clause 9, but clause 9 deals with bodies corporate and other share-holders in the pharmacy, in which case the period of 12 months to dispose of shares is not as important as the period laid down in clause 12.

That is a matter of opinion.

Perhaps it is a matter of opinion, but it is far easier …

If you have a good lawyer, the matter can be settled within six months.

We are not dealing with fuel at the moment. If the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs will allow me to continue with my argument, we shall deal with his fuel problems at a later stage. I want to make the point that a body corporate is a totally different kettle of fish from an individual business in respect of which the executor may have to organize to have it run by a qualified pharmacist. In that instance the period of one year is too short. I do not think it should be compared with the period of one year mentioned by the hon. the Minister relating, in an earlier clause, to a body corporate. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to this amendment to increase the period that he envisages from 12 months to three years, and, if necessary, to have a look at it for us in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, I have already told the hon. member why I cannot do it at this stage. For the rest, the opinions he expressed are just opinions and they are open to question. Therefore, I am sorry but I cannot comply with his request.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15:

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with improper or disgraceful conduct on the part of a member of the pharmaceutical profession, which conduct is then referred to the board for disciplinary action. However, the amendment we are being asked to approve today goes further and provides that—

In the Second Reading I pointed out—I do not have to quote it again because I am sure the hon. the Minister will recall it—that section 57 of the Criminal Procedure Act merely provides that where, in the opinion of the prosecutor, the court will not impose a fine of more than R100 for any offence, he can accept an admission of guilt fine. Now, what is asked here is that every time an admission of guilt is paid, the summons or a written notice should go to the board for consideration of whether the member concerned is guilty of improper conduct. Now, I think this is ridiculous, and I say it with great respect Secondly, the purpose of the wording of the section as it appears in the principal Act is to circumscribe improper conduct where it affects the profession. In line 15, on page 14, it is provided that—

In other words, this refers to conduct of such a nature that, taking into account the profession of the person, it would be regarded as improper conduct. That we can understand. Even as the law is worded now, if a member of the profession commits an offence, for instance reckless driving, and he is not under the influence of alcohol or drugs, he could be found guilty without the record of the court proceedings being forwarded to the board, because it is not an offence which directly concerns the profession to which he belongs. However, what is being asked for in the proposed substitution for subsection (2) is that even in a case where an admission of guilt is paid for an offence which does not concern the profession at all, the record of the charge must still be sent to the board. This has got nothing to do with the profession. Why then is it necessary that the board should consider it at all? In the absence of a sound and acceptable explanation by the hon. the Minister of why it is necessary to bring in this stipulation, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Normally I would have asked for certain words to be deleted. However, in moving my amendment with a view to deleting the whole of paragraph (a) it actually involves the restoration of section 44 of the Act as it is worded at the moment.

Mr. Chairman, since I am not a lawyer, I saw to it that I had notes about this matter, notes I should like to submit to the House with a view to determining whether the description, as it appears here, is in fact applicable. In the first place I should like to point out that the board itself requested this amendment. It was again an amendment which the board itself requested.

I know that the hon. member for Hillbrow is concerned about the possibility that for simple matters, for example, traffic offences for which a very low fine is imposed, the name of the person concerned must now be submitted to the board as well. However, if the hon. member considers the matter from a legal point of view, and if he takes into account the principal Act as a whole, he will realize that he should read the provision in its entirety. The hon. member can examine the proposed new subsection (2), which reads as follows—

This is the aspect troubling the hon. member—

This last aspect does not trouble the hon. member so much. In a case of this nature the obligation is placed on the court to take steps. The way it is stated here, the court must direct that a record of the proceedings in the court be submitted to board. This must happen in all cases. However, these court proceedings are qualified in the introductory paragraph. According to the wording which I have just read out, there is no obligation on the court, in cases of ordinary traffic offences or offences of minor importance, for example parking offences or exceeding the speed limit, to transmit a copy of the summons to the board. I state categorically that the court is not compelled to do this. If, however, the accused should pay an admission of guilt for having driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, for example, his conduct is improper in view of his profession. Driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol is improper in any case. It is universally regarded as such. I should say that it is becoming more and more improper these days. In these times, and the Minister of Economic Affairs will be able to confirm this, it is improper and shameful conduct if one is stopped for a speeding offence. But I think we should leave it at that for the moment. One wastes petrol in that way.

When, therefore, a person is guilty of improper conduct which has nothing to do with his profession, the board must take cognizance of this type of conduct, because it does not suit the profession of that person.

The hon. member wants these two matters to be separated. One aspect deals with a registered person who acts improperly. I have already mentioned an example to him of where a person acts improperly and where it has no particular bearing on his profession. On the other hand, however, there is also improper conduct which can be directly connected to his profession. This applies when, for example, he does not keep registers, when he sells habit-forming drugs, and when he is guilty of conduct of that nature. For these offences, too, admission of guilt fines are often paid and the board does not take cognizance of this, because they are regarded as technical offences. But the board feels that it is so closely involved with the functions which a pharmacist must perform professionally that this ought to be brought to its attention as well.

I want to refer hon. members to section 39(1) of the current Act. This authorizes the board to investigate any charge, accusation or allegation of improper or disgraceful conduct against a person registered in terms of the Act. Therefore the board is already entitled to do this. Section 45(1) provides for penalties to be imposed for improper conduct and, furthermore, for conduct which is improper and disgraceful in view of the person’s profession. Therefore the words are already contained in section 44(2). Even if these words are deleted, the status quo will be maintained and there will be no change as far as the matter as such is concerned.

Therefore the amendment actually proposes a change which is irrelevant As the board also requested our assistance in solving this particular problem, we published this legislation for general cognizance. At that stage there was no objection of any importance whatsoever. I have now attempted to explain to the hon. member as well as possible why we have this problem. I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to take one step further and ask the hon. the Minister whether he in fact consulted with the courts and the Department of Justice in regard to the implementation of what we are now asking him. What is originally intended in the Act, is that a magistrate looks at the facts of the case before him and when he thinks that this is something which affects the profession, the court, having heard all the evidence, refers it to the board. However, here we have no court sitting, nor evidence. All we have is an admission of guilt. The man can go to the police station and pay his admission of guilt there. Eventually the admission of guilt will technically come to the court. The court will be advised that such and such a person paid an admission of guilt. This then goes to the clerk. How is this going to work in practice through a clerk in the court that all the admissions of guilt paid by pharmacists are referred to the board?

Mr. Chairman, the proposed new subsection (2) of section 44 reads—

I understand that. As I have said from the start, I am not a legal man, but I can assure the hon. member that as far as consultation in regard to the framing of this legislation is concerned, we consult with all the people who are involved with the legislation. We have consulted with the Department of Justice in this case.

They can make mistakes too.

Mr. Chairman, if between now and the time when this Bill is going to be discussed in the Other Place, the hon. the Minister comes to the conclusion that these admissions of guilt should relate only to the profession itself, will he consider a suitable amendment in the Other Place?

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the attention he has given to the details of the legislation before us. I also want to thank hon. members of this House for presenting a very good case for the granting of further responsibility to the pharmacy profession in South Africa. I believe the pharmacists of this country will be only too willing to accept the responsibilities that the hon. the Minister is giving them now and the responsibilities which they hope the hon. the Minister is going to give them when next he amends this legislation in the House. The pharmacists realize that they have a very important role to play in the health team in South Africa. They are trained, in the way of many other professionals, to play a more important part than the part they are playing. Therefore they welcome the responsibility they are getting, and in the interests of the health services of South Africa—both now and in the future—we hope that they are going to take their rightful place along with the other professionals in the health team.

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the sentiment expressed by the hon. member, and wish to thank all the hon. members for participating in the debate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I have no reason to believe that the hon. members will not agree with the legislation. The Business Names Act, 1960, makes provision for control over business names. This Act provides, inter alia, that any person carrying on a business shall not issue or send to any person in the Republic any trade catalogue, trade circular, business letter, order for goods or statement of account unless certain particulars appear therein or thereon. In respect of a natural person carrying on a business, every Christian name and surname which he may have borne previously must appear in or on said documents. In terms of the Act a “former Christian name and surname” does not include any Christian name or surname, previously borne by any person, which was changed or disused before he attained the age of 18 years, or which has been changed or disused for a period of not less than 20 years. This is the relevant amendment.

The period of 20 years was included in the Act because the Companies Act, 1926, contained a similar provision in respect of the Christian name and surname of a director of a company. The Companies Act requires such details in respect of a director or official of a company to be recorded in the register of directors and officials which must be kept under the Companies Act. The requirement concerning the Christian name and surname of a director of a company, which must be recorded in said register, was taken over from the 1926 Act in the most recent Companies Act in 1973. However, the period of 20 years to which I have referred was reduced to 10 years in the Companies Act, 1973. It is now being proposed in the Bill that the Business Names Act, 1960, be amended to bring the provisions of that Act regarding the former Christian name and surname of any person operating any business into line with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1973, as far as the definition of that concept is concerned. This means basically that we are bringing the Business Names Act, which applies to natural persons, into line with the provisions of the Companies Act in respect of the period for which the names have fallen into disuse or have been changed.

†The Bill also contains a further proposed amendment which will authorize the Registrar of Companies to assign the powers and duties conferred upon him by the Act. Presently the Act provides that the Registrar may, upon application in writing of any aggrieved person, in writing order any person who carries on any business under any name, title or description which in the opinion of the Registrar is calculated to deceive or mislead the public or to cause annoyance or offence to any person or class of persons or is suggestive of blasphemy or indecency, to cease to carry on the business under that name, title or description.

According to the provisions of the Act and existing legal rules, the Registrar is obliged, when he considers such an application, to furnish in writing to the person against whom an order in terms of the Act is sought, a statement setting out the name of the complainant and the grounds upon which the application is made, and of course, to give the parties concerned a fair hearing before he comes to a decision or issues an order. The provisions of the Act apply in addition and not to the exclusion of any other remedy which an aggrieved person, as contemplated by the Act, may have.

In practice, the Act has afforded and still affords, any person who carries on business a convenient means whereby he can obtain redress if some other person carries on business under a name, title or description which so closely resembles the name under which the first mentioned person carries on business as to cause confusion. The duty of adjudicating in disputes of the kind in question generally is a time-consuming process because it involves the addressing of several letters to the parties concerned and then, once each of the parties has stated his case, to come to a decision on the facts of the matter as revealed by the correspondence or the statements submitted.

The Act as it is presently phrased requires these duties to be done or executed by the Registrar himself. If any official of the Companies Registration Office or any other official in the Public Service should carry out the duties in question, the proceedings would be invalid in terms of the existing Act. It is therefore considered necessary that the Registrar be authorized to assign in writing any power conferred upon or duty entrusted to him by the Act to any official in the Public Service.

*The proposed amendment will enable the Companies Registration Office to perform its functions more effectively.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister is quite correct in supposing that the official Opposition will have no serious objection to this Bill. Clause 1 of the Bill amends section 3 of the Business Names Act, 1960, under which a rather heavy burden was placed on certain persons in respect of the appearance of their names on official correspondence. The fact that this aspect has now been brought into line with other arrangements, and the fact that the period is being reduced to 10 years, in my opinion lessens the burden as well as the inconvenience as far as those persons are concerned. For this reason we have absolutely no objection to the amendment proposed in this Bill by the hon. the Minister.

Now I shall deal with clause 2. In principle we have no objection to this either, but I nevertheless want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not consider the possibility of a slightly stricter definition of the provision in the clause. In this clause, it is provided in the Afrikaans text that the Registrar may assign any power or duty to “’n beampte in die Staatsdiens”. Of course, this is a very wide definition. In the English text the definition is wider still, because it reads “to any officer in the Public Service”. I do not want to make the matter ridiculous by saying that this could refer to the person who makes the tea, but I do feel that it would be a good thing, because we want exact terminology in legislation passed in this House, if the hon. the Minister would consider the possibility of changing the words in the Afrikaans text so as to read: “skriftelik aan ’n paslik gekwalifiseerde”— of “bevoegde”—beampte in die Staatsdiens”, and in the English text “to any suitably qualified officer in the Public Service”. Then the intention would be very clear, that the Registrar of Companies has to assign that power to a suitably qualified or competent person and not just to any officer in the Public Service.

Although it is perhaps unlikely that problems would arise, in the interpretation of legislation frequent reference is made to the Afrikaans and English texts. If the meaning of “ ’n beampte” in the Afrikaans text is not quite clear, the English text could then be referred to and the term “any officer” could perhaps give a wider meaning to the concept, although I am very certain that this is not the hon. the Minister’s intention. I do not want to move an amendment formally, but I am merely making this suggestion for the consideration of the hon. the Minister. This would make it even easier for us to support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House should also like to support this Bill. I just want to say that, in my opinion, it is a very logical step. In the debate on the principal Act in 1960, too, there was unanimity among those members, and because it is also the case today, I am also not going to dwell on this matter. To me it is just very logical that where two pieces of legislation deal with the same aspects, those two pieces of legislation should not contradict each other.

I agree with the hon. member for Constantia on the proposed amendment of clause 2 of the Bill. I, too, felt that the term “any officer” is a little vague, but we did feel that the head of the department would surely appoint a responsible person in his department to act on his behalf. This has been our interpretation. For that reason I leave it to the hon. the Minister to decide whether he will accept the hon. member’s proposal or not. I just want to thank the official Opposition for their support of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches are also happy to support this Bill, which has been introduced by an hon. the Minister who looks very good on a bicycle.

But where were his “bicycle clips”?

In the interests of his own safety, I would suggest that he does wear bicycle clips. He could have a horrible accident if he were not wearing them.

Order! What have bicycle clips to do with this Bill?

I regret, Mr. Speaker, that bicycle clips have nothing whatsoever to do with this Bill. Clause 1 of the Bill, which substitutes the expression “20” by the expression “10”, gives us no problem at all; so I shall not expand any further on that aspect.

Clause 2, however, does give me a little bit more cause for concern because it alters section 5 of the principal Act. This is the section that gives certain rights and powers to the Registrar. It is in fact the only section that gives rights or duties to the Registrar. On 16 February I had a question on the Question Paper to find out how many applications had been considered in terms of this section by the Registrar. The answer I received was the following:

It strikes me that this does not represent a tremendously onerous task. In view of the small number of applications received which, as you have heard, Sir, runs in the twenties and not in the hundreds, I would not have thought that the present Registrar would have any great difficulty in coping with the volume of this work. You know, Sir, in the Civil Service one always has to be careful of Parkinson’s Law. One hopes that the people concerned will not see fit to increase the staff of this particular department to let somebody else handle this particular function. I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister could perhaps expand a little on this, because at first glance it does appear to be somewhat odd that we should have this amending Bill to change this particular provision so that the Registrar can delegate his duties to somebody else while those duties do not appear to be particularly onerous and he should be able to deal with them himself in a very short period of time.

Finally, I confess to being a little surprised that the hon. the Minister did not see fit to alter section 4 where there is a reference to the Governor-General. I would have thought that, while we are amending the Act, substituting that by “State President” might have been in order.

Mr. Speaker, let me explain at once what the Bill has to do with bicycles. It is the name of the bicycle which is involved here, and not the bicycle as such.

Hon. members know that I am a reasonable person and that I always accommodate them if it is at all possible. I think the point made by the hon. member for Constantia is a valid one, theoretically at least. It is true of course that when the Registrar delegates some of his obligations or duties to another person it is taken for granted that the person to whom they are delegated to will be competent. For the sake of clarity, I have no objection to qualifying it in the Other Place with “a competent person”. I think it would be wrong to use the words “a qualified person” for that presupposes certain academic or professional qualifications which will then have to be interpreted again. “A competent person” is in my opinion a much better and more effective definition, since it means that the person concerned must be capable of fulfilling the task. Therefore I undertake to move a corresponding amendment in the Other Place.

†To turn to the hon. member for East London North, let me explain that it is not the number of cases that is important, but the volume of work each of them entails. From time to time it becomes necessary for other people to deal with these cases. It is an accepted principle that, when a particular power is conferred up on a person or any particular duty is imposed on him, he should be empowered to delegate certain duties to another person who is properly qualified. This is the only principle involved here. I have tried to explain that in cases of this nature an adjudicating function or duty is imposed on the Registrar which requires a proper hearing involving the submission of statements and the writing of letters. This could entail a great volume of work and, therefore, to relieve the Registrar of that so that he can give his attention to other work that may be more important at a particular point in time, we suggest that these powers and duties also be conferred upon a person designated by him who is qualified to do the job.

I thank the hon. members, including the hon. member for Worcester, for supporting the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I just want to refer again briefly to the difference between the Afrikaans and English versions of this clause. The hon. the Minister did not refer to it specifically. I cannot accept that the words “’n beampte” have the same meaning as the words “any official”. The word “’n” does not mean “any” and the word “enige” does not mean “an” either. I believe the English version should be exactly the same as the Afrikaans one. Therefore I also suggest that before the hon. Minister discusses this Bill in the Other Place, he should also take a look at the difference between the words “’n” and “any”.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member for Constantia in this particular regard, because the English translation of “ ’n beampte” is not “any official”, but “an official”.

†He is quite correct that the translation is wrong. The English translation of the words “’n beampte” is “an official”, and not “any official”. For the sake of brevity I did not refer to that matter in my reply to the Second Reading, but I shall take steps to have that amended accordingly in the Other Place.

The word “any” would then be translated by the word “enige”?

That is right.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The proposed amendments are mainly the result of the recommendations made by the Interdepartmental Committee of Inquiry into the Revaluation of the Task of the National Monuments Council in respect of shipwrecks, and also of proposals of the Interdepartmental Committee of Inquiry into the Exportation of Cultural Treasures. The opportunity has also been used to amend a few other provision of the Act, provisions which have caused problems to a lesser or a greater degree.

The Bill was published in the Government Gazette last year for general information. I should like to express my gratitude in this way to various persons and bodies for useful hints and even for the criticism they expressed. Although I do not want to mention all the names, I should like to refer specifically to the National Monuments Council, the S.A. Association of Architects, and the S.A. Archaeological Society.

This Bill contains a few important new principles. Firstly, the National Monuments Council is now being empowered to declare wrecks to be monuments. The introduction of the principle was somewhat problematical, for there is quite a lot of existing legislation which deals with the sea and the coastline, and it is just as important that the principles in the existing legislation should not be affected.

†In drafting the provisions regarding wrecks, legislation of other countries, more especially of the United Kingdom and of Australia, was taken into account. The legislation of the United Kingdom provides for such stringent powers that in our particular circumstances we could not follow it because it would have a negative effect on existing legislation in this country. The Australian legislation, on the other hand, merely lists by name a number of wrecks to which the legislation applies.

I am of the opinion that the provisions in this Bill regarding wrecks, which incidentally have to be 50 years old, are adequate for the present. The National Monuments Council, in conjunction with other bodies concerned or interested in the preservation of wrecks, will have to do their part to operate the provisions effectually.

Notice should be taken of the fact that as soon as a wreck has been declared to be a national monument, the provisions regarding the destruction, removal or export from the Republic provided for in clause 11(a) will also apply.

*A second new principle for which the Bill makes provision is to grant certain powers to provincial councils with regard to the purchase and maintenance of immovable national monuments. The provinces have requested such powers and it was also recommended by the interdepartmental committee.

Provincial authorities are free to draw attention to any object which is of aesthetic, historical or scientific importance, but which has not yet been declared a national monument, in the light of the desirability of having such an object declared a national monument.

Apart from the fact that the powers of the council are being extended, another important principle, viz. the co-ordinating function of the council, has also been laid down. Anyone who is interested in our cultural and historical heritage has the opportunity to make a contribution, but in future such activities will be co-ordinated by the NMC.

For the rest, the Bill is intended to confer greater powers upon the council, to protect a national monument as far as possible and to increase the penalties that may be imposed for the contravention of the provisions of the Act.

Mr. Speaker, first of all it is my great privilege to extend the congratulations of this party to the new hon. Minister of National Education and to wish him everything of the very best for the future and for the handling of this highly important portfolio. It is particularly important that the new Minister be placed in a position to obtain more funds from the tight-fisted Treasury for the furtherance of the various types of tasks included in his portfolio.

I refer in particular to the matter of the promotion of our art and I express the hope that the National Monuments Council will be furnished with the funds it clearly requires if it is to carry out its work properly. If it is borne in mind that the meagre allocation to this council from the Treasury was reduced last year from R134 000 to R124 000 due to the overall pruning of Government expenditure, but that at the same time the board appointed a director and expanded the scope of its activities, then everyone will agree with me that in such circumstances the council must find it difficult in the extreme to perform its activities as it should, particularly for the sake of posterity. This is also clear from the chairman’s report for the year ended 31 March 1978, in which the following is stated—

And then later—

This is ascribed to the lack of funds and staff. In the Bill which the hon. the Minister is now submitting to us for consideration, the tasks or the duties or the scope of the jurisdiction of the council are extended. However, unless the Minister is going to be able to convince the Treasury to make more funds available I believe that to a large extent these will be but idle words on paper and will mean nothing in reality. As the hon. the Minister has just explained to us, the proposed Bill introduces a few new concepts, concepts that are now being made part of the task of the council. One of the most important, the very first which the hon. the Minister mentioned, is the issue of the powers of the provincial administration to have a share in the preservation of our gems from the past. I am told that the province of Natal is particularly aware of the vital need to restore and maintain the heritage from the past.

That is the NRP, of course.

I hope the NRP gives its support to that. If Natal can set an example in this regard, then perhaps we can even persuade the province of Transvaal to give a little more attention to the matter, perhaps even the Cape. A book has just appeared. It was compiled by architects. In it they state that in Cape Town there are 900 buildings that deserve the attention of people who value our history and our past, and that of those 900 buildings, only six have as yet enjoyed the official attention of the council.

So many have already been demolished.

In other words, there is still tremendous scope in both the public and the private sectors for the extension of control of the buildings which possibly—not in all cases; I will not maintain that all 900 buildings are worthy of preservation— enjoyed the attention of the public and interested parties and experts for long enough so that the public and the nation and the authorities will at least have the opportunity to decide jointly whether a specific building is worth preserving or whether, for the sake of modernization and development, it can be demolished.

I therefore believe that if this new provision—coming right at the end of the Bill—to the effect that powers in this regard are also being vested in the provincial administrations, could lead to one province learning something from another as to how these matters should be tackled, then this would entail a tremendous advantage for the activities of the council, and posterity would also be grateful for what we have been able to achieve in our lifetime. The scope of the new provision is of particular importance in so far as it includes shipwrecks. Therefore shipwrecks will now also enjoy the attention of the council and be subject to the exercise of the power of the council.

Important, too, is the new provision relating to rock art and the provision relating to paleontological and archaeological funds, and related matters. All this is very important. It is important, too, that the council is now being vested with the power, where an owner of a declared building or object does not himself do what is necessary to maintain and restore such a building or object, to step in and do it itself. However, the hon. the Minister will have to see to it that the council is furnished with the necessary funds to carry this out. This is vital because the mere declaration of a building as an historical monument and the attaching of a plaque to that building is merely a formal step. Reality requires that someone possessing the necessary funds will maintain that building in a sound condition so that it does not eventually become derelict and eventually have to be demolished after all.

This is a new provision that is very important and that we on this side of the House welcome. We only set this precondition—that we must consider the possibility of making more funds available.

Then, too, there is the very important new provision to the effect that the council be enabled to endeavour to ensure that land surrounding or in the immediate vicinity of the monument is not developed in such a manner that the aspect of, or the view from, that monument is obstructed. In our opinion it is of great importance that a small building or item should not be dwarfed by ugly skyscrapers of concrete, glass and steel so that it virtually disappears from sight and does not come into its own. We fully support this new provision.

In recent times private organizations carrying out voluntary restoration work have encountered problems. One organization in particular, the Simon van der Stel Foundation, is experiencing grave financial problems. The hon. the Minister has now seen fit, and we endorse this 100%, to enable the council to render financial assistance to an organization if it regards it as right, proper and necessary to do so, to help it out of its financial difficulties. Again, though—and I am sorry I have to repeat it—it is a question of whether the council will have sufficient funds to undertake such things.

There is one specific clause about which we have reservations, but that could more conveniently be discussed in the Committee Stage.

I think I have now discussed all the most important provisions that open up new vistas in the preservation of monuments. I just want to say that it is a great pleasure for us to welcome and support these new proposals.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the congratulations extended to the new hon. Minister of National Education by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. This is the first opportunity for us on this side of the House to extend a welcome to him as the new Minister of National Education. We want to wish him all of the best. We know that he is an old educationist and that he will have the affairs of the portfolio of National Education at heart because he understands and knows them. We know, too, that he is equipped for the job in that he has the capacity for work, the qualifications necessary for this particular post and—and this is most important—the necessary quality.

I also want to avail myself of this opportunity to take leave in this House of the predecessor of the present hon. Minister of National Education. It is perhaps a little late to do so but I do so nevertheless because our co-operation with him was cordial. We also wish to convey our thanks to him for what he tried to do and we want to wish him all of the best in the new post which he occupies.

As far as the hon. member for Johannesburg North is concerned, for the most part I wish to agree with him this afternoon and I am pleased that I can in fact do so. The hon. member used only one expression which I did not like very much. That was when he referred to the “tight-fisted” Treasury. In the light of the fact that we have so many matters of priority today I do not know whether one can refer to a “tight-fisted” Treasury, because this is a Treasury which has its problems too. On the other hand I want to agree with the hon. member that a great deal more is being done in this regard.

Furthermore I should like to refer to the importance of this legislation. I wonder whether we always realize exactly how important this legislation, and the amendments now being effected, are. I welcome the amendments envisaged by this legislation because in my opinion they represent a further step in the right direction of insuring a future for our past. When a person or a people does not know where it comes from, it will not know where it is going, either. It is also of the utmost importance to preserve what is sacred to a people and what serves as its inspiration. It is written that: “Man cannot live by bread alone.” That is important, particularly when one bears in mind that with the flood of material prosperity, many buildings, among other things, were lost, buildings which should really have been preserved for posterity. I should like to quote an extract from an outstanding work by Laurens van der Post—

A people without a past is also without a future. In my opinion it is necessary to refer to a very profound truth in the Book of Truth. The fifth commandment states—

These words do not refer only to one’s immediate father and mother but also to one’s past. Therefore this commandment contains an instruction, but it is not merely an instruction; also a promise that one can live long, and what follows.

Therefore preservation is a virtue in itself, and to be preservation-conscious is to be conscious of a calling. I say this because in due course I wish to bring a few matters in this regard to the attention of the hon. the Minister. Preservation is a component of education. The aim of preservation is to make history visible and tangible. Preservation is to experience and to find direction. Preservation entails a number of advantages, and I want to mention only a few. Apart from the fact that preservation is inspiring and motivating, and enriches and preserves spiritual values, it also furthers culture. By way of preservation, cultural centres can develop, which entail the advantage that culture as such can be promoted there. But this also entails material benefits. It is a tourist attraction, and when tourists visit a country and its towns there are financial implications. Towns gain new life. In many cases it is also cheaper to restore and spruce buildings than to construct new ones.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North spoke about the tight-fisted Treasury. However, this is not a matter for the State alone. It is also a task for the public and even for companies. In this regard I have in mind the company established in 1966, viz. Historic Houses of South Africa Ltd. This company has done a tremendous job in carrying out preservation on a business footing.

This company has also enjoyed material benefits. The company has restored and maintained no fewer than 50 buildings and has even declared a dividend over the past few years. This must be an incentive for many other private bodies and also for the business sector to carry out preservation on a business footing.

Almost 3 000 houses in the Cape Dutch building style are lost to us. Of the 3 000 houses in the Boland, only 500 are left. The others have succumbed to the material prosperity which developed. Of these 500 that have been preserved, only 275 have retained their original character. This is such a pity when one considers that these buildings could have meant so much and could even have served as evidence of the existence of our civilization here on the southern tip of Africa for more than 300 years.

Preservation has another advantage. It is a cohesive factor between the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking sections of our population. We in South Africa have a common heritage of which we can all be proud.

The amendment envisaged in clause 14 of the Bill is very important. In terms of the provisions of the proposed clause 14, the Provincial Council may now make a contribution to financing the Wagenaar Dam being preserved on the Golden Acre. Sanlam has done a great deal and the State has contributed R500 000, and the Provincial Council of Cape Town also wished to make a contribution. However, they were bound by the provisions of the existing Act and were unable to do so. They were unable to make a contribution because the existing Act only provides that the provincial councils can restore their own buildings. The Bill provides that the provincial councils may also now make a contribution even in regard to monuments lacking direct functional value. Therefore the amendment being proposed here is a very important one.

Even after amendments to this legislation have been effected, there will probably still be loopholes to be considered. I now wish to use a word which will perhaps not please the ears of many people. I want to talk about “lysting” (listing). I want to request that buildings worthy of preservation be listed. I know the argument is advanced that one would antagonize certain people thereby. Even if one looks at the magnificent work done by the Cape Institute of Architects, one wonders whether it will serve the purpose merely to place these buildings in catalogues. I say this because in many instances it has occurred that when certain buildings have been included in catalogues, they have been subjected to the possibility of demolition. However, we in South Africa cannot afford the unnecessary demolition of buildings. I can agree with the hon. member for Johannesburg North. As far as the National Monuments Council is concerned I do not wish to plead merely for more money as such. What I advocate is also, at least, the appointment of someone who can handle such fine work, with a typist in his office to aid the director so that matters of this nature can be regulated and so that the necessary administrative work can be done. This, then, will also facilitate the co-ordination of the various bodies concerned with this fine work. There ought to be a countrywide register of historic buildings, etc. worthy of conservation. The image or appearance of streets is sometimes harmed or destroyed. For example, old things, things that have been beautiful, are destroyed so that filling stations, among other things, may be erected. In my opinion, therefore, planning in this regard is very important. Restoration and merely sprucing up is only part of preservation. However, when one seeks to carry out preservation as it ought to be done, it is certainly necessary to go further and give far more attention to the planning of our town, our cities and even our rural areas where national roads are built.

I cannot help wondering whether we have not spent too much time and money on the superstructures we have established and have given too little attention and done too little about the infrastructure which is so important to the spirit of man, those things which are motivating and inspiring to man and which will continue to be so in the future.

Lists of priority ought to be compiled, priorities in regard to buildings and other things worthy of preservation, so that these things can be preserved for posterity. In view of the great importance and scope of such a national register, it is a matter of urgent necessity for the Human Sciences Research Council, the Simon van der Stel Foundation, the Institute of S.A. Architects and others to be co-ordinated. From the point of view of planning there are many steps which could be taken in regard to certain things worthy of preservation in our country. In particular I want to plead that every part of our population make a contribution towards the preservation of what can serve to inspire and inspire posterity.

Nowadays European countries are doing this on a large scale. In Holland, for example, approximately R6 400 000 was voted for this purpose by the State in 1968. If the contributions in the form of subsidies by the local authorities are included, the amount spent on preservation in Holland was about R20 million in 1968 alone. Therefore Holland has set us a good example. Where loopholes still exist in our country there is a certain amount of room for improvement. I hope and trust that as and when the opportunity presents itself, we should effect the additional amendments that are necessary in our legislation so that we can move still closer to our ideal of ensuring the future of our past.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hercules began and ended his speech by saying that we must ensure the future of our past. I want to associate myself completely with him in this regard. Mr. Speaker, it makes one’s blood boil to see how attempts are sometimes made in our bigger cities to destroy our past For that reason I think it is a good thing that hon. members are taking this opportunity to advance pleas and make the nation more aware of the necessity of always keeping the past with us.

Before I go any further, I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his appointment I have seen quite a number of Ministers of National Education come and go, but I believe that as long as the Government is fortunate enough to remain in power, we shall have the present hon. Minister with us and that he will be successful in his job.

If one looks at the long title of this amendment Bill, one realizes that it is an all-embracing piece of legislation. I believe the authorities and institutions affected by this measure have no cause for complaint because as the hon. the Minister also put it, they have had plenty of time, i.e. since the original publication of the draft Bill to make any problems they may have with it known. The fact that it differs only here and there from the original draft Bill proves, therefore, that this measure has to a large extent been accepted. But I must tell the hon. the Minister—and I will go into details later— that there are still problems as to the whole question of wrecks. Of course I am not referring to political wrecks now, but to shipwrecks. I believe the Bill is in that respect perhaps not entirely satisfactory, but I shall return to this point a little later.

In support of the Bill as a whole, I want to say that the formulation of the new aims meet the requirements although perhaps not as dramatically as some members of the commission or the council would have liked. On the one hand it accords the required status to the council and on the other hand it can also be regarded as an accurate and precise definition of what the council must and will achieve.

The co-ordination of activities is important. The preservation of monuments cannot be done in a casual or ad hoc manner. To bring about effective co-ordination one definitely cannot allow every person or authority to do its own thing. In that way we shall completely destroy the relics of the past.

As hon. members will note, provision is also being made for provincial councils to promulgate ordinances on the spending of money on certain national monuments. I am glad the hon. member for Johannesburg North referred to the efforts made in Natal. We in the NRP with our political philosophy and the principles of federalism in which we believe naturally welcome such a step. We regard it as an extension of the powers of the provincial councils and welcome it as such. I must point out, however, that any expenditure incurred by the provincial council is closely related to the general financing formula applied in the country. In this respect the provincial council can only do as much as the available money permits. In reality the provincial councils are to a large extent merely an administrative section of the central Government. I welcome the fact that the provincial councils are receiving greater powers in this regard. I just want to add that we are satisfied that the powers of proclamation will still be exercised on a centralized basis. That might not be completely in line with the concept of the decentralization of decision-making, but we must take into account that as far as the powers of proclamation are concerned, we must be on our guard not to judge too subjectively. Sometimes there is a real danger of that happening. South Africa’s monuments, regardless of their geographic location, do not belong to a province or to a certain group of people, but to everyone. For that reason we believe that it is to a large extent essential for the decision-making to take place on a general level.

†I now want to refer to what I call the trouble areas in this proposed legislation. I am, of course, referring specifically to the proposed section 10A, concerning the declaration of wrecks. I am aware of the fact that the hon. the Minister has received letters and memoranda from people and organizations with a direct interest in wrecks. It has come to my knowledge that these people are far from satisfied with this legislation. I have been told by experts—I myself am not an expert as far as wrecks are concerned—that this legislation is totally useless in this respect. The feeling is that the proposed section 10A really contains no provision to protect wrecks or wreck sites, nor does it prevent the sale and/or export of any artefacts. It is interesting to note that in respect of other archaeological findings— such as Bushmen paintings—it provides for protection. The proposed section also does not provide for the protection of artefacts recovered from sites. I am now listing the points of criticism which have been put to me. What was hoped for was that something would be done to deter or to counteract the activities of pirate wreck-divers, people who do not have permits and who destroy these relics of the past.

In terms of the proposed section 10A(3) the council may require any person whom the council is satisfied possesses information relating to a wreck, to furnish the council with such information. It is feared that this provision will actually be counterproductive. Co-operation will be achieved if some incentive is offered. In this regard I am obviously also referring to financial incentives, about which I will speak later on. The reason is that big money is involved in the salvaging of wrecks. It is wishful thinking that people must just be expected to part with knowledge they have gained as a result of years of research and hard work. I have also been informed that there are experts in this field who know about the location of some 1 700 shipwrecks along the coast of South Africa. We must view this, however, by taking the overall picture into account. Tremendous financial considerations are involved in the salvaging of wrecks, and this fact has recently been highlighted—and I think some of this information was also published in the Press—last year by the salvaging of the Sacramento which ran aground the year before the Haarlem went aground in 1647. There was also the Doddington in 1755. These wrecks were salvaged near Port Elizabeth. I cannot vouch for my information, but I nevertheless believe it to be correct, so let me try to give hon. members some idea of the importance of these wrecks by pointing out that the 40 cannons on the Sacramento would have yielded, in scrap value alone, an amount of R100 000. It is quite impossible, however, to determine the antique value of these cannons, but if the scrap value was in the region of R100 000, one can well realize their antique value. It has been put to me that these cannon could have a value of some R20 000 each. Why I mention this is to make quite clear that big money is involved in the salvaging of wrecks. To illustrate my point even further, it is believed that in the salvaging of the Sacramento a rival group was also active and that the people who were salvaging the Sacramento could afford to pay R22 000 just to keep the rival group off the site. The point is that if real protective legislation had existed, a rival group could not have moved in.

However, let us leave the commercial considerations for the moment. I merely mentioned the facts to point out the difficulties involved if one wants to declare wrecks, because there are people who have financial interests in these undertakings. If proper and adequate legislation existed, two things could be achieved simultaneously. Firstly, it would be possible for salvaging to be continued and, secondly, protection could be granted to material of real historical value. This is what we are concerned about. We are concerned about the protection of material of real historical value. Proper records should be kept so that not everything will end up in the scrapyards or be exported overseas. Overseas concerns understandably show a tremendous interest in our wrecks because our wrecks are unprotected. So while unique artefacts are leaving the Republic, very little is being recorded. The emphasis should be on the retention of some of the material for our own museums. In future we shall have to look seriously at providing better legislation.

Although I do not regard myself as being an authority on this matter, I am led to believe that the legislation as it now stands is inadequate. However, we shall support the Second Reading of the Bill because we do not have the answers and because it would be hypocritical of me to tell the hon. the Minister we do not accept what is in the Bill at present. He must, however, be made aware of the fact that there is a strong school of thought about this, people who are of the opinion that the legislation is inadequate.

I now wish to move on to other considerations. With regard to monuments, in terms of clause 3(f)—

A clause of this nature presupposes that proper consultation must take place between private enterprise and the council. There is also a feeling that assurances are not good enough, and that what is required is that there should be provisions in the legislation to bring about consultation. The whole problem of compensation also still remains a thorny one. The owner of a property which has been declared a monument, the said property to be expropriated under certain circumstances, suffers a financial loss. This is not always taken into consideration and is a weakness which is still to be rectified. It is unfortunate that it could not have been rectified in this particular amending Bill. It is a weakness in the principal Act, and will remain one even after this Bill has been accepted.

In conclusion, I should just like to appeal to the hon. the Minister—and also to the National Monuments Council as such—to give serious consideration to declaring the old Durban railway station a national monument. If one walks through the streets of Durban one finds that there are only a very few buildings that are really …

What about Howick?

Well, I am sure Howick will be declared a permanent monument, or even a permanent wreck for that matter. However, the Durban railway station is one of the few landmarks of yesteryear which still remains in that city. I fear it will also eventually be lost to the people of Durban and also to the people of South Africa. I should like to mention one very interesting fact about that railway station. When the station was originally built the Natal Government Railways, in order to save money, made use of plans found in their head office. Only after completion of the building it was discovered that the plans used had been drafted for a railway station to be built in Ontario, Canada. That resulted in the Durban railway station building carrying far more steel work in its structure than was necessary. The reason for that is that the building was originally designed to withstand the weight of a couple of feet of snow in winter. Of course, everybody knows how often Durban experiences snowfalls. [Interjections.] However, this fact in itself is historically very interesting. One needs only to walk through the Durban railway station to realize how much history still lingers there. Alas, sooner or later, it seems that will also be destroyed.

Although we on this side of the House are not happy with the situation concerning shipwrecks, we nevertheless support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in contrast to another occasion, this time it is a great pleasure for me to be able to speak after the hon. member for Durban Central.

Yes, just do not make mistakes again!

I agree, of course, with much of what the hon. member had to say today. It is also a pleasure for me to say that I agree with most of what the hon. member for Johannesburg North said. That is indeed so. What the hon. member for Johannesburg North said with regard to the lack of funds is, I believe, cause for concern for everyone in this House, particularly because it concerns the acquisition of funds for the preservation of our monuments and of our cultural heritage.

In joining with the hon. member for Durban Central in his congratulations to the hon. the Minister, I must add that if the norm set by the hon. member, namely that he hopes that the hon. the Minister will sit here as long as the NP is in power, is in fact valid, then what it amounts to is that the poor old Minister will sit here for as long as Methuselah was alive. [Interjections.]

He will be declared a national monument.

I should like to react to one or two of the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Durban Central. In the first place I am in total agreement with him about certain things. It is clear to me that his feeling for our culture and the preservation of our cultural wealth is still warm. As an exteacher, that is of course exactly what I expected of him. Moreover, the hon. member also discussed the problem of shipwrecks. There is no doubt, of course, that at the moment—until this legislation is accepted— we have definite problems as far as shipwrecks is concerned. It is also true that when this legislation has been passed we shall probably still not have the final solution. However, this matter is not as uncomplicated as the hon. member for Durban Central may think.

The present position is that we must draw a distinction between a shipwreck the owner of which may still be identified and the so-called abandoned—I am not very enamoured of the Afrikaans word “geabandonneerde”—shipwreck, the identity of whose owner is lost in the mists of time. When the shipwreck at issue is one whose owner can in fact still be identified, then the exploitation of the shipwreck concerned can only take place with the approval of the owner. Then the owner and the discoverer of the wreck must agree on the amount for which the find concerned will be sold. In the case of abandoned wrecks, however, the situation is different. In such a case, there are various Acts which immediately apply. For example, when the shipwreck is in a declared area, then we deal with the S.A. Railways and Harbours, which only gives its own divers permission to exploit such wrecks. However, when it is an undeclared beach area between the high-water mark and the limit of the territorial waters, the control of wrecks is exercised by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, and the situation is that if a diver comes across a shipwreck by chance, the agreement is that 50% of the goods he finds are his property whereas the other 50% is the property of the other party. However, if a diver accidentally comes across a wreck and finds valuable goods there, the wreck and its cargo become the property of the State.

Now I know that at the moment there is an agreement with the Department of Customs and Excise with regard to the so-called 50-50 principle and that permits for the exploitation of wrecks can be granted by them. It is also clear to me that this envisaged legislation in fact seeks to obviate the problem we are experiencing at the moment in that it is now very clearly stated in clause 9, if I remember correctly, that these shipwrecks are placed under the control of the National Monuments Council. The mere fact that this is so now gives the council in question the opportunity to declare such a wreck a national monument. The rules and regulations applying to the council can therefore be made applicable to such a wreck as well, in co-operation, of course—and to me this is important—with the bodies and persons at present concerned with this matter. If the lawful owner can still be traced, then he is and remains the declared owner. If not this is done in consultation with the S.A. Railways and Harbours or the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure or with the Department of Customs and Excise. It is clear to me that now, when the council consults with these people, the objectives of the council with regard to the preservation of such wrecks will in fact be achieved. What is also important is the specific provision in the Bill in terms of which valuable articles from a wreck which wash up on the beach will be under the control of the National Monuments Council.

I should also like to refer to two other aspects to which the hon. member for Durban Central referred. In the first place, the issue is the declaration of a monument which has been neglected because the owner has not made it known. I think it is clause 3 in which the National Monuments Council is afforded the right to compel the owner of a monument of national importance to abide by its declaration as a national monument. However, I do not believe that the emphasis here necessarily falls on compulsion. It is already the aim of the legislation to cooperate with such an owner and obtain his goodwill, and perhaps also pay him a subsidy in order to enable him to maintain the national monument in question.

Therefore this exceptionally important task is not performed by the council alone or by way of legislation; instead an effort is also made to make the owner himself preservation-conscious. The same principle applies to the adjoining premises. There, too, it is not merely a question of simply compelling an owner of an adjoining stand to do certain things, but to do the necessary in co-operation with him so that one will not deface the spectacle of a national monument.

I am very grateful that this Bill is before the House today. It is my conviction that hon. members have too little opportunity to be able really to discuss culture in this House. I am aware that we are concerned with legislation here. I am also aware that it is necessary for us to discuss these technical aspects. We are dealing with party politics as such. However, culture can never be divorced from humanity. Nor, indeed, can culture be divorced from politics because culture is not limited to the narrow concept of veldskoens and ox-wagons in the past Culture is creative. The word derives its origin from the Latin word cultura which means to plough and to process. In that sense culture is a challenge and is something fresh and new every day. On those grounds I think an opportunity for one to discuss culture in the House as well ought to be welcome. I fear that too many of our people are absolutely cool towards culture, not to speak of their cool attitude towards the preservation and development of our cultural wealth and monuments. I believe that materialism, together with the feverish striving for material welfare and progress, is responsible for people losing their balance in life. Unfortunately this goes for our nation as well. In their working life, people are trapped in a frantic race and a network in which ambition, success and a striving for money are in the foreground. I fear that even in our homes, too little use is made of the opportunity to discuss culture with children and also to bring to their attention the value of our cultural wealth. Consequently I am pleased that in the discussion of this Bill today we have also had the opportunity to say something about culture.

Having said all this, it does not mean that nothing is being done in regard to the preservation of culture and art treasures. It is a pleasure for me to congratulate the various bodies on what they are doing. I refer here to the Department of National Education; the National Monuments Council under the leadership of their director, Prof. Oberholzer; local authorities that contribute their share from time to time; church councils and cultural organizations. It is very true—and I read a report recently in which the State President said this—that our young men are fighting on the borders and protecting us physically, but it is the cultural associations and cultural organizations that protect the people as far as its spirit and character are concerned. All these cultural organizations, too, are deserving of a word of profound gratitude for what they are doing every day. It is not always an easy task to give culture in any local community the place it in fact deserves.

I think, too, that there are many individual persons deserving of our gratitude for the exceptional contribution they make. I note from the report of the council that no fewer than 76 archaeologists and paleontologists and other interested research bodies serve as honorary curators. 32 more historic monuments were declared during the nine years from 1969 to 1978 than during the 35 years from 1934 to 1968. Over the past year, 90 bronze tablets were affixed to declared monuments. Thus there are various facets which I could mention to indicate that attention is in fact being given to this.

It is also true that there are difficulties. It is indeed true that the hon. member for Johannesburg North said that only R124 000 was voted by the State for the administration account. It is also true that approximately R98 000 of that went on salaries, wages, office rental and insurance, so that in fact only a small amount remained for this absolutely vital and important work.

I think I shall join the hon. member for Johannesburg North in hoping that the hon. the Minister will be able to succeed in perhaps obtaining a bigger grant from the hon. the Minister of Finance for the Department of National Education to utilize later for this exceptionally important purpose.

There are various difficulties such as vandalism, and I need not discuss that at length because in my opinion we are all aware of the serious proportions this is assuming. We can only make an appeal today to everyone in our country to preserve this cultural wealth of ours as a treasure. It ought to be far from anyone’s mind to commit vandalism against these cultural treasures. As far as the legislation is concerned I just want to say briefly that on going through it I found that the spirit of the envisaged legislation is based on co-operation among all the different interest groups. Together with the cooperation, there is the cultivation of understanding and preservation-awareness in everyone. This is very clear from the majority of the clauses and one has to view the legislation in that light because in view of that one can foresee no problems with regard to its practical implementation.

Because this is so, this legislation does not seek to impose penal provisions or unnecessary legal restrictions on people, with the exception of strong action against vandalism, with which I am in total agreement. That is why we find in clause 12 of the Bill that the fine on conviction for an offence of this nature is being increased from R1 000 to R5 000, and that the period of imprisonment is being extended from six months to 12 months. In my opinion clause 11(f) inserts a very welcome principle into the legislation. It provides, inter alia, that a vandal is not merely punished, while the council is saddled with the damage, but that the accused can also be held responsible for the repair or replacement of the damaged article. In my opinion this is an exceptionally important clause in this legislation. Clause 2 of the Bill, in my opinion, is the most praiseworthy provision in this legislation. Clause 2 relates to the object of the council. I should like to quote this clause here—

This is basic to any right-thinking person. The issue here is not merely one of preservation and protection; it also entails a physical task for each one of us in this House and also for the general public. This task is to ensure the preservation and protection of those heritages and also to promote them. In my opinion it is the task of each of us and of every parent to bring this concept home to their children in the course of their education.

To a greater extent it is also for the various cultural organizations to devote themselves, apart from what they are already doing, more specifically to the preservation of the monuments to be found everywhere in our country. In this regard particularly meritorious work is being done by the Federasie van Rapportryerskorpse, and I have personal experience of this. However, I want to add that I think that even they have an additional task with regard to the preservation of such national monuments.

While I am making this appeal to them it is also necessary for us to make an appeal to the local authorities. I am very grateful for the fact that clause 14 of the Bill makes provision for provincial councils, too, to spend money on the promotion of national monuments. I am convinced that our different provinces will use the money to achieve this aim if they have the necessary funds at their disposal.

Our schools, too, have a very important task to fulfil in this regard. In my opinion the school ought to be at the centre, radiating positive guidance and national culture. This Bill, which provides for the preservation of these national monuments, facilitates the achievement of that object. Our schools ought to make more of a point of impressing upon the children that the preservation of our national monuments must be to us a token and a beacon for our future. The more the schools are able to do this, the greater the dividends in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his appointment to the post of Minister of National Education and I wish him well in this important office. Generally speaking, we in this party are in agreement with the provisions of this Bill, but we do have some reservations and may express them in the form of amendments in the Committee Stage.

I want to devote my speech to the provisions in the Bill relating to wrecks. Wrecks have a great historical value; they are part of our heritage. To our consternation, overseas individuals and concerns are showing an ever-increasing interest in the wrecks on the very long coastline around the Republic. The reason for this is that in recent years stricter controls have been imposed on the exploitation and working of wrecks in European countries, as well as the fact that many of the accessible wrecks along the shores of the European countries have already been worked. This means that the unprotected wrecks—I use the word “unprotected” advisedly—around the coast of the Republic are ripe for the plucking. Wrecks have an enormous commercial value and are therefore very attractive to salvors and divers. Some of these salvors and divers do not care in the least about documentation for record purposes or the historical value of the goods they salvage from these wrecks. Indeed, there are very few historical records in existence of salvaged wrecks, because much of the material which has been raised from these wrecks has not been conserved in any way. Furthermore, due to lack of knowledge of how to preserve this material, it ultimately disintegrates. I think I am correct in saying that adequate facilities for conservation and preservation of salvaged material and goods simply do not exist in the Republic.

So far there have been wholly inadequate measures for the protection of the interests of the State, the public and the salvor in wrecks for the reasons which I will now state. One of these is that too many Government departments have an interest in wrecks off our shores. In terms of this Bill the Department of National Education is also to be brought into the picture. This department already has limited functions under the existing Act. Other legislation, e.g. the Merchant Shipping Act and the Customs and Excise Act, also contain provisions relating to wrecks. The Railways and Harbours Administration come into the picture concerning wrecks in areas surrounding harbours. Even the Department of Agriculture is in the picture because the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure has an interest in wrecks in that they are State property. A comparatively new department, the Department of Environmental Planning and Energy will also be very much in the picture.

I want to deal very briefly with some of the provisions contained in legislation appertaining to the interests of other State departments in wrecks. In terms of the Railways and Harbours Control and Management (Consolidation) Act of 1957, the Administration has the power to remove wrecks or to control the working of wrecks within a harbour area. This includes not only the area surrounded by the harbour walls, but also adjacent areas which have been proclaimed a harbour area. It is interesting to note that one of the sea-walls of the harbour extension at Saldanha Bay has been built over the Middelburg one of the most important wrecks along the South African coast. I think therefore that it is appropriate that the hon. the Minister of Transport came in just at the right time to listen to me! Under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act another Minister has the power to deal with wrecks and strandings which have taken place in our territorial waters—the limits of which has now been extended to 12 miles—and he may direct the owner or master of the ship to remove such wreck as being a danger to navigation. This is perhaps hardly applicable under the present Bill, because the type of wreck we are today talking about is commonly known as an historic wreck. But then there are the further provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act empowering the Minister to see to the removal of wrecks himself—this would also apply to old wrecks—if such wrecks constitute a danger to navigation. The cost of such removal can be defrayed out of the proceeds obtained from such a wreck. The most important legislation affecting wrecks, however, is the Customs and Excise Act of 1964. Section 112(4) of this Act reads as follows—

This is a very important provision. I will attempt later to deal with the matter of exclusive right of salvage which should be given to selected individuals.

It is perhaps appropriate that this Bill should be before the House today, because 1 March is only four days later than that date in 1852 when an historic shipwreck occurred off the South African coast I am referring to the wreck of the Birkenhead on 26 February 1852. The Birkenhead was wrecked off Danger Point. It was a British troop ship carrying troops to take part in the Kaffir Wars of 1852. The Birkenhead is an historic wreck. 498 men and 23 officers lost their lives. It is interesting to note that 13 women and children were saved from the wreck. Parts of this wreck still are to be found along our coast—the coast bordering the constituency of the hon. member for Caledon my friend and benchmate. That troopship was carrying pay and reinforcements for British troops on the eastern frontier. The horses swam ashore, but many of the survivors of the wreck were taken, it is said, by sharks and others, according to local folklore, by enormous red steenbras. In those days red steenbras still were caught along that coast! It is also interesting to recall that the Emperor of Prussia recorded that epic saga of the loss of British troops in a poem, and recommended that it be read to all his regiments on Prussia’s frontiers. The story goes that the troops on board the Birkenhead were lined up at attention on the sloping deck of the ship as it slid beneath the waves while the band played and the women and children were saved. I once heard a somewhat irreverent story of the late Noel Coward. He was asked why he travelled on all shipping lines bar British shipping lines. His answer was that he preferred travelling on European shipping lines because there was no nonsense about “women and children first”.

Two years ago I requested that legislation be introduced to deal with wrecks. I made that plea because the wreck of the Sacramento was at that time being salvaged very near Port Elizabeth. That was indeed an historic find. I asked for special legislation to be introduced, but instead of special legislation the Government has seen fit to amend the National Monuments Act, as provided for in the Bill before the House.

However, this Bill does not fully meet the problem. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to look again at the provisions of this Bill in so far as they affect wrecks and to do that before the Committee Stage.

We want to protect historic treasures, but we do not want them to remain under the sea. I do not think this Bill does enough to promote the exploration of wrecks and we still think that there should be separate legislation. The hon. the Minister has referred to the inadequate provisions of a British Act in so far as it might apply to our situation. He has also referred to an Act passed by the Western Australian Parliament. I sent both those documents to his department.

I think we shall have to be satisfied with the present Bill and with further amendments which might be accepted in the Committee Stage, because of a deteriorating situation which must be contained. A real problem exists. To an extent this Bill does meet that problem.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister if before the Committee Stage, he will be prepared to meet representatives of a body called Acma, to which I am going to refer in a moment His department wrote to me last year and said that in view of the fact that there were so many Government departments involved with wrecks, in the way I have already referred to, a round-table conference, attended by all the interested Government departments and other bodies, e.g. archaeological bodies, to deal with this particular problem with the view to separate legislation, would be necessary, advisable and indeed more convenient than an amendment to the Act. I hope the hon. the Minister will, perhaps in the recess, see to it that such a round-table conference is convened with a view to resolving the very difficult situation that exists. I shall furnish my reasons for saying this.

I want to deal with what I think should be the objective of legislation governing wrecks. I think the objective of legislation dealing with wrecks should be to encourage divers to actively seek wrecks, subject to certain safeguards. There are two kinds of salvors of wrecks. There are the looters, who rape the wrecks and take anything they possibly can, without even keeping any records. Secondly, there are people who are registered divers, people who in fact do the work of marine archaeologists. Many of these men are self-taught and are learning in practice the science of marine archaeology. Many of them are highly experienced divers and they dive on wrecks only after years and years of research. They should be encouraged and not discouraged. However, I see little in this Bill which will give the sort of encouragement that I envisage.

I want to give an illustration of the sort of people who are undertaking this work which is in the interest of the country as a whole. For example, there are two young men who, after 10 years of research, started to salvage goods and materials from the Sacramento, a Portuguese galleon. At the moment they are busy off Bird Island with the salvaging of the wreck of the Doddington, an English East Indiaman. The wreck of the Sacramento has been lying under the sea since 1647. The wreck of the Doddington has been lying, not on a sandy bottom, but in a crevice in rocks, since about 1755. These two men have studied records in the archives and have been overseas at considerable expense to try to ascertain the precise location of these wrecks and to equip themselves with the necessary knowledge to enable them to make a success of their salvage operations.

I want to refer to one of them. The leader of the salvors is a man called David Allen. His father was a commander in the Navy and he started the Port Elizabeth Dolphin Underwater Club. David Allen has been diving since childhood. He trained as a diver in the Navy and in the S.A. Police and has himself trained countless South African divers. He is a qualified photographer. Together with his companion, Gerry van Niekerk, he holds the world underwater diving endurance record. He has dived with experts from all over the world. They have been requested by the Cambridge University’s Archaeological Department, for example, to co-operate in drawing up a handbook on marine archaeology. Articles these two have written are being published in leading journals, e.g. in Underwater World. That sort of man should be encouraged and I am not so sure that this proposed legislation is going to give the necessary encouragement to men such as these.

In which way must they be encouraged?

I want to deal with specific wrecks off our coastline. The vast majority of wrecks off our coastline lie in very shallow waters. They are exposed to high seas and most of the time it is impossible to dive down to them. There is much risk, time and money involved in the work done. Conditions are not like those in the Mediterranean or, for example, those experienced in the salvaging of a vessel lying in the mud in the Mombasa harbour. In the Mediterranean the water is deep and there is therefore not much movement in the water. There is silt and mud in the Mediterranean and in Mombasa harbour. We do not have this phenomenon off our coasts. Many of the wrecks in overseas’ waters are in fact unharmed and untouched until they are found by salvors, but our wrecks are all that remain of ships which have been pounded to pieces by the seas and scattered over the seabed. The result is that these wrecks bear very little resemblance to the original vessel.

Marine archaeology can only go forward in South Africa—there is a fertile field for it—if the efforts of divers and salvors are properly controlled. They do for us the work that is done by marine archaeologists overseas. There are no trained marine archaeologists in the Republic. We do not have the facilities for training them. But these young men after years of research, are undertaking this very valuable work for us.

There are many wrecks which are over 50 years old and which carry raw materials. In the Committee Stage I am going to suggest to the hon. the Minister that wrecks which should be proclaimed national monuments should be those which are over a 100 years old. Many of those which are over 50 years old were carrying raw materials such as zinc and copper, and it is in the country’s interest that those raw materials should be raised from the seabed. I do not think that those wrecks should be proclaimed national monuments. However, if this Bill is passed in its present form, those wrecks will also become national monuments. Special licences could easily be granted to people willing to salvage wrecks carrying such raw materials but not by the National Monuments Council.

The aims of this legislation should be to encourage, subject to proper safeguards, the search for and the recovery of marine antiques after a permit has been issued. A permit for the recovery of ordinary raw materials should be issued by the Department of Customs and Excise and should not be brought within the ambit of this Bill.

I think it is perfectly fair and generally accepted that salvors have to pay the 15% customs duty, but I want to tell the hon. the Minister—perhaps it is not known—that in the case of the cannon which has been salvaged from the Sacramento, the salvors, after years of research and the money and risks involved, are now being asked not only to pay the 15% customs duty, but in addition a 12,5% antique duty. In other words, notwithstanding all their trouble and expense they have to pay 27%% of the total value of their salvage operation in duties.

There is very little encouragement to men who run such risks and incur such expenses. It takes years of research; it requires them to buy boats and salvage equipment and, of course, to take out the necessary insurances. These young men who are now salvaging the wreck of the Doddington, are diving off Bird Island, which is a home of seals. Seals are the prey of great white sharks. These young men have actually shown me photographs of these sharks, and told me of how, while they were diving on the Doddington and carrying out their salvage operations, great white sharks, anything up to 6 m long, were circling around them. I think some form of legislative protection must be given to these divers. One of the most necessary forms of protection is that they should be protected against un-licenced looters or pirates, as they have been called. I think protection would be given to them if a salvor were to be given, by way of a permit, an exclusive right to salvage a wreck for a given period, perhaps for one or two years. If there were a provision in this Bill whereby protection of that kind were to be given to salvors, it would be, I think, only fair.

I do not think the power to give such authority should rest only with the National Monuments Council. In terms of the existing Act the National Monuments Council has the power to appoint committees. If that is so, I would suggest that it appoints as one of its committees or, alternatively, co-opts onto its council, members of the body to which I have referred earlier known as Acma. It is a body dealing with marine archaeology in South Africa. It has only recently been established and it calls itself the “Advisory Committee for Maritime Archaeology.” I want to place on record the objectives of that body in this House today. They are to encourage the exploration and protection of South Africa’s maritime archaeological heritage; to help and advise members of the public and organizations which share their concern in marine archaeology; and to help and advise organizations and persons regarding the conservation of maritime archaeological material. Furthermore, they co-ordinate the activities of institutions and persons involved in maritime archaeology and advise the Government and local governments on matters regarding maritime archaeology and exercise control over the activities of both organizations and members who associate themselves with their committee. These are the aims and objectives of this new association. It was formed only a couple of years ago, no doubt in response to the necessity for such a body by the finding and the salvaging of the Sacramento.

Let me refer to another wreck. In Saldanha Bay lies the wreck of a Dutch East Indiaman, the Meresteyn. This wreck has been worked over a number of years by various salvage concerns. Some of those concerns used blasting equipment on that historic wreck. The sale of the proceeds of only one recent attempt realized something like R30 000, mostly in coins which were sold overseas. Most of the material was not conserved and disappeared into overseas and other private collections without trace. The same group managed to obtain R1 000 each for approximately eight Ming dynasty objects that were raised from the Middelburg, a ship that was wrecked in 1781.

Let me give some examples of the worth of salvaged material. The average scrap value of a small bronze cannon, such as were found in these historic wrecks, is R1 000. The average scrap value of the brass cannon of three tons each which were raised from the Sacramento was R3 000. The total scrap value of the Sacramento cannon—and there were 40 of them—is about R100 000. These values as antiques are tremendous and obviously pirates to whom I have referred are not going to respect the rights of salvors already engaged in salvaging a wreck.

There is not the protective legislation in South Africa that I believe there should be. Particularly in view of the fact that there are between 1 600 or 1 700 known and established wrecks in the records of Acma around the coasts of the Republic, I think it is important that this Bill should only be regarded as a temporary measure and that there should in fact be special legislation sui generis for this particular purpose introduced by the Government at the first available opportunity.

We believe that the Bill is a step in the right direction; we believe that a permit system is necessary, but we think that the permit should be issued not by the National Monuments Council but by a committee such as Acma, established as a committee by the National Monuments Council, and that that permit should only be issued to a person who is able to prove to the satisfaction of the council or of the committee his ability to carry out the work he proposes to carry out and that there are also certain safety standards laid down by the committee or the council. It is essential that such a salvor should work through an approved institution, and the applicant must certainly state in writing his willingness to abide by the conditions laid down in his permit. Before salvage is allowed to take place by the council or by the committee, I think it is also important that the potential salvor should prove that he has accurately surveyed the site of the wreck and has concrete and carefully worked out plans as to how that wreck should be salvaged. He should be required to keep a detailed log and an up to date record of his salvage activities, not only of the excavation methods, but also of his finds and various other features of the wreck. These should be available for inspection at any time. I think that after he has salvaged the wreck he should complete a full field-work record book and submit it to the National Monuments Council or to the committee. I think it is very important that the salvor should be able to prove that he has facilities to enable the material of the wreck to be preserved and conserved and he should be required to submit the material that he has raised firstly, to the council, so that the council may keep it in the Republic if it is able to finance it.

I think that if the wreck salvaging takes place in the way that I have tried to describe there should be sufficient money made available to assist the Government in its own endeavours, in terms of this Bill, to proclaim wrecks to the national monuments and also to permit within the framework of the law, salvaging operations to be carried out.

We welcome this Bill. We think it is a step in the right direction. However, we shall only be satisfied with a Bill entirely on its own. That we think would be much more in keeping with the situation which I have tried to describe to the House and which obtains elsewhere overseas, where there are historic wrecks.

Mr. Speaker, I think the House will agree that the hon. member for Simonstown has indeed made a most interesting speech with regard to certain provisions of the Bill dealing with wrecks. I trust that the political wrecks in the official Opposition will not interrupt while I am speaking! I do not wish to follow the hon. member on the specific provisions which he has discussed during the course of this debate. I certainly do not have the knowledge of that hon. member nor have I devoted the same amount of study that he has devoted to this matter.

I rise primarily to pay tribute to the work of the Monuments Council and the members of that council. I think there are few spheres of our activity where there is such a devoted body of men and women who undertake the tremendous amount of work that is involved in personal inspections and the study of monuments that have been declared from time to time. I have cause to be able to pay tribute to the work of the members of the council because I had the privilege of having certain very close dealings with them in the declaration of a certain national monument. I was amazed at the devotion and the attention to detail, both by the director, the staff of the council and individual members of that council, and of the great deal of trouble that they went to establish the facts and the historical background of the particular monument in which I was personally interested. I feel that because of my association with those gentlemen and their interest in the particular monument and land in which I was interested, which eventually led to its declaration as a national monument, I am in the position to pay public tribute to the work done by them.