Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to give any general survey of our economic position in South Africa this afternoon. The time for that will arrive later. In any case, so much has already been said about the prosperous state in which we have found ourselves in recent years and months that it is surely unnecessary for me to say much about it. I should rather like to concentrate on the financial points raised during this debate. In passing, I just want to say that the debate itself was much more lively and more interesting than in previous years. It was also more to the point. Hon. members were able to concentrate on one or two definite points they wanted to make instead of, as so often happens in a debate of this nature, covering the whole field, and doing so very superficially. There are, of course, exceptions. I am thinking of the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), who is not here at the moment. He reminded me of a schoolboy who goes to shoot springbok with a shotgun. He tries to shoot the lot with one shot. With his political shotgun he has now tried to hit all the points of policy of the Government in one shot, but what he did was to raise his political shotgun, close his eyes and fire a random shot; then he softly muttered to himself—that is, if he is able to mutter softly—“Grant that I may hit the target”. The field he covered was infinitely wide. I wanted to say that it was as wide as the plains of South Africa, but I think it is as fitting to say it was just as broad as the hon. member’s physical build. My hon. friend has now entered the Chamber. Fortunately hon. members like him are becoming fewer every day. I think the new rules and the experience they will gain under those rules will discourage them from trying to cover such a wide field in the time at their disposal.

In so far as the financial debate is concerned, there are also gratifying signs, in comparison with previous years. I am thinking particularly of the changed attitude we saw on the part of the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson)—perhaps not on the part of the whole of the United Party, but at least on his part. He, we can say this year, has to some extent seen the light. He is now at least prepared to concede that there is something good in the South African economy. Just here and there in his speech the old Adam—or should I say the old Jeremiah—still showed himself, but in general he revealed a gratifying realism. I shall reply specifically to the points raised by the hon. member, firstly because they are good points which merit reply, but secondly I want to deal with them specifically because I want to rejoice, together with him, because of this political conversion to which he has been brought during this last year. Unfortunately his mantle very soon fell on willing shoulders. The role which he has now abandoned was all too readily taken up, particularly by another member of the Opposition. The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) is now the chief prophet; he is now the prima donna, or should I say the “primus don”, in the choir of those who always want to belittle South Africa’s economy. I want to concede that he played his role with particular energy and assiduity. He reminded me of the advocate who made the following note for his speech: “When you deal with this point, shout loudly; point particularly weak. ” That also applies to the hon. member’s argument. In spite of that, we had the unfortunate phenomenon that the speech of the hon. member for Florida drew more applause than that of any other member of the Opposition, and he received more congratulations than any other member opposite. To me that is a sad phenomenon.

I just want to make two quotations from his speech, because they are typical of his whole speech. He said in the first place that the South African economy on the surface appeared very good, but that inherently it was very weak. That remark of his was loudly applauded by hon. members opposite. Let me just pause to deal for a moment with that remark of his that our economy is inherently weak. I want to ask that hon. member and other hon. members opposite this question: Is it possible for an economy which is inherently weak to reveal this surprising growth over the past 15 years which has been revealed by our economy, in spite of threats of boycotts and sanctions? In spite of all that, our economy is so sound that the hon. member for Constantia to-day had to admit that it was sound. Is it possible for our economy to be so inherently weak when it could so successfully overcome the shock of our leaving the Commonwealth? Can our economy be so weak when we have these great natural resources available to us, and when we take into consideration the surprising diversity in our economy? Our economy to-day is almost a source of envy in many countries of the world, but the hon. member says it is inherently weak. Can our economy be so inherently weak when we have this excellent managerial talent that we have in South Africa to-day? Is it inherently weak when we have this outstanding manpower in South Africa? To say under those circumstances, with these natural resources, and with our manpower and all the managerial talent we have, that our economy is inherently weak amounts to no less than an insult to our managerial talent and the manpower of South Africa.

What was his second remark? He said: “Other countries”the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Common Market, Canada, Australia and some American states—are enjoying a buoyancy certainly not less than our buoyancy and rate of progress in South Africa. ” That is what the hon. member said, and I just want to analyse it for a moment. The hon. member just made this bald statement without proving it. I just want to show hon. members what the increase in the gross national production was in 1962-3 in those countries mentioned by the hon. member, whose economy according to him is just as buoyant as ours, and then I want to compare it with ours. In the U. S A. there was an increase of 5. 7 per cent in the gross national production; in Belgium 3½ per cent—that is one of the countries of the Common Market—in Germany 3.2 per cent, in France 4½ per cent, in Italy 5½ per cent, in Holland 3½ per cent, in Norway 4 per cent to 4½ per cent, in Sweden 4 per cent, in Britain 2¾ per cent, in Japan 9 per cent, in Australia, in 1961-2, the previous year, 1 per cent, and in Canada (also for the previous year) 8 per cent. These figures appeared in the Economist of December 1963. They did not even dare to give the figures of growth for the South American states. The hon. member says here that our little economy is no better than that of any other country; that it is not even better than those of the South American countries.

I just want to give a few figures to show what price increases took place from December 1962 over a period of six to nine months. In the Argentine the price increase over nine months was 11 per cent, whereas over the same period in South Africa it was only 1. 2 per cent. In Brazil the price increase over seven months, i. e. to July, was 41 per cent. That must be much better than in our case, according to that hon. member’s calculation! In Chile it was 28 per cent over eight months. In Uruguay it was 20 per cent over eight months. And then the hon. member comes here—and his speech evoked the most applause from that side of the House—and tells us that our economy is really no better than that of those other countries; that our rate of growth is no higher than that of those countries. Is the hon. member not ashamed of himself for having revealed such ignorance here? Is he not ashamed to make such unpatriotic statements here, statements which are devoid of all truth? It is not necessary for him to reveal his ignorance here. He dare not say such things. The Opposition reminds me so much of a flock of sheep. For a long time the hon. member for Constantia was infected, but when he was cured another member again contracted the disease—just like a flock of sheep with scabies. When the one is cured the other is infected, and now it is the hon. member for Florida’s turn to be infected.

I now want to proceed to deal with a few of the points raised by the hon. member for Constantia, and also other points raised by other hon. members of the Opposition. The first point made by the hon. member is this: He says, “Yes, I admit that there is prosperity in the country, but this prosperity was delayed for 15 years. “ Let us analyse that statement. His words were: ”Why has it taken 15 years of Nationalist Government to produce a reasonable rate of growth?” Here I have the annual increase in the gross national production from 1948. I am now going to give the House the percentage increase, year for year over the previous year, beginning with the year 1948-9. Then the gross national production was 9 per cent higher than in the previous year. Next year it was 15 per cent higher than in the previous year. In 1950-1 it was 10 per cent higher than in the previous year; in 1951-2 it was 10 per cent higher than in the previous year; in 1952-3 it was 14 per cent higher; in 1953-4 it was 8 per cent higher; the next year it was 7 per cent higher; the next year it was 9½ per cent higher; in 1956-7 it was 6 per cent higher; in 1957-8 it was 3½ per cent higher; in 1958-9 it was 6½ per cent higher; the next year it was 7 per cent higher. In 1960-1 it was 4 per cent higher, and in 1961-2 it was 7 per cent higher, and for the 12 months to June 1963 it was 7½ per cent higher than in the previous year. These are not figures I dug up from an unknown source; they are figures which the hon. member would have found if he had consulted the Quarterly Bulletin of Statistics of the Reserve Bank. It is no secret; it stands there. The hon. member says that it took all these years to show this prosperity. This prosperity has been there all these years. The position is simply that the hon. member for Constantia was not aware of it. Now his eyes have been opened, and he sees only the immediate, but still he cannot look back. Only in two years over the past 15 years was the rate of growth of our economy lower than 6 per cent. That is something of which we can be proud. There is no reason for saying that prosperity was delayed for 15 years. I think what is delayed is the political intelligence of the Opposition.

In the second place the hon. member discussed the reasons for the prosperity we are having this year. What did the hon. member for Florida say? He said: “The prosperity of South Africa is not due to the policy of the Government. ” What does the hon. member for Constantia say? He was discussing various factors leading to the prosperity he now saw for the first time, and he mentioned five causes. The first he mentioned was the higher gold production. That is quite correct. We gave the mines a little encouragement during the past 15 years, but let us say that the higher gold production was not due to Government policy. The second factor he mentioned was increased State expenditure. That is the part played by the Government, in other words, Government policy. The third matter he mentioned was the P. A. Y. E. system and the tax holiday resulting from it, and the increased consumer expenditure which it made possible. He says that is one of the reasons for the prosperity we enjoy to-day. But, Sir, surely that is due to Government policy. This system of P. A. Y. E. did not just fall out of the sky. The fourth reason for the present prosperity mentioned by the hon. member is our better export markets. Yes, I give full credit to our manufacturers and producers who obtained export markets, but the hon. member should remember that the Government also definitely encouraged them by fiscal and other measures to expand their export markets. I think the Government should at least receive a large share of the credit for that. The last factor he mentioned was the greater confidence existing in South Africa. That can only be the result of Government policy. Confidence in South Africa, as he said here, is in fact the decisive factor; I accept that, but that confidence is due to the Government’s fiscal policy, its economic policy, and particularly, I think, to the maintenance of law and order. Does the hon. member wish to intimate that there would have been greater confidence in South Africa if we had followed a policy similar to that of the other African states? The confidence in South Africa of the foreign investor is steadily increasing. Hon. members read in the Press the other day that the mighty international firm, Plessis, is now coming to South Africa and will invest more than R2,500,000 here. It wants to use South Africa as a stepping-stone for further expansion. That is the confidence foreign investors have in South Africa! They know what our policy is, but still they come here because they are not frightened away by that policy.

The hon. member for Florida says that the present prosperity was obtained in spite of Government policy. The hon. member for Constantia is quite correct: Three and a half of the five causes for it that he mentioned are directly attributable to Government policy. What do hon. members now think of the hon. member for Florida, who on that point is so directly contradicted by the hon. member for Constantia? There was a time when the hon. member for Constantia played the role which the hon. member for Florida played in this debate, but the hon. member for Constantia learnt from bitter experience that it was to no avail. To-day he probably still bears the scars of the various occasions on which he bumped his head against the hard facts, against the indisputable strength of our economy. The hon. member for Florida is still a comparatively young member, and I want to give him the assurance that if he continues along this course he is storing up trouble for himself. If he thinks that the people of South Africa will just put up with the sort of statements he makes here, he is very much mistaken.

But I think the hon. member for Constantia did not go far enough. These matters he mentioned are mostly due to Government policy, but there are quite a few things he did not even mention which also contributed greatly to the improved position in which we find ourselves to-day—I may almost say to the glorious conditions, the prosperous conditions, which exist to-day. He made no mention of the fact that the higher expenditure incurred by the State was accompanied by lower rates of taxation. He made no mention of the fact that we collected on a percentage basis less in taxation than before, in spite of the larger amounts spent by the State. He made no mention of the tax concessions we made in the Budget only last year, in order to put more money into the pockets of the consumers and in that way to encourage consumer expenditure. He makes no mention of the decrease in personal income tax; he makes no mention of the 1 cent reduction in the tax on petrol. He makes no mention of the concessions to pensioners, which last year alone put approximately R5,000,000 in the pockets of the consumers. He makes no mention of the increased salaries in the Public Service and in the Railway Service, which also to a large extent were responsible for this surprising revival in the last six months.

The fourth point I want to mention is one which was not raised by the hon. member for Constantia, but it is a point which was mentioned by quite a few other members of the Opposition, namely that all sections of the population did not share in the prosperity which even the Opposition has to admit exists to-day. I am glad to say that this point was not raised by the hon. member for Constantia, but by the hon. members for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell), Maitland (Mr. Hickman) and the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Oldfield), who all alleged that certain sections did not share this prosperity.

Hear, hear! They cannot all be wrong.

Just listen to what the hon. member for Pinetown says: “What comfort is the boom to the old-age pensioner? Civil servants have no share in this boom. ” Mr. Speaker, can you imagine such ignorance? During the past two years the salaries of public servants and railway servants were increased by an amount of over R31,000,000. That process has not even been completed yet; there are still certain sections whose turn will come. What is the position of the pensioners? In the Budget last year an additional R4. 700,000 was voted for the pensioners, and in the five Budgets introduced by me an additional amount of over R18,000,000 was voted for pensioners. Then hon. members of the Opposition still say that the pensioners did not share in this prosperity. They do not even say that the pensioners had only a small share in the prosperity; no, they say that they had no share at all in it. Can one imagine a party with so little respect for the truth ever coming into power?

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is aware that only 20 per cent of the pensioners benefit by the special allowances, the additional R2. 50 granted to pensioners?

The hon. member is quite correct. The concessions made last year did not affect all pensioners. But the increases granted during the past five years affected everyone. I do not know whether the hon. member for Umbilo said it, but the hon. member for Pinetown said: “What comfort is the boom to the old-age pensioner?” If all of them did not share in the economic prosperity, then some of them shared in it last year. Over the last five years, however, they got an additional R18,000,000. Sir, the greatest threat to-day, the greatest danger of a one-party State in South Africa, comes from the Opposition. If we have such a weak Opposition, we are in real danger of automatically becoming a one-party State. I am surprised that those hon. members have not used that yet as an argument for getting into power! That is about the only argument they can use: Put us into power; then there will at all events be a strong Opposition.

I now want to come to a few specific points before dealing with the final point mentioned by the hon. member for Constantia. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) objected to the artificial measures adopted to combat the excessive liquidity in the money market. But most of those measures amount to nothing more than relaxation of the existing control measures, and many of them are in fact measures which the hon. members for Port Elizabeth (South) and Pine-town themselves advocated. There are, for example, in the first place various schemes for the purchase of South African shares abroad. That is one of the methods we adopted to drain off the liquidity to some extent. Then there are the special three-year bonds for nonresidents, and a third measure we adopted to combat the excessive liquidity was the concession we granted to the commercial banks to invest funds overseas temporarily. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) also asked that South Africans should be allowed to invest their capital abroad. Sir, we cannot afford to lift control completely. But before this is criticized, I may tell hon. members that there are very few developing countries which can afford it. If one looks at countries such as Holland or England, one finds that they do not allow the free flow of capital either. Secondly, if we relax too much in this direction we run the risk of being criticized by foreign investors whose capital cannot be withdrawn from South Africa. If we allow South African citizens to invest abroad, we run the risk of getting this criticism, as has already happened in the past. But I want to add that in the past we gave our consent to South African undertakings investing abroad, but that was in individual cases where we were completely satisfied that it was in the general national interest; that, e. g., it stimulated our export market, etc. That is why we gave the Netherlands Bank permission to take up certain shares in overseas banks, because we considered it was to be in our interest to obtain a share in one of the great banks of the Common Market. We therefore allowed it, but it is something which should be restricted to some extent for the reasons I have already given.

The hon. members for Pinetown and Salt River (Mr. Timoney) and Florida criticized the control over the withdrawal of foreign capital and asked that this should be suspended. I have already said that it is impracticable and dangerous to do so now, but we have already relaxed it to such an extent that to-day there is no necessity for any foreigner to complain that he has capital in this country which he cannot withdraw. At the worst he can withdraw it over a period of three years by investing in non-residents—debentures. But I think that if we take note of the events in other parts of Africa, it is definitely not advisable completely to lift this control. There is nothing to prevent the foreign investor from selling his shares on the London market. It is true that prices there are lower than on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, but they are much higher than the prices of the same shares in June 1961 when we applied this measure of control for the first time. The foreign investor therefore does not lose; he has received his dividends all these years, and now he can sell his shares at a higher price than at the time we instituted this control.

The hon. member for Salt River is also one of the United Party’s new acquisitions in the sphere of finance. He alleged that the renewal of the revolving credit of 40,000,000 dollars in America for another two years, and the new revolving credit of 40,000,000 German marks in Germany, are just examples of our lack of confidence in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, it is just because we have so much confidence, and because the outside world has confidence in South Africa, that those loans have been entered into. We have the confidence to use those loans for the great positive projects we are undertaking here. We need money from abroad; we cannot supply all our needs. We need money for the Orange River scheme and for other expansions such as at Sasol and Foscor. The hon. member for Florida also referred to these loans and stated that they meant nothing. He says that bankers will lend money even to Nigeria or to Ghana or to the Congo. That statement comes from the shining light on the financial horizon of the United Party! The hon. member says that these countries can also get loans. I wonder whether he knows the difference between economic aid and an ordinary bank loan. If you want to get some idea as to what England and America think of those countries, it is only necessary for me to give you the prices of their Government stocks on the open market. These were the prices as at 30 January: Government stocks of East Africa were quoted at £71½ (you get back £71½ only for the £100 that you invested), Northern Rhodesia at £73, Tanganyika £74, Kenya £621, Nyasaland £66 and South African £96½. But the hon. member over there says that there is no difference! These are the London prices. The New York prices are as follows: South Africa 99½ Rhodesia 83—those which mature in 1968 are 97½ and the Congo, which the hon. member specifically mentioned, 39.

The hon. member for Germiston (District) and the hon. member for Springs referred to the question of the marginal mines and the communities served by those mines. I do not want to go into details but I just want to correct a few of the gross inaccuracies in the statement of the hon. member for Springs. The hon. member for Springs spoke of the 12 marginal mines which were allegedly paying R17,000,000 in taxation. Mr. Speaker, that is simply not correct. If those mines are paying taxation then they are not marginal mines. Even E. R. P. M., that large, powerful company, does not pay taxation. Its profit last year was more than R3,000,000. Does the hon. member not know that mines first have to make a profit of 6 per cent before they become taxable? He also referred to the 130,000 persons per annum who, according to Dr. Viljoen, as he says, will have to be provided with employment as a result of the closing of the marginal mines. That is the impression which he gave the House, and he quoted Dr. Viljoen. But what did Dr. Viljoen say? That is not what he said. Dr. Viljoen mentioned this figure of 130,000 as the number of persons who, as a result of the growth of the whole population, will have to be provided with employment annually. You see, Mr. Speaker, one simply despairs. Here I have to reply to a debate and the greater part of my reply consists of corrections of blatantly inaccurate statements made by members of the Opposition.

Did Dr. du Toit Viljoen ever repudiate the report which appeared in the Star of 22 August 1963?

Yes. I just want to say to the hon. member that this whole matter which he raised here is one which is receiving the serious attention of the Government. We are dealing with people who know what they are talking about, and the cause which we all want to serve is not served by reckless statements of the kind made in this House by the hon. member.

The hon. members for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) and Vryburg (Mr. Labuschagne) referred to another matter of importance. Apart from national roads the whole question of roads falls under the provinces, and I cannot say much, as the hon. member for Kimberley (North) has asked me to do, about an entirely new approach to the construction of roads. As far as the remarks of the hon. member for Vryburg are concerned I just want to point out that local authorities as well as roads fall under the provincial administrations. The Schumann Commission is at present investigating the financial relationship between the Central Government and the provincial governments. If they fix a formula for a particular province, then it covers all roads in that province. How the province divides that money amongst the divisional councils is its own affair. The point is that we as a Central Government cannot give special treatment to a particular province because it has something extra in the shape of divisional councils. It may be a means of saving; that is all very well, but if it is not a means of saving, then it does not entitle that province to a higher quota than the quota which we allocate to it. I just want to say that this whole question of divisional councils has been specially referred to the Borgenhagen Commission. They are dealing with the relationship between the Central Government, the provinces and the local authorities. I have asked them to give special attention to the question of divisional councils.

I want to come now to the last point made by the hon. member for Constantia. He asked an important question—and I agree with him that it is important—and that is whether we shall be able to maintain this prosperity in the future. The reply to that is a definite and unambiguous “yes” provided three requirements are complied with. The first requirement is that growth will not be encouraged at the expense of stability. That is the first requirement. During the past year the Government has had to give a little petrol to the economy but the time has come for it to take its foot off the accelerator. The time has also come perhaps for the Government to see whether all the brakes which it can apply if the speed of the vehicle becomes excessive, are in order. That is what the Government can do at this stage. I have said before that there is a possibility that we shall have to try to reduce the capital expenditure incurred by the State. It is not always possible, however, to delay the construction of public works. Some have already been started; some are very important and cannot be held over. We know that there is a housing emergency. We cannot stop the building programme entirely. But we shall have to see. The provincial administrations and the local authorities will all have to see whether they cannot cut down their capital programmes so that the private sector can be given a chance. The time for the Government itself to tackle capital works as much as possible in order to meet any shortfall which there may be after the private sector has done its share, is when there is a recession, and that is what we have done in the past. I know that the provincial administrations and the local authorities will help in this respect. Local authorities in particular sometimes have very ambitious plans. I want to make an appeal to them not to call a halt to the implementation of these plans but to implement them over a longer period; to convert their five-year plan into an eight-year plan perhaps. I also want to say that in the future the Treasury will exercise stricter control over municipal capital programmes than it has done in the past. This is also in the interests of the municipalities themselves.

Does that also apply to the Orange River scheme?

That is one of the schemes which, as I have said, it is difficult to stop entirely or cut down to any great extent at this juncture. There are certain works which, as I have said, have already been commenced. But there are many other works in connection with which we shall have to see what the position is. I have not investigated the position yet but we shall have to see what we can do to stretch out to some extent the period over which these works are implemented.

The second requirement for the maintenance of our present prosperity is the exercise of self-control by all sections of the community, not only by the Government. If one wants to avoid trouble then the duty to exercise self-control does not rest upon the shoulders of the Government only. I want every sector of the population to exercise self-control in respect of prices, wages, rental and profits. If a proper degree of self-control is exercised it will never be necessary for us to apply the brakes. That is the second requirement therefore.

The third requirement speaks for itself. We can only retain the prosperity which we have been enjoying, particularly in the last few years, if this Government remains in power. Sir, before I develop this argument I should like to outline the background for a moment. The strongest economy in the world, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is never strong in all sectors at any given time; there is always the danger of a bottleneck in one sector or another; there is always some weak sector which has to be strengthened. That is a fact that we simply have to face, and if that were not so then we would no longer be in this world. This particular prosperity that we are enjoying at present creates its own problems. Our danger to-day lies in our prosperity. A Minister of Finance always has to keep a watchful eye over the general interests of the country. He must look for growth but he must also look for stability. At this stage in particular he should try to steer a course which will reconcile the greatest possible growth with the greatest possible stability. That is the course which he has to steer.

I want to say immediately that as yet there is no general shortage of skilled labour; there is still no material over-activity in the building industry; there is no inflation yet. But it would be unwise to close one’s eyes to the possibility that these bottlenecks may develop. But it would be equally unwise and irresponsible to exaggerate these difficulties, to exaggerate these possibilities and in that way to create a sort of inflation psychosis that would be just as dangerous as it would be to ignore these things. A country, a nation, can very easily talk itself into an inflationary state, and that is the risk that we are running here. As far as I am concerned I do not want to be a party to either of these follies. In other words, I do not want to exaggerate the symptoms, the danger signs, but on the other hand I do not want to ignore them entirely either, for I would then be acting irresponsibly.

This Government has demonstrated in the past—I think hon. members will agree with me—that it knows how to take effective and, if necessary, stringent action to remove the weak spots or the bottlenecks which occur from time to time in some sector or other of the economy. I have in mind, for example, the balance of payments crisis which we had in 1961. At that time we had to adopt very stringent measures and to-day we are reaping the fruits of those measures. In the recent report of the Monetary Fund’s mission which visited this country they praise South Africa for the courageous step which we took in 1961. There we have one example. In 1961 and in the first half of 1962 we had unemployment figures which revealed a disturbing position. We overcame that difficulty. Look at the figures to-day. We had a very sluggish consumption of consumer goods. I complained about it last year and also the previous year, and I made provision for certain stimuli. That was repeated last year, and if you look at the latest report of the Reserve Bank you will see that there has been an amazing upsurge. I also have in mind the low investment tendency which we have also tried to stimulate in the last two Budgets. Then I also have in mind the problem of excessive liquidity which proved very troublesome. The Government overcame all these difficulties and problems. They were overcome because the Government knew how to take effective steps and, where it was necessary to do so, how to take stringent steps. Mr. Speaker, I really shudder to think what would have become of South Africa’s economy if hon. members on the other side had been in power in 1961 when we had that balance of payments crisis. [Interjections.] They say, of course, that they would never have had a balance of payments crisis but they would have had very much worse problems on their hands. When I listen to speeches such as those of the hon. member for Florida I can only say “heaven help South Africa if that party should ever have control over the finances of this country”. My reply to the hon. member for Constantia therefore is that unless the world is hit by some international catastrophe and provided we comply with the first and second requirements and, lastly, provided we see to it that the National Party remains in power, we are in a fairly safe position for the years which lie ahead. During the past 15 years the National Party has maintained a stable rate of growth which has been accomplished by a large degree of stability. It succeeded, particularly after the establishment of the Republic, which was a serious blow to our economy, in building up confidence both internally and externally, in spite of the actions of the Opposition. To-day South Africa is one of the best investment countries in the world. Not only does she attract capital but she also attracts immigrants on a large scale. She maintains law and order, which is perhaps the most important factor, in a way that few other countries do. Hon. members need only look at their daily newspapers. Sir, I have shown that most of the causes of our prosperity, which were mentioned by the hon. member for Constantia, stem entirely from Government policy. That is why the National Party must remain in power if we are to have continued prosperity!

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—88: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Faurie, W. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr. ); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Odell, H. G. O.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.: van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: J. J. Fouché and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—48: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eden, G. S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steyn, S. J. M.;Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a second time.

Bill not committed to Committee of the whole House.

I move—

The principal Act, although it was passed by Parliament in 1946, was only put into operation with effect from 12 March 1955 and this is the first occasion on which amendments to the principal Act have been proposed.

Hon. members have doubtless had the opportunity of reading the explanatory memorandum which has been laid on the Table and it will be clear to them that the amendments are either consequential upon South Africa becoming a Republic or are administrative by nature and designed to bring about more effective administration of the principal Act.

Hon. members will be aware that the Warsaw Convention which dates from 1929 is, with one exception, the aviation convention which has received the widest support. The exception mentioned is the International Convention on Civil Aviation (Chicago, 1944). The Warsaw Convention deals with documents of carriage, the liability of the air carrier, combined carriage and related matters. Changing conditions in aviation made necessary a review of the provisions of the convention and this review, which took place over a number of years, culminated in the adoption in 1955 of the Hague Protocol. This protocol contains a number of amendments of the convention. Very briefly let me just mention the most important amendments. The liability of the air carrier in respect of a passenger is doubled from 125,000 francs (approximately R5,874) to 250,000 francs (approximately R11,748). The provision relating to the unlimited liability of the air carrier in the case of his willful misconduct is replaced by a provision according to which the air carrier’s liability will be unlimited only if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the air carrier, his servants or agents, done with intent to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result.

The documents of carriage have been simplified by reducing the amount of the particulars required in the passenger ticket, the baggage check and the air waybill.

Present indications are that the Hague Protocol will in due course probably be as widely supported as the Warsaw Convention.

When my Department came to examine the principal Act in the light of the provisions of the Hague Protocol, it was found that subsection (1) of Section 5 provided only for ratification, by proclamation in the Gazette, of an amendment to the Warsaw Convention. In international usage the term “ratification” presupposes that the State ratifying is a signatory to the instrument concerned—in this case the Hague Protocol which came into operation on 1 August 1963.

South Africa did not sign the Hague Protocol and as the principal Act stands it cannot adopt the Hague Protocol. The only way out is to amend sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the principal Act so that South Africa can adhere to or accede to any amendment of the Warsaw Convention and that is what is now being proposed. That also is by far the most important reason for this amending Bill.

Let me be quite clear on this point. This amending Bill does not, as far as South Africa is concerned, accept the provisions of the Hague Protocol. Its adoption will only clear the ground for such acceptance and if acceptance is finally decided on, the necessary amendments can be effected by proclamation in the Gazette.

I hope that hon. member will agree with me that this measure is not in the least contentious and that its passage is necessary.

We must assume that an Act which was passed in 1946 and which deals with a technical matter such as this, will require certain amendments after so many years. The hon. the Minister has made out a case for such amendments and it will therefore be a pleasure for us to support this measure.

I move—

The principal Act came into operation on 1 March 1950 and we are now, for the first time, proposing to amend it.

Hon. members have probably already had an opportunity to read the Explanatory Memorandum which has already been tabled and so I hope that it will not be necessary for me to give any further details in regard to the provisions of the Bill.

A large number of the amendments have been necessitated by the change in our form of government and this is the first opportunity we have had to make the necessary changes.

The other amendments are aimed at making the application of the principal Act more effective. As a necessary result it is hoped that the amendments will also be promotive of safe aviation. We have already had about 15 years’ experience of the administration of the principal Act and from this experience it has become clear that the proposed amendments are necessary.

I want to confine myself more particularly to Clause 5 of the Bill. I am sure that there will be no objection to the powers of the National Transport Commission being extended as proposed in this clause.

Both paragraphs (a) and (b) of the clause contain amendments which are aimed at empowering the commission to take action against the holder of an air carrier’s licence who has been guilty of committing any act which is prejudicial to the national security of the Republic.

Paragraph (c) of the clause makes it possible for the commission to take action in the case of a licensee who does not make use of his air carrier’s licence. A licence of this nature which is not made use of hampers the development of aviation. As things are to-day, a licensee who does not actively make use of his licence may nevertheless in terms of Section 10 of the principal Act lodge objection with the commission to the granting of a new air carrier’s licence if such new licence partly or completely covers the field for which the first-mentioned licence has been granted. I repeat that this state of affairs is not promotive of the development of aviation.

Paragraph (d) of the clause is complementary to paragraphs (a) and (b) in the sense that all have the same aim. As matters stand today a licensee who has a controlling interest in a company elsewhere which is guilty of committing an act which is prejudicial to the national security of the Republic, can simply claim that another corporate body was responsible for that particular action. This is an extremely technical excuse which will now no longer stand.

As far as paragraph (e) is concerned I just want to say that the transfer of an air carrier’s licence is subject to approval by the commission. Even though the commission may refuse an application for the transfer of a licence of this nature the particular persons who have not been successful in their application may still get control of the licence concerned where the licensee is a company simply by gaining a controlling interest in that company. The intention of the law can be bypassed in this way. But if the amendment is adopted, this evasion will no longer be possible. It must be noticed that the licence concerned is not withdrawn; it is suspended until such time as the approval of the commission for the obtaining of a controlling interest has been obtained.

It is emphasized, and I think that this is important, that the commission in the exercising of the powers which will now be vested in it in terms of the provisions of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) will still have to act in accordance with the procedure laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the principal Act. In terms of these provisions the commission is compelled to give a licence-holder a reasonable period of prior notice of its proposed course of action and the reasons for such action. The commission then has, before making a decision, to give the licensee an opportunity to advance reasons, either in writing or by appearing before the commission in person or through the medium of a representative, why the proposed course of action should not be resorted to.

I hope that hon. members will agree with me that the amendments that we have in mind, as embodied in this amending Bill, are necessary.

In so far as this Bill contains provisions translating into the statute the consequences of our becoming a Republic and in so far as it contains measures for the greater safety of air services and the more efficient administration of the original Act, it is assured of our full support.

But the hon. Minister must have suspected that we on this side of the House have difficulty with Clause 5. That is why he spent so much time on it. While we appreciate that he has tried to meet our difficulties in advance, I regret to tell him that we are not happy yet. We look upon Clause 5, Sir, as part of general Government policy to build higher fences around South Africa, higher fences to symbolize the isolation and the loneliness of South Africa here on the southernmost corner of Africa. I do not want to go into the merits of the case, but it is a fact: We are in difficulties as a multi-racial state at the southern tip of Africa, and obviously one of the things that the hon. Minister wants to combat here is the use of air services to transport people who have incurred the displeasure of the State out of the borders of South Africa or across the territory of South Africa. If the hon. Minister wants those powers, I think the Government should be entitled to have them. If people break the law there should be machinery to find them and to punish them.

But our difficulty is that the National Transport Commission should be given the power to act against people, to take drastic action against people, without those persons having been convicted before a court of law of any crime or misdemeanor, without their having the right to appeal to a court of law on the facts as found by the commission. You will notice, Sir, it is very clearly stated in this clause that if in the opinion of the Transport Commission people have committed an act against the security of the Republic, the commission can cancel the licence. That means, according to our law, that the right of appeal to the courts becomes very severely restricted. A person who has his licence cancelled in these circumstances can go to court, according to previous court decisions, only to claim that the commission acted ultra vires, which is most unlikely, or to claim that the act is contrary to statute, which is most unlikely, or to claim that they failed to observe the principles of natural justice in that for example they did not allow the other side to be heard. Or, Sir, that there was a failure by the commission to take a decision required of it by law, or that the commission did not apply its mind to the matter before it, and finally that the commission acted fraudulently or in bad faith, or corruptly. Now, Sir, there have been attempts in our practice of justice to take to court decisions by statutory bodies on matters of fact, where the law provides that the opinion of the body concerned is what matters. Cases have been taken to court and it has been found impossible in practice to establish either mala fides, or that the body concerned did not apply its mind to the issues before it. This means that in fact and in practice there is no effective appeal in such a case to the courts, and if the commission makes a mistake adjuding the facts, then the person concerned has lost his rights finally. And because we feel it is wrong in principle that where a statutory body is given judicial functions there should be no appeal on the facts, we want the hon. Minister to know that we will move amendments to Clause 5 in the Committee Stage to clarify this position. We want to admit, Sir, that sub-section (2) of this section does give very important safeguards. Certain acts have to be shown to be persistent or repeated and other safeguards are included in sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act, but even here there is something which is not quite clear. It is not quite clear according to the wording of this sub-section (2) whether the safeguards apply to acts of commission as well as acts of omission. In the relevant Section 17 (1), it says—

It provides there for contraventions which are acts of commission and for omissions, but towards the end of sub-section (2) you will read—

That is a very important safeguard, but the wording leaves some doubt. It says “failure to comply with a condition” which seems to indicate that it does not deal with contraventions, and the amendment here dealing with the matter speaks of “acts contrary to the safety of the Republic”, and therefore acts of commission. Now there is some doubt in the minds of the lawyers as to whether that is covered, and it is to clear that misunderstanding among other things that we will come with amendments in the Committee Stage. I would ask the hon. Minister not to close his mind at this stage to arguments that the Opposition will bring to him in the Committee Stage. We do not want to anticipate discussions in the Committee Stage, but we give notice of how we feel about it and of certain difficulties we have. I hope the Minister will not close his mind, but will keep an open mind and if, as I believe will happen, the Opposition makes out a case in the Committee Stage, the hon. Minister will be ready to accept our amendments.

It is unfortunate that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) has thought fit to brand a measure that deals with the security of South Africa as a measure by means of which, as he has put it, we are helping to isolate ourselves further. It is far from the truth when the hon. member says that we are increasing South Africa’s isolation.

This measure is very obviously intended to be complementary to the measure that was passed by this House last year and which dealt with the protection of South Africa’s air space. It dealt with the entering and the departure from South Africa of certain aircraft and with air traffic across South Africa from one point to another without touching down somewhere in the Republic. We have had the experience that misuse has been made of South Africa’s air space in order to commit certain unfriendly acts against South Africa, and it is most essential that this complementary measure should be passed in order to put an end to the acts that have been committed and may be committed in the future. The hon. member for Yeoville will, I am sure, agree with me that this measure can only be effective and that the whole plan can only be effective if the measure is adopted in this form. We are dealing with aviation, but hon. members opposite raise objections in regard to the finer technical points of law. The hon. member objects primarily to the question of the non-compliance with provisions in connection with actions that are punishable. We are dealing with the technical problems of aviation where non-compliance with certain measures may hold greater dangers and have more unpleasant results than the commission of some particular act. Non-compliance with a number of the administrative provisions in the Aviation Act can have far more serious results than if the position were reversed.

You misunderstood me.

It is apparent that my knowledge of aviation and the hon. member’s knowledge of aviation do not tally and I want to admit immediately that his knowledge of that subject may quite possibly be superior to mine. But it is quite clear to me that we are dealing here with a measure—and particularly Clause 5 of the Bill—that is simply aimed at giving effect to a principle that has already been accepted by this House. We are merely taking it a step further. I feel that it is necessary for this measure to be placed on the Statute Book in this form so that we can put a stop to any unpleasantness that may prejudice our relationships with our neighbouring States.

May I make use of this occasion to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the measure that was passed last year. I have had some doubts in regard to its application. That is why I also want to thank the hon. the Minister of Defence in his absence for the manner in which his Air Force has been able to implement the provision of that Act which was placed on the Statute Book last year—the provisions of the particular section that are now being further extended by Clause 5 of this Bill. We in South Africa have to defend many miles of border and a great deal of air space and it is necessary that our control over these matters be extended so that we shall have more control over any irregularities that may take place—over the unfriendly actions that may be committed by the misuse of our air space. I am quite content to see this measure as being complementary to the other measure which has already been proved to be enforceable. I would like to see this measure placed on the Statute Book without any changes whatsoever.

I think there is nobody on this side of the House who disagrees at all with the view of the hon. member who has just spoken in regard to the safety, either of flying or the safety of South Africa as such. What we are interested in is to ensure that any measure which this House passes is a measure which not only achieves its objective, but is a measure which at the same times does not do unnecessary harm to innocent people. The hon. member referred to sub-section (2) of Section 17, which was raised by the hon. member for Yeoville. This states clearly that the commission shall not exercise any of its powers under sub-section (1) unless … (and here follow various conditions), and the last proviso is: … “or suspended upon the ground of failure to comply with the conditions”. There is no reference whatsoever in that clause to a contravention or to a contravention being repeated, deliberate or serious. In other words, in terms of the existing legislation a contravention is treated differently to an act of non-compliance. Therefore a purely innocent contravention—it could be a minor contravention or it could be a serious contravention, but unless it is either repeated, persistent, deliberate or serious, in the case of non-compliance, it is not a matter for the loss of a licence. But in the case of a contravention it does not have to be repeated, it does not have to be persistent, it does not have to be deliberate or serious—therefore any contravention whatsoever by any employee of a company can lead to the loss of a licence, whereas in the case of non-compliance there is protection against that being accidental or not serious. That is an aspect that concerns us in this matter: You may have a company flying a number of planes and if any one of its employees at any place or time commits a contravention of any Act relating to flying, that company can now lose its licence.

Are you criticizing the existing Act or the amendment?

The existing provision lays down that a person must commit an offence in relation to safety. I quote: “… any law prescribing measures of safety in connection with the use of aircraft”. That is sub-section (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 17. Now this Bill amends that section and provides that any contravention …

What amendment are you criticizing?

Sub-section (b) of Clause 5 of the Bill says “by the insertion in paragraph (a) for the words following the word ‘law’ of the words ‘relating to aviation; or‚ ”. Now under the existing legislation a person had to commit an offence in relation to safety. The offence had to be related to safety provisions. This amendment proposes in sub-section (b) that that limitation should be removed. It means that any offence whatsoever, however trivial, of whatever nature it may be, provided it is an offence against any law relating to aviation, is ground for the cancellation of a licence. That seems to be going very far indeed. This has nothing to do with the security of the State, this has nothing to do with anything that can make the hairs curl on the back of your neck, this is purely a matter of straightforward flying regulations, and here the Minister is tightening it to the extent that any minor offence committed by any employee of an airline can cause that airline to lose its licence. The hon. Minister knows that there has been division of opinion on this matter, division of opinion in the Civil Aviation Advisory Committee and strong representations have been made by the Commercial Aviation Association. These are people who know what they are doing. They are not people trying to sabotage South Africa. They are not people who are trying to do harm to the country. They are people representing commercial aviation in South Africa, and their interest is to have a law which will be fair. As the hon. Minister will be aware they have no objection to restrictions on the question of un-South African activities, activities against the State. All that is sought is that any chance of the unfair removal of a licence should be eliminated. I cannot see why it should be that the Minister not only has to introduce this provision—provisions which nobody would argue about as a matter of fact—but has to open the matter so wide by bringing in the question of “the opinion of the commission”. In terms of the existing legislation a person or company may lose his licence on the basis of fact; there must be a fact; there must be an act, an omission, something which can be proven before a person can lose a licence, or a company can lose a licence. But in the wording of the new amendment that reliance on fact to reach a decision is replaced by a matter of opinion. So I ask the hon. Minister to reconsider, and if possible to co-operate in eliminating doubts about this measure in the Committee Stage—to reconsider the extension to any offence by any employee against any law instead of the existing provision of safety regulations, and to consider the question of opinion being the basis for a decision. As was asked by the hon. member for Yeoville, we would like the hon. Minister to consider the question of providing suitable safeguards where the appeal which is allowed is purely a technical appeal and of very little practical value to any person wishing to make use of it. Subject to those three points, no one can object to this measure in any shape or form, and I do hope that the hon. Minister will make it possible to have a fully agreed measure on a matter where there should be no need for any argument or disagreement.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) is inclined to make some very wild and irresponsible statements, something that one does not expect of him. He is a responsible member and he is the chief speaker on transport matters on the Opposition side. He is actually the shadow Minister of Transport, and as such he has almost the same responsibility as the Minister of Transport.

But his shadow is shrinking.

Just listen to what the hon. member said by way of introduction. He said that this Bill was adding to South Africa’s isolation. He said: “It erects higher fences to symbolize the loneliness and isolation of South Africa. ” What in heaven’s name has that to do with the Bill? It is a simple little Bill to enable us to deal with the people who jeopardize our national security, and there is another amendment which provides that certain action can be taken by the National Transport Commission in connection with an offence against the Aviation Act. These are the two amendments that are going to add to our isolation! But what has this Bill to do with isolation?

It seeks to prevent people from leaving the country.

The hon. member says that we want to prevent people from leaving the country, people who do not like this Government, but he says nothing about people who constitute a real danger to our national security. This Bill is intended to prevent people like Wolpe and Goldreich from leaving the country, but the hon. member says that this is wrong.

May I ask a question? Did I not say that we did not object to those powers?

Yes, but then the hon. member qualified his statement. That is why I would like him to make his attitude clear. He says one good thing and then makes so many wild statements that the good things are nullified. But I shall not reply to the hon. member now. I shall give him the opportunity of putting his arguments at the Committee Stage. But I just want to make the intention of this Bill clear. It is to protect the State and to prevent a recurrence of what has happened in regard to certain of these refugees, like the two I have mentioned, who otherwise would probably by now have appeared in court in Pretoria in the sabotage case.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) objected to paragraph (b) of the amendment. The purpose here is the same. Last year regulations were promulgated in connection with the flight of aircraft from one Protectorate to another. Those regulations simply provided—this has nothing to do with security—that any aircraft flying over our territory from a Protectorate was compelled to land at some airport or other to be investigated.

Then steps can be taken under paragraph (a).

Those are the regulations, but they have nothing to do with security. That is Why this specific provision is being amended to include any law dealing with aviation generally.

May I ask whether a provision of this nature does not fall under paragraph (a) and has nothing at all to do with paragraph (b)? A case of this nature can be dealt with under paragraph (a).

No. In the opinion of the law advisers this amendment, as it appears in paragraph (b), has had to be included; in other words, that it is not only an offence against the law which deals with the safety of the aircraft but against any law in connection with aviation generally. In any case we can continue the argument at the Committee Stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, the Land Bank Board concluded an insurance agreement with a company a number of years ago in terms of which the bank’s debtors were insured for the amount that they owed. This agreement has already benefited many widows or heirs in that the deceased debtor’s bond has been wiped out under this coverage. Because the Land Bank is so intimately concerned with the insurance scheme and is obliged in terms of the agreement with the company to find a substitute for the present insurers, the bank was given the power under the Land Bank Amendment Act, 1959, to undertake this insurance function itself if the bank was not able to find a suitable substitute if that became necessary. I emphasized the fact at the time that the Land Bank Board was not looking for an opportunity to do insurance work itself and that it would only undertake this function if no other suitable arrangements could be made. Even then the specific approval of the Minister of Finance first had to be obtained before the board itself could undertake anything of this nature.

This legislation now makes provision for an alternative method by means of which the board, if the need arises, can itself undertake this insurance function. It amounts to this that the board, if such an eventuality arises, will not necessarily have to play the role of insurer itself—as the Act provides at present—but that it will be able to gain control of the scheme by taking over the shares in the existing insurance company. It is further provided that the board may in such a case conclude such agreements with the company as may be necessary for the proper fulfilment by the company of its obligations. The Act already provides that the Insurance Act shall not apply to the bank when it undertakes the insurance function itself and that provision is therefore now being extended so that it will also apply to a company in which the bank has obtained a controlling interest.

As I have already said, this provision merely seeks to provide an alternative method by means of which the insurance scheme can be undertaken by the bank and, as is the case at present, the Minister of Finance has to give his prior approval in this regard.

The remaining two proposed amendments are simply measures which are necessary to make the existing functions of the bank more effective in specific circumstances. As hon. members know, the Land Bank is the most important supplier of credit to agricultural cooperative societies in the Republic on both a long- and short-term basis. It sometimes happens that a co-operative society obtains a loan from the Bank to redeem an existing mortgage in favour of somebody else. As the provisions of the Land Bank Act now read that bond has to be cancelled and a new bond registered in favour of the bank, notwithstanding the fact that the Deeds Act does make provision for a more simple method of take-over by the registration of a cession of a bond where the mortgagee wants to transfer the debt to somebody else.

The intention of this amendment is therefore to rectify this shortcoming so that the Land Bank can accept the cession of a bond by a co-operative society as security for debt which has already been authorized by members and which the mortgagee would like to transfer into the name of the Land Bank.

The Land Bank has been set up to provide co-operative societies with credit adjusted to their particular requirements and at a reasonable rate of interest.

There can therefore hardly be any objection if a mortgagee prefers to cede his bond to the Land Bank and if a transaction of this nature can be effected without incurring the considerable expense connected with the taking up and authorization of a new loan and a new bond, which can only be done by holding a special members’ meeting, or, in the case of our larger co-operative societies, a series of member’ meetings.

Apart from the expense involved, the valuable time of our farmers is taken up in attending these special members’ meetings.

The third amendment also deals with cooperative societies and similar bodies. In terms of an existing provision in the Land Bank Act the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing is authorized to guarantee loans which the bank may grant with his consent to a co-operative society or control board, but the Act does not at present give him this power in respect of advances which may be given to statutory agricultural bodies. That is one shortcoming in the relevant provision which we are now rectifying. A second shortcoming in the present provisions of the Act is in connection with guarantees which the board of the Land Bank may provide for the fullfilment of a contract which a co-operative society or control board may conclude in regard to the supply of products, payment for grainbags and other farming requisites and the repayment of loans or other lawful business. Under certain circumstances the board may find it necessary to provide a guarantee of this nature, but at the same time the prevailing circumstances may be such that the board may find it necessary to approach the Minister for a Government guarantee to the Bank in respect of security thus furnished by the board.

Circumstances of this kind may arise in the registration of new organizations or in states of emergency when it may be necessary in the interests of the Republic to continue to operate certain specific businesses notwithstanding the fact that there may be some doubt as to their credit-worthiness or financial prospects.

In terms of the proposed amendment therefore the further power is being given to the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing to guarantee such security furnished by the Board of the Land Bank to the bank.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill is acceptable in principle to this side of the House and will have its support. We accept the assurance of the Minister that it is largely designed to improve the administration of the bank’s affairs. In so far as the bank’s powers are being increased to carry on with the business of insurance, we also accept his assurance that this new power to acquire control of one or other private company which carries on insurance business will be exercised only in exceptional circumstances That is how I understood the Minister to put it, and we therefore accept that this power will be used solely in the interests of the farming community and to safeguard the commitments of the Land Bank itself in the event of any such private company finding itself in difficulties in circumstances beyond its control. We accept the assurances of the hon. the Minister that the other changes in the Bill are either consequential or are intended to bring the law into line with necessary or desirable practice, and therefore it will not be opposed.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to move the Contingent Notice of Motion standing in my name and which reads as follows—

As the Bill stands, plant breeders’ rights will be allowed only in cases where plants have originated inside the Republic. If this Contingent Notice is accepted then plants which originated outside the Republic will also be the subject of plant breeders’ rights. I want to stress that the intention is to give protection only to those outside countries that give us reciprocal rights. If one looks at the amendment to Clause 6 standing in the name of the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker), one sees that it includes this proviso: “Provided that in: the case of a plant which has its origin in a country other than the Republic, no such right may be granted unless such other country grants similar rights whether by way of patents, plant breeders’ rights or otherwise, to citizens of the Republic. ” It would obviously therefore only be granted to those countries which play the game by us and allow us those reciprocal rights.

There are two important reasons which I hope will persuade the hon. the Minister to accept this motion. In the first place, we believe that South Africa should have the benefit of the very latest plant developments coming from whatever quarter of the world. If it is true to say that in the second-reading debate on this Bill the consensus of opinion was that if the measure goes through as it stands a large number of overseas discoveries and varieties will somehow not find their way to us, or not find their way into South Africa quickly. I think the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) felt that while that was a disadvantage it would have the advantage that there would be no danger of diseases being imported. I stress that, to show that the implication of what he said was that we should indeed keep out certain new varieties due to the danger of sickness. I feel that we should not keep out a good variety because of that danger, but rather take steps to ensure that there is a sufficient period of quarantine. If We think, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) said during the second reading, that the vine, the oak and so much else that has come to do perhaps better in South Africa than in its native country, have come from overseas, one should be very careful, I suggest, not to exclude things which will be a great addition to our plants and seeds, etc. I think it is the consensus of opinion that certain varieties will be excluded. I am aware that the hope of the Department is that somehow these plants will find their way into South Africa. I wish one could believe that that is likely to be so, but I am quite convinced that it will be on a much lesser scale.

I think the Department has spoken of the harmonious relations it has with Departments of Agriculture of other countries, and it has expressed the belief that it will have passed on to it from other agricultural departments information about new breeds, etc. But here I think the fear is legitimate, that, if overseas countries which lead in these fields, countries like the U. S. A., France, the United Kingdom and Germany, who have all entered into international agreements about plant breeders’ methods, realize that we are going our own way in these matters, the doors of those agricultural departments will not swing open to us so easily in future. When one mentions those countries, it must be remembered that we have in the past adhered firmly to the international arrangements we have accepted; but I am dealing with the question of losing possible new varieties. I think it is the hope of the Department, too, that we shall be able somehow to come by these plants overseas and import them here, so that they will not be lost to us. But there again, if the legitimate method of buying plant breeders’ rights and exploiting them here is not followed, just as a patent is bought and used, I do not believe that the various agencies such as nurseries and farmers’ associations and others will be available and on the lookout for possible discoveries in this field. Where the normal trade channels are left unimpeded, it is in the interests of nurserymen to be on the lookout for new varieties and to buy the rights and to bring the plant here and exploit it.

I am aware that there is the feeling that where one has to obtain the plant, which is under patent or subject to plant breeders’ rights, it can put up the cost of that particular plant or seed. But we must never lose sight of the fact that these patent rights do not last for an indefinite time. Like all patents, they lapse after a certain number of years, and then it is free for all. In that period of years, it is true, the discoverer gets the benefit of his inventiveness. I do not think that where we in South Africa have always been prepared to concede patents to inventors in the industrial field, we should take a different view in regard to plants. I know that it is argued that to discover a new breed of peach, for example, is quite a different thing from discovering a new machine or a new process. Admittedly the one is more of a natural phenomenon, whilst the other falls in the field of science, but they both require inventiveness, and I would be the last person to minimize the inventiveness and skill of a nurseryman or farmer who discovered a new type of wheat, which is perhaps rust-resistant. It is still a very valuable discovery by a skilful man So we should not embark upon a course which denies a man his just reward. Therefore, in advancing this first reason why we should accept this motion, I repeat that there is a real danger that we, who are a growing agricultural country, will be left a little behind in the race for new varieties of all kinds. I appreciate that the Department has every intention of trying to keep abreast, but its resources must necessarily be limited. It has specific objects in mind, and I submit it can never cover the whole field of inventions in other countries.

As to the second reason for adopting the motion, I think that to put it at its lowest, it seems likely that we shall be acting in breach of international agreements to which we have adhered for a very long time. In the evidence submitted to the select committee fears were expressed by witnesses that any such breach by us would have far-reaching consequences, not only in respect of plants but possibly in respect of patents generally. The view that we would be acting in breach of international agreements was expressed in a careful memorandum by the Institute of Patent Agents. Whatever criticism one may voice against them as being people who are not acquainted with agricultural matters, one must hand it to them that they are experts in this very specialized field of law. And I suggest that the opinion they express on the interpretation of international agreements is entitled to the highest respect.

I am aware that the select committee was given the benefit of the opinion of the Government’s learned law advisers on this question; it is to be found in the appendix to the report of the select committee. But I do think that without an excessive knowledge of law one can have grave doubts as to whether that opinion is correct. It is urged in this opinion that Article 2 of the Convention does not apply to plant breeder’ rights as proposed in the Bill. It is said in particular that even in the light of the wide terms of Article 1 (3) of the Convention, it is probable that the word “patents” in Article 1 (2) does not include plant patents, but only patents for something invented or manufactured such as agricultural tools or implements. If one looks at the provisions of the Paris Convention of 1883, which has been amended down the years, most recently at Lisbon in 1958, one cannot but feel convinced that the signatories had in mind covering things like plant breeders’ rights. It is true that the word “patent” is used, but it is perfectly clear that in 1883 they did not know specifically of plant breeders’ rights, and they were thinking there of a right of the nature of a patent, and were using it in a broad sense. Listen, for example, to the language of Article 1. It says—

Now the law advisers say, in short, that plant breeders’ rights are not industrial property. But now let us read on. Article 1 (2) reads—

Remember that—“unfair competition”. And now we get the definition of “industrial property” in Article 1 (3)—

And then in Article 1 (4) we find this—

As I say, Sir, giving due weight and respect to the learned opinion of the law advisers who themselves only say that they think it is probable that the word “patents” in Article 1 (2) did not include plant patents, one has against their opinion the opinion of the Institute of Patent Agents; and one can judge for oneself on the language of the Convention. Doing all that I suggest that we as guardians of the interests of South Africa must have the gravest doubts that these plant breeders’ rights do fall within the terms of the Paris Convention, and if they do fall within the terms of the Paris Convention and we do legislate in regard to them in the way that we are legislating here, we shall clearly be acting in violation of an international obligation assumed by us willingly some years ago. I am certain that that is not the wish of the Department. Surely therefore where one has any doubt one should not act in that way. If this particular notice of motion is accepted it will retain all the advantages of this measure, which was supported by this side of the House, and it will also ensure that we do not infringe our international obligations.

As an additional reason in support of this motion I would like to say this: Several persons who gave evidence before the select committee said that we South Africans would be the losers in the long run if we put this measure through in this form. In particular there was a leading rose breeder who said that overseas plant breeders entitled to get plant breeders’ rights will, of course, patent their rights and make a certain profit from the sale of those rights to our nurserymen who in turn will sell to the farmers. He said that that would mean that a certain amount of foreign exchange would go out of the country. But he said that if we South Africans hit upon a successful plant—using that term in the widest sense—we can make a fantastic profit in the big markets of the world, like America, and thus earn foreign exchange for this country.

One is reminded in this connection of the position of some of our sportsmen. We have been lucky enough to see a man like Mr. Gary Player compete in all the tournaments of the world and particularly in America where he annually earns the very highest purses through being allowed to compete in the Professional Golfers’ Associations’ competitions. If we here in South Africa were to close our doors to overseas golfers I have little doubt that they would react by preventing our players from playing overseas. That is, I think, a fair analogy of the position that we have here. We are in truth putting the oversea plant breeder at a big disadvantage. There is a real danger that he will bring pressure to bear on his Government to see that we are cut out of their profitable markets, and that is something that we should do with very great reluctance.

I should like to assure hon. members that the accepted position amongst leading Western countries is to allow this reciprocity. May I quote the statement which appears in paragraph 107 of the Report of the Committee on Transactions in Seeds which was presented to the British Parliament—

Then I quote paragraph 108—

That is exactly the position that this contingent notice of motion will make possible. Of course, we insist that we will give those rights only to countries which give us reciprocal rights. Paragraph 108 goes on to say—

For those reasons I sincerely hope, although this is admittedly a matter within a small compass, that the hon. the Minister will reflect very seriously on it and see his way clear to make this improvement in the Bill possible.

The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) who has just sat down has certainly not made out a case in support of his request that the House should accept this instruction. It is perfectly clear to me that the hon. member as a lawyer probably made an excellent speech on the legal aspect, but evidently he knows very, very little about the botanical aspects of this matter. The hon. member has made a speech here based on the Paris Convention in an attempt to show that the opinion of the law advisers of the Department of Justice is wrong. I do not want to follow him there because I am not a lawyer, but I want to say at once that as far as the botanical aspect is concerned he is completely wide of the mark and I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will not accept this instruction because we as farmers and as plant breeders see a danger in this instruction, and I would appeal to the hon. the Minister therefore not to accept the hon. member’s plea. The hon. member says that South Africa will have the benefit of the best plant material in the world if we extend the same rights to plant breeders outside the Republic as we do to plant breeders in the Republic. We have those rights in any case; we have those facilities in any case because long before a plant is patented there is an exchange of information between the agricultural faculties of other countries and our own faculties with a view to getting the best plant material. Thus, for example, our research workers at oversea agricultural faculties have made available plant material even before it has been made available here in South Africa to the nurserymen and the farmers. There is such an exchange of information between the agricultural faculties of various countries, and this instruction is really unnecessary to promote that exchange of information. The hon. member has once again simply revealed the immature thinking of the Opposition. We have always been tied hand and foot to foreign countries, and because we ourselves have not reached maturity yet, according to the Opposition, they expect us to remain tied to the apron strings of those countries! The hon. member has referred again to the speech made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) the other day in which he said that we had imported the vine and wanted to know what our position would have been today without these imports. Mr. Speaker, I can recall the days when we imported all our industrial products because we simply did not have our own industries to supply those products. I can recall the days when we were still importing particular groups of people. To this day there is still a certain Church in South Africa which still imports its Church leaders from countries abroad because they believe that our own people are not good enough. But we have made great progress. To-day we have our own industries producing products which we formerly imported, and the same applies to our plants. We have made so much headway that we are breeding plants to-day to suit the particular climatic requirements and the climatic conditions not only of the whole of the Republic but to suit the climatic conditions of particular parts of the Republic. It is true that we are still making use of imported plant material but we are doing so with great circumspection and mainly for the purpose of getting breeding material for further breeding projects. The hon. member now says that we should rather import those new varieties and then guard against the importation of diseases. That is much easier said than done, as I tried to indicate very clearly in the course of my second-reading speech. It may appear to be a simple matter for our Plant Control and Quarantine Division to control those diseases …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself strictly to the motion.

Thank you for correcting me, Mr. Speaker. I am replying to the argument of the hon. member for Pinelands, but if his argument was out of order I will not reply to it any further.

Order!

The hon. member wants us to accept this instruction because he argues that if we do not do so we will fall behind in the race for new varieties. It is perfectly clear, as I have already indicated, that we are breeding those varieties ourselves with the assistance of the material that we are getting from institutions abroad. It is perfectly clear to me therefore that in asking for this instruction the hon. member is simply acting in the interests of patent agents, of lawyers and of those few rose-breeders who hope that the time will come when they will breed a fantastic rose which will bring them wealth overnight. They dream about the big fish that they are going to find at the end of their line, but I am afraid that the one which they are going to catch is not going to be as big as the one caught by the hon. the Prime Minister! They dream about the large rose which they are going to breed and which is going to make them extremely wealthy overnight. I am afraid that their dreams will never come true, because recently America confiscated a rose which a South African breeder had exported to America, because America is also afraid of importing diseases. All countries of the world are guarding more and more against the importation of disease-carrying varieties. I am afraid therefore that the dreams of these few rose-breeders will not come true either. In any case we cannot run the risk, for the sake of doubtful wealth which may accrue to a few people, of further contaminating the whole country with diseases, and I sincerely hope therefore that the hon. the Minister will not accept this instruction.

I cannot agree with the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) when he urges the Minister not to accept this motion moved by the hon. member for Pine-lands (Mr. Thompson). The hon. member for Paarl evidently feels that we need not have reciprocal rights with overseas countries. Sir, I would like to quote from the evidence given before the select committee by the President of the S. A. Institute of Patent Agents. This is what he says at page 65—

Sir, in supporting this motion put forward by the hon. member for Pinelands, I wish to say that one of the major points of difference on the select committee—and I am speaking as a member of the select committee—was whether there should be reciprocity or not with countries which have plant patent rights. It was felt by some members that the Bill should have been extended to cover all plants, those originating both inside and outside South Africa. I know that the Government law advisers are in favour of the Bill as it stands, but may I draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that there is a considerable body of authoritative opinion which thinks otherwise. It is felt very strongly by this body of opinion that there are very valid objections to the limitation of plant breeders’ rights to local plants only, which limitation does not include oversea plants. It is felt also that this may initiate in overseas countries official and unofficial discrimination against South African breeders, which I am sure is not what the hon. the Minister wants. It is felt by these informed bodies of opinion that foreign breeders may actively prevent new plant varieties reaching South Africa, which would delay or prevent the cultivation of very valuable varieties. It is strongly felt that laws of this kind should be designed to secure innovation in cultured plants and not necessarily only to reward plant breeders. Only innovation over as broad a field as possible leads to maximum lasting improvement in results from cultivation. Both the public at large and the agricultural community can only benefit from plant varieties that withstand the test of time, and the percentage doing so is very small. Therefore the hon. the Minister and his Department, I feel sure, would wish to encourage foreign-varieties of plants into South Africa to assist’ through experiment—the chances of lasting improvements to our own plants. We feel therefore that the principle of providing protection to foreign plants, where reciprocity exists or is negotiated by the State President, is essential to the success of this Bill.

Sir, I would like to outline what I consider to be a practical case. Supposing someone outside South Africa invents a new variety of maize, a variety with a higher resistance against disease, a variety producing a bigger yield and a variety having more resistance to drought. The persons or organization who develop this variety may have spent years of time and considerable sums of money on the development of this new strain, and may have applied knowledge and experience gained as the result of years of study and training. Surely it would then be in South Africa’s national interest to introduce the improved strain of maize into our country and to cultivate it on a large scale within the shortest possible time, to obtain the maximum and most immediate benefit for South Africa. But the foreign breeder of this new maize strain is also looking for the maximum return for his ingenuity and work and investment, and he is hardly likely to come to South Africa with his new maize strain where the results of his efforts could be pirated by unscrupulous parties because it is unprotected by plant breeders’ rights as Clause 6 now stands. We can understand that the Minister is trying through this Bill to encourage local plant breeders, but surely it cannot be the Minister’s intention to penalize local farmers who will be cut off from plants abroad.

Finally, in conclusive proof that what we are asking for in this motion is essential, the new British Plant Breeders Bill, initiated through the British Commission on Plant Breeders Rights, was passed by the House of Lords on 19 December 1963; it has not yet come before the House of Commons. This British legislation is open to all comers. Reciprocity only applies in connection with the determination of priority where different people (one of whom at least is a foreigner) have bred the same plant variety. It is also believed that the projected plant breeder’s legislation in Germany and France will be open to all comers.

Sir, in view of all these points, we as members of the select committee feel that certain adjustments to this clause as now framed are necessary. I support the hon. member for Pinelands in moving for this instruction and asking that the House accept this amendment to Clause 6. We accept that this amendment goes beyond the principle of the Bill as incorporated in the Title, but we hope that the Minister will be reasonable and permit this motion to go through in order to improve the chances of success of this Plant Breeders’ Bill.

I have listened attentively to the argument of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) who has just sat down. She mentions the interesting example of a farmer who will allegedly not be able to buy a certain type of maize seed unless the motion of the hon. member for Pine-lands (Mr. Thompson) is accepted. That only goes to show how little the hon. member knows about plants. Unfortunately for her she quoted maize as an example. I can only tell her that what the maize farmers are planting to-day is a hybrid maize. The seed of the hybrid maize can only be used once, and then one has to start all over again.

As far as the motion of the hon. member for Pinelands is concerned I want to support the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) wholeheartedly and make a plea to the Minister not to make this concession for which the hon. member for Pinelands asks. We must not lose sight of the fact that the object of this measure is to protect the plant breeders of South Africa and to give them encouragement here in our own country. The risk of importing disease-carrying plants is so great that I feel that we should not throw open our doors at this stage. The hon. member for Pinelands has tried to suggest that we will be violating the Patents Act if we pass this Bill and if we forbid other countries to register their plants here. But the select committee went into this matter very thoroughly. We took evidence from experts, inter alia from the Assistant Chief of the Horticultural Research Institute, a person who knows all about these things, and I should like to read out his evidence to the House to show that the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Pinelands are without substance. He says, amongst other things, that the patenting of plants is the exception rather than the rule in the world. Then he goes on to say (para. 43)—

I want to point out that this Bill provides that a breeder may register all plants in South Africa—

And so this expert goes on. As far as I am concerned I want to say that I do not feel at this stage that the Minister should make this concession. Let us first put our own house in order. Let us see what becomes of the new Convention. There will be time enough in the future to revise the Act.

The hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) who was a member of the Select Committee, is apparently dissatisfied with our attitude that any plant should be allowed to be imported into South Africa; in other words, that the object of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pine-lands (Mr. Thompson) is to place our own plantbreeders industry in danger. The hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) advanced the same argument. The hon. member for Paarl says he sees a danger in this instruction but he adds that we still have the right, in any case, to import the best. He sees a danger in the instruction, Sir, but at the same time the hon. member says that what we envisage the breeders would do, the Department of Agriculture could in any case do by way of exchange with other countries. If hon. members opposite see a danger in this instruction what about the exchange which is done by the Department? Are they not also busy creating a danger for the plant breeders? Why should it be left in their hands only? I agree that the Department of Agriculture, with all the facilities at their disposal, such as the quarantine measures, that they can apply, for example, can see to it that any foreign diseases that enter the country in plants are not spread in South Africa. But I believe the private plant breeders will apply similar precautionary measures. In other words, if they keep a plant under quarantine conditions so that any disease that plant may suffer from is not spread in this country, the private plant breeders can do exactly the same. I cannot see, therefore, how that can be a danger.

If this instruction is not accepted a greater danger faces the farmer, the breeder and the grower of South Africa, namely, that it will not be within their power, or rather that stumbling blocks will be placed in their way, to benefit from the experience breeders in other countries have already gained. I admit that the possibility exists that diseases may be brought into the country. But plant and animal diseases can be imported in so many other ways. That does not prevent us, however, from saying that it is to our benefit to import that in respect of which the world outside has already gained experience, so that we can place that at the disposal of the South African farmer. If we want to give the breeders of South Africa an opportunity of making still further progress—we all admit that legislation is necessary for that—why do we not amend this Bill in such a way that the foreign breeder will also be included when it comes to the application of this legislation. I cannot understand hon. members opposite at all. We on this side appreciate their patriotism. We feel the same way about it, but exclusiveness, to lock yourself out, has never yet benefited anybody. You benefit if you are also prepared to learn from the experience of the person beyond your own borders. We shall have this additional benefit that we shall not only be assisting our own breeders but we shall also be placing that additional knowledge and experience at his disposal. I feel, therefore, that this legislation will be a danger unless we accept the instruction as moved.

Mr. Speaker, I trust the House and the Minister will not accept this instruction. The House must clearly understand that this matter was very thoroughly considered by the select committee. There was no difference of opinion in the select committee in respect of the general principle of the Bill but the great difference of opinion in the select committee was in respect of this aspect. In other words, this aspect was very seriously considered by the whole committee. The difference of opinion between the two sides of this House has its origin in the select committee.

Up to the present people have been allowed to import freely but this legislation does not prohibit the importation of plants under certain conditions. It only excludes certain rights of local breeders, rights from which certain benefits may be derived, as far as imported plants are concerned. We shall be able to continue to import as in the past. You are not excluding overseas plants, therefore, except that you confer certain preferential rights, rights which entail benefits, on your local breeders. Hitherto the testing of plants has been done exclusively by the Department. In the circumstances you want to encourage the local breeders and in order to encourage them you have to give them this special preference. Broadly speaking the difference between the Opposition and this side of the House is whether or not we should give our local breeders any priority as against outsiders. It does not exclude anything whatsoever, although in the case of plants that enter the country you must be careful because in the first instance they normally cannot adopt themselves to this country and certain precautionary steps have to be taken to prevent their importation. Even if you were to change it you would still have to retain those precautionary measures. The minute you allow an overseas plant to be registered, the fact that it has been registered, has a certain propaganda value when it comes to selling that plant. That is the second reason why we cannot allow it; that gives the imported plant a certain amount of propaganda value. I am sorry that we have to differ from the Opposition in principle on this matter, but we on this side of the House cannot in any way allow this instruction to be given to the committee.

I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister. I would ask him to discard a large number of the arguments advanced from his side of the House. In the first place, Sir, the question of the importation of plants and the dangers they hold for our South African soil, is a matter to be dealt with by means of the appropriate quarantine measures and has nothing to do with the question whether there will be reciprocal rights of registering or patenting plants as between ourselves and other countries. The issue which is before this Chamber is not at this moment the advisability of including a particular provision, which is not before this House, but an appropriate provision in terms of the instruction. The question which is before the House at the moment is whether we on this side of the House, we who believe that there is an overwhelming case for including another provision in this Bill, a provision which we believe will fully respect our international obligations and which will mean an improvement to us, will have an opportunity of putting that case before this House in the hope that we will be able to convince hon. members on the other side that that provision should be included. That, Sir, as you know, cannot be done unless this House agrees to accept the instruction. I do submit that in a matter of this sort, a matter which has been a matter of contention in many countries, i. e. the question of the rights of plant breeders, and in view of the fact that there are many countries which have either plant-breeders’ rights or allow patents or provide for reciprocity with other countries, the question is simply whether it is right that this Chamber should have the opportunity of hearing the arguments in favour of the inclusion of such a provision or not. If the hon. the Minister will give us the opportunity of stating our case we believe we shall be able to convince him and hon. members opposite as to the merit of our case. I cannot deal with the merits; you, Sir, will not permit me to do so. I do say, Sir, that I am utterly convinced that if we had the opportunity we shall be able to convince hon. members opposite.

The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) raised the question of our infecting our soil, but that is not at issue, Sir. That is a matter which can be controlled in terms of other legislation. At the present time, as other hon. members have said, there is the opportunity of importing plants from overseas. I have absolute confidence in our Department of Agriculture, which runs the quarantine arrangements in this country, to see to it that adequate precautions are taken. That danger exists whether or not this instruction is agreed to and a provision which complies with it is included in the Bill.

I know there was a difference of opinion in the select committee in regard to this matter. But again, Sir, they did not go to the root of the question, namely, whether there should be reciprocity in this matter and whether this Bill should contain such a provision. It went very largely in the minds of members, I believe, over certain evidence by a certain nurseryman who more or less had a phobia about a certain article of commerce. I do not wish to pursue that, however, I just wish to say that I believe the select committee, with great respect—I have already said that we on this side appreciate the very full opportunity that we were given to examine all aspects of this Bill—made a mistake: we believe it is in the interests of this country that a further provision be included. That being the case I do suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should not silence the Opposition by refusing to agree to an instruction. We cannot argue the merits of the case here. If the hon. the Minister agrees to this motion being passed we believe we shall be able to convince him and this House that the appropriate provision should be included in this measure. It will bring us into line with other countries. It will provide for reciprocity, and in these days we want reciprocity with other countries. But I do not want to pursue that, Sir. I submit that what is at stake is whether this Minister proposes to silence the Opposition by refusing to agree to this House having the opportunity of considering a provision which we regard as being of very great importance.

In the first instance I do not agree at all with the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). He says that if I were to express myself against this motion I would be muzzling the Opposition and preventing them from arguing on the merits of something on which we differ. Five members of the Opposition have taken part in the debate and advanced reasons why the House should accept the motion. I make bold to say that the reasons advanced by the mover of this motion were not emphasized by any other Opposition member who has taken part in the debate. If this motion were accepted and we took the Committee Stage those reasons, and those reasons alone, would be further emphasized. It would give the hon. member for Germiston (District) an opportunity of coming forward with that amendment of his because there is not much to be said for it.

I want to give my reasons why I do not agree with the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) and other speakers on the Opposition. During the second reading we were asked what the object of this Bill was—what the underlying motive was. Briefly the motive is to give a certain amount of protection, certain rights and an encouragement to the plant breeders of South Africa. By implication the hon. member for Pinelands says that by not extending this to plant breeders outside the Republic we are really forfeiting a right which South Africa has had in the past, namely, to obtain the best plants from overseas, plants that were patented there and which could be patented here. What right has the hon. member for Pinelands to say that? Is that the position? Surely that is incorrect. Since 1960, when our Patents Act was amended, only decorative plants could be patented in the Republic of South Africa. Other plants which served a useful purpose, whether they were cultivated vegetatively or not, could not be patented in this country. Can any member opposite give me an example of any plant, whether it enjoys patent rights in its country of origin or not, that we wanted to bring to South Africa and which could not be imported? There is not a single example. There is not a single example in the three-four year period. It will, of course, be said that it may happen, Mr. Speaker, but the sun may fall down; the moon may not rise; the Opposition may even come into power at some time or other. So “may” is an extremely broad term. I cannot blame hon. members if they live in that hope, perhaps the hope maketh not ashamed at all times. Let me give another example. Prior to 1952, when we did not have any patent rights, when we had no patent rights in South Africa in the sense that plants could be patented, one of our most beautiful and best adapted roses was imported without patent rights. It was a rose which had been patented in its country of origin; I think of the rose Peace. We should not make the mistake of thinking that if a plant, either of decorative or industrial value, had been bred in another country, either vegetatively or from seed, and we import it into this country we are actually losing by not importing it. The hon. member for Pinelands advanced the argument that the British Government had even appointed a commission and that they had now submitted a report on the same subject and that the British Government was now considering legislation. He wanted to know why we could not follow their example because they recommended in that report that foreign countries should not be excluded from the patent rights or plant breeders’ rights in Britain. There may be a good reason for that, a reason which may perhaps not exist in South Africa. Do you know, Sir, that 91 per cent of all grain varieties grown in Great Britain was bred in countries in Europe. The breeders of Britain only bred 9 per cent. I am not mentioning this to cast a reflection on the breeders of Great Britain but to emphasize this point, namely, that conditions in the northern hemisphere of the world, that is Great Britain and the rest of Europe, are so similar in many respects that there is a little danger of a good new plant which has proved its usefulness, its productivity and its yield in its country of origin, will not be equally productive, etc., in a neighbouring country. We have many examples of plants, even plants cultivated from seed or vegetatively, that were imported into South Africa but did not thrive here. I think of decorative plants in particular. Beautiful new varieties of roses have been imported into this country but they could not hold their own against roses that were bred in South Africa and that were not patented here.

Then we have the example of certain hybrid maize strains that we received from America. We as a department have never had any trouble in importing them here and testing them. They have patent rights in America but they have never as yet said that we should first patent a particular strain here before they will let us have it. We have not had any difficulty with that in the past. We tested those strains here and found that they simply could not adapt themselves to South African conditions. Therefore, just as they were a great improvement in America they put up an equally poor show in the Republic of South Africa due to totally changed conditions.

I have given the example of our canning peaches. I have in mind the Kakamas peach and others. There are certain regions in America where they go in for fruit-farming, regions which are very similar to South Africa. They wished to grow that peach on a large scale. They asked us for it and we willingly let them have it. However, the same variety which thrives so well here and which can hold its own against any canning peach in the world to-day, proved itself not to be so adaptable to conditions in America as to constitute an asset to that country; and even less so in European countries. Consequently our attitude is this that, say for example, a country turns nasty for one or other reason and says: “Well, it is patented in my country and because you do not make provision for plant breeders’ rights in respect of foreign breeders, we are not going to let the Republic have it” that is no proof that we shall be suffering such a great loss. Experience has taught us that that problem does not arise. This legislation makes it possible for a foreign breeder to bring that plant to South Africa and to cultivate it here and to obtain plant breeders’ rights if he so wishes. It even makes it possible for him even to send the mother strains from which the plant has been bred to a plant breeder in South Africa, by way of an agreement with which we shall not interfere and to obtain plant breeders’ rights in South Africa in respect of the new cross-bred plants. That same plant can be cultivated here, either by himself in co-operation with a South African breeder, or by a South African breeder alone. In that case there is nothing to prevent the granting of plant breeders’ rights.

I just want to say this: I find it peculiar that such great play is made of the argument that we shall lose. Had you listened to the main reasons advanced by the Opposition, Sir, you would have been entitled to accept that all other countries in the world had reciprocal plant breeders’ rights. Up to to-day England has not got it. Can anybody give me an example of anything England has wanted to import from countries where they have patent rights and which she has been unable to import? All countries in the world do not have it. I did not find that it was only those countries with patent rights or plant breeders’ rights to protect their own breeders, which had the best fruit and the best seed producing or the best decorative plants in the world. No, that is not the position.

They are more progressive.

I am not prepared to say that the plant breeders in England are less progressive than the plant breeders of America, for example. I can advance an argument against reciprocal plant breeders’ rights in a young country which I think proves my point. Because the plant breeders in South Africa stood to gain so little, practically nothing, and because there was so little protection for them, they more or less did not consider it worth their while to breed. This request that we have now reached a stage where we should protect our plant breeders and give them an opportunity of deriving some benefit from the work they put into such breeding which, as the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) has said, is a long and expensive process, (and if the plant has been cultivated here we know it will adapt itself to our climatic conditions) stems from a desire to have some incentive to take part in the development of our country, particularly in the development of the agricultural industry. Hitherto in South Africa it has really only been the Department of Agricultural Technical Services that has undertaken the cultivation of useful plants and which has really shown results that have been of great economic value to our country. They devote much time and attention to, and a great amount of money is spent on the cultivation of new and improved varieties and to make those new varieties available to the farmers. Their value does not lie, in the first place, in the fact that they are so different, but in their adaptability to the conditions we have in this country. For that reason the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) is right when she argues that much time and money is devoted to it, but the hon. member is wrong in the further conclusions she draws. My argument is precisely this, that plant breeders overseas have received many thousands of rand from us over the past years for plants that were patented here before they had proved themselves to be really useful and adaptable to South African conditions. It is therefore not only those people who receive royalties and who have the right to import plants from breeders overseas and to sell them for a certain period, but this legislation also protects those who think that because a plant is so beautiful and wonderful overseas that it has even been patented and registered there, against buying that plant before it has proved itself to be adaptable. A nation does not exist for the sake of a law, but laws are made for the sake of orderliness and in the interests of a nation. Let us pass this Bill as it stands, and if time and experience should teach us, which I hope will not be the case, that our country is losing in one way of another as a result of the rights that have been conferred, while those rights are not extended to overseas breeders, then I and my Department shall be the first to amend this legislation in the interests of South Africa. It will not be the first Act that will be changed to suit circumstances after the necessary experience has been gained, circumstances that could not have been foreseen. In the interests of the country the legislation will then be changed. For the reasons mentioned I regret that I cannot accept the motion.

Motion put and the House divided:

AYES—47: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L.

B.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

NOES—85: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, F. P. C.; Booths, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, G. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr. ); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Odell, H. G. O.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and P. S. van der Merwe.

Motion accordingly negatived.

I beg to move the amendment standing in my name—

Whilst plant breeders’ rights are being established, one of the main pivots of this Bill is Clause 3 which deals with the designation of the registrar and other officers. The clause says—

These two amendments I am proposing are submitted because I feel that the whole effect of this new Plant Breeders’ Act depends upon the way in which it is going to work in practice. I know that the Minister’s Department has scientific experts who are fully capable of dealing with all agricultural matters, but the Minister himself will agree that employees in the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, who include plant and agricultural experts, are possibly not lawyers or versed in dealing with patent law. I feel that it is a matter of very great importance that the registrar who will exercise the powers and carry out the functions designated to him by this whole Act must be a scientist or agriculturalist from the Minister’s Department with some legal qualifications because that is required for the purpose of registration. The registrar will have to come to very important decisions and he will have to make decisions on possibly contentious plant breeders’ claims. This used to fall under the Registrar of Patents under the Patent Act of 1952. Now the Registrar of Plant Breeders’ Rights will have to pass judgment on applications by plant breeders and his decisions have to do justice to those citizens and to the plant breeders themselves. This clause is also tied up with Clause 22 which provides for a board of appeal, and the presiding officer of that three-man board of appeal shall be “appointed by the Minister on account of his knowledge of law”. I submit that the inclusion of those words “appointed by the Minister on account of his knowledge of the law” is an admission by the Minister and his Department that legal qualifications are necessary, but under this Bill they will only be available on appeal. Therefore I ask the hon. Minister to consider this very seriously and to agree that the officer in the service of his Department who administers this Bill shall have some legal qualifications. I feel sure that amongst the top personnel in the Department of Agricultural Technical Services there must be material available with those qualifications from whom to draw the incumbent of this new post of Registrar of Plant Breeders’ Rights.

In support of what I am asking in this amendment, I wish to refer to what the Registrar of Patents himself said in the evidence he gave to the select committee. On page 97 he says—

I would therefore ask the hon. Minister seriously to consider this amendment. Section 4 in the Patents Act itself (the Act of 1952) lays down the qualifications required for the Commissioner of Patents, and there it says that he shall be a retired Judge or an advocate of ten years standing. Thus there is a concrete admission that the Commissioner for Industrial Patents shall have high legal qualifications. Surely it is equally important that the Registrar of Plant Breeders’ Rights should have at least legal qualifications. Otherwise the Court of Appeal, as laid down in Clause 22, is going to be burdened with costly case after case brought by plant breeders because of difficulties in decisions that could arise with a registrar if he has no legal knowledge himself. Therefore I feel that it will be both a saving in time and expense for the Minister and his Department if it is laid down in this clause that the Registrar should have legal qualifications.

Regarding the second amendment, as the clause reads it says that the registrar may consult. “The registrar may, in the exercise of his powers and the carrying out of his functions, consult anyone, who, in his opinion, possesses a special or expert knowledge of a plant in respect of which application for plant breeders’ rights has been made or any matter, including any legal question, which he is required to decide. ” It is considered an improvement and a safeguard to the general public and to the plant breeders themselves, whom we wish to protect by this Bill and this clause, that the word “may” should be changed to “shall”, so that the registrar shall consult. The word “shall” is obligatory whereas the word “may” is merely permissive, and perhaps the registrar would not consult on all occasions. We feel that the clause could be improved by the changing of this word, so that the registrar, while he is encouraged to consult as it now reads, will be obliged to consult. This is particularly necessary because this is a new Bill which aims at protecting the plant breeders.

They say the easiest way out is not to argue with the fair sex because you never make much progress. I rather agree with them, if I can, instead of going against them but in this specific instance I really feel, as much as I would have liked to, that I cannot accommodate the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss). The reason being that I do not think we can really compare industrial patents with plant breeders’ rights. In the one case the registrar will definitely be much more concerned with the juridical aspect of the matter than in the other. When dealing with the soil and with nature, and you have to appoint a responsible officer, you will naturally appoint somebody who is highly qualified, with thorough technical knowledge, but I definitely think that when making such an appointment the emphasis should be placed not on his juridical qualifications and background but on his botanical background, his knowledge of plants. When should he register or decide to register? In the first place he must decide to register if he is convinced that it is a plant which, in terms of the provisions of the Act, falls into a category which is registerable. And in order to do that he has to have a knowledge of plants, etc. If he feels he should obtain legal advice he is free to consult the departmental legal adviser, because we have a full-time legal adviser in our Department. If he still wishes to approach the state legal advisers he is at liberty to do so. He can consult them at any time before he decides to register or not to register. I do not think the registration of plants will be a daily occurrence because the plant breeders know that they will only be able to register a plant if it conforms with the requirements of the law. Say, for instance he refuses to register then you can appeal, and when you appear before the Board of Appeal, provision has been made for somebody with legal knowledge to be present and to act as chairman of that board. Secondly, we give the person who has applied or who has lodged an objection the opportunity of getting an advocate, or an attorney to state his case. I think we have to a large extent complied with what the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) wants. Because the positive cases where registration does indeed take place does not come into the picture at all. The hon. member is really worried about the possibility that justice will not be meted out to that person who has been refused registration. The Board of Appeal has a legally trained person as chairman. I might just mention that in the draft Bill which is before the British Parliament they talk about a “controller” where we talk about a “registrar”. They will perform the same functions but as far as I can ascertain their legislation does not lay down that when a controller is appointed he should be somebody with legal knowledge, because just like us, they feel that he should, in the first place, have expert knowledge of the botanical aspects on which he will have to judge rather than of the legal aspects. I do not think, therefore, that this amendment of the hon. member will improve the Bill. We need not anticipate any difficulty in the application of this measure if the registrar is not somebody with expert legal knowledge. If there is somebody in the Department with both qualifications, we shall obviously give preference to the person who has legal knowledge as well, but I cannot at the moment think of such a person, because the scientists usually steer clear of the law and concentrate more on other directions of specialized study and training.

Amendment put and rejected.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

It is not of course possible to move an amendment to this clause because that would require an instruction, but I would like to ask the hon. Minister to consider very seriously this question of providing for reciprocal rights. I do not wish to go into any detail, but I believe that we do now appear to be reaching the stage where apparently most countries are going to have some form of plant breeders’ rights and not patent rights. That seems to be the trend throughout the world. If that is so, it would be a very good thing if there were reciprocity between the countries, and I do hope that the hon. Minister will bear that in mind and that if a move to that effect is taken, as I believe it will be taken, that South Africa will play her part in trying to work out something sensible in the interest of all the countries.

I can promise that.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 12,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 14,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 22,

I should like to move to negative this clause and to insert the clause as printed on the Order Paper. The object of this is to allow an aggrieved person to appeal to the Supreme Court, and not to be limited to an appeal to the board.

The hon. member cannot move that.

I would then, if I may, like to indicate that the line I take will have the effect that a person who may feel aggrieved by the action of the registrar in refusing an application for the registration of plant breeders’ rights, will have the right to test the position in the Supreme Court. As matters stand, such an aggrieved person will have the right to appeal only to the board referred to in Clause 22, a board which is something very different and, I suggest, less adequate than the Supreme Court. In the first place we are dealing here with rights which may be of considerable economic value. It is a right which hitherto has been granted in the case of ornamental plants under the Patents Act, and it is a right, I suggest, which should enjoy the same degree of care in its administration as it has in terms of the Patents Act. Under that Act one has the right to go to the Supreme Court if one is aggrieved at the decision of the Registrar of Patents. The clause standing in my name is drafted mutatis mutandis to introduce the right of appeal to the courts that a person has under the Patents Act. It has been suggested by the hon. the Minister in reply to the motion I moved that there is an appreciable difference between a plant and an industrial patent. But I suggest that as far as disputes are concerned there is no valid reason why recourse to the courts should be denied. It remains a valuable economic right in connection with a technical subject, such as a plant is, and it can be of great importance to the injured person.

In addition, as things have stood under the Patents Act, where ornamental plants could be patented, an aggrieved person could go to the courts. There is no reason to follow the procedure of bringing all matters connected with plants under plant breeders’ rights and to remove recourse to the courts. It has been suggested that cost is an important factor. That will be a matter which any appellant will consider very carefully; but so often these matters are of considerable financial importance and merit recourse to the courts. If it is said that the courts have no knowledge of plant matters, my reply is that that applies equally in the case of patents of involved machinery and chemicals. They have no knowledge of those matters independently of the proceedings before the court. Those proceedings provide for expert evidence being placed before the Judges, who have the benefit of that evidence, and in addition they are assisted by an expert assessor, if necessary. Identical procedures can be followed in regard to plants. Expert evidence can be led and an assessor who is an expert in agricultural matters can sit in the case.

I am aware that in Clause 22 the chairman of the board is to be appointed for his knowledge of law. Well, that is something, but it is not so much a knowledge of law which is vital in these matters; it is the judicial approach, the sifting of facts, which with years of experience becomes the peculiar attribute and skill of the judicial officer, whether he be a Judge or a magistrate. That is not something which is acquired by a person who simply has a legal degree. In addition, a person versed in the practice of the courts develops a knowledge which enables him to attach the appropriate weight to any evidence that is placed before him.

Therefore it is no surprise that where the Patents Act deals with a comparable officer, the Registrar of Patents, it requires that that officer should not merely have a knowledge of law, but that he in fact be an advocate of at least ten years’ standing or a retired Judge. It may be that there are others who through their practice or their experience on the Bench acquire that knowledge, but I emphasize that it is that quality one should look for, rather than a mere knowledge of the law.

These matters in regard to plants will doubtless concern mainly the farming community, and it cannot be overstressed that they, above all, are a section of the community which has implicit faith in the courts, and lays its difficulties with great confidence at the foot of a Judge. There is no reason why that should be denied to a person who feels aggrieved under this Bill. Indeed, I suggest that one is minimizing the importance of plant breeders’ rights if one suggests that appeals be dealt with by some inferior appeal board.

So I seriously ask the hon. the Minister to incorporate this amendment, which cannot but ensure that the whole matter of plant breeders’ rights is well administered, and that a good body of precedents and decisions grows up in relation to plant breeders, such as has occurred in the case of patents. The appeal to the courts is a well-tested procedure, and I suggest that there is no adequate reason for departing from that custom of the country.

Mr. Chairman, as the hon. the Minister has not replied to the hon. member, I take it that I must assume that he is not prepared to agree to the deletion of this clause and the substitution of the amendment on the Order Paper. Will the Minister tell us what his attitude is?

My attitude is that while the Chairman of Committees has told the hon. member that he cannot move his amendment, why should I reply to him? For that reason I sat down. If he had come forward with an amendment that was in order, I would have advanced my reasons for not accepting it.

Be that as it may, it is quite clear that the point has been put to the hon. the Minister that for technical reasons it will be better if the appeal in this case goes to the Supreme Court rather than to the board constituted in terms of the Bill. I wonder whether the Minister, who apparently believes that it should stand as it is, would give us his reasons for believing that an appeal in such matters, which may involve these difficult questions, should go to the board and not to the Supreme Court? Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to indicate whether, if that is his view, he would be prepared to accept an amendment to this clause, in line 73, to omit the words “if any, and such decision shall be final and binding on the appellant and the other party”, and to substitute for those words a provision which allows of an appeal from the decision of the board to the Supreme Court. All we are seeking is to get the best possible piece of legislation on the Statute Book. Personally, I do not believe in appeals like this, which may involve large sums of money, going to a board. I think it is far better for it to go to the courts, but no doubt the Minister’s Department has good reasons for suggesting the establishment of such a board, but I hope the Minister will tell us that he agrees with what I have said, that it would be advisable that the decision of that board should be subject to an appeal to the Supreme Court.

I would certainly not have agreed to Clause 22 as printed had I not been convinced that it would work well in practice. We have, for example, other boards of appeal in the agricultural field. So far we have not experienced any difficulty when they have had to test bulls in proclaimed cattle improvement areas. Boards consisting of people with specific knowledge of that particular breed. I also have in mind the Deciduous Fruit Board which operates daily at our ports passing or rejecting consignments of fruit for export where large amounts of money are also at stake. That too is done by a board and not by a person with legal knowledge. My attitude in this matter is not to make it more difficult for people to appeal against a decision with which they are not satisfied, but to make it easier for them to do so, but also to constitute the board in such a way that they will have faith in the legal correctness of the judgment. That is why we talk about a person with legal knowledge. I shall certainly not appoint a young person who has just obtained his degree and who has had no experience. In addition there is a departmental official who will certainly not be concerned with any personal interests. He will be appointed because of his technological knowledge. I think the board will function well. My appeal to hon. members opposite is this: Let us give this legislation a chance. Then I shall do what the hon. member for Germiston (District) has asked me to do, namely, not to close my eyes to the defects in the Act, but to come back to this House if there are defects, and put them right.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is prepared to give further consideration to this point and if he should decide that it is desirable that there should be a right of appeal to the courts, whether he would move an amendment in the Other Place? I am not asking that the board be abolished but that it should be possible to take the decision of the board on appeal to a court of law.

I do not want to bind myself, because I am afraid that by doing that I shall in advance nullify the work of this Board of Appeal. Because when people are dissatisfied they will want to appeal. I notice that they have something similar in the proposed legislation which is considered by the British Parliament. The hon. member for Pinelands has referred to it. It is stated there that the person should have had seven years’ legal experience, but they also lay down that the decision of the board shall be binding without the right of a further appeal. I do not know whether they have had insight into our law, or vice versa, but perhaps they are thinking just as clearly as we are on this matter.

Clause 22 put and the Committee divided:

AYES—83: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. G.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr. ); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Odell, H. G. O.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—43: Basson, J. A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.: Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.: Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Streicher, D. M.; Taurog, L. B.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 28,

The object of moving the amendment to this clause is to leave the position in regard to plants as set out in the Patents Act, unchanged. The effect would be to avoid discrimination against the foreign breeder, and thereby we would run no risk of infringing the terms of the Paris Convention. I do not wish to recapitulate the arguments I advanced in regard to the notice of instruction, because they all apply here. Those arguments have been rejected by the House. Therefore I suggest that the clause be negatived. We do so in order to be consistent in our actions.

Clause put.

Mr. Chairman, instead of demanding a division, I ask that the opposition of the Official Opposition to this clause be recorded.

Clause 20 put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Remaining Clauses and the Title put and agreed to.