May I, with leave of the House, make the following statement:

The Government has, however, noted the clear stand taken by a most influential group of states in opposition to the action of the Afro-Asian and communist majority in carrying to this extreme their vendetta against South Africa. Since the Government of the Republic of South Africa is not committed to any single pattern of action when opposing this vendetta in world organizations, but is guided by the circumstances relevant to each particular case, it has decided not to withdraw voluntarily from membership of the World Health Organization, in spite of the provocation which so rightly led its delegation to leave the meeting at which the unjustifiable decision was taken.

The Government’s decision to maintain its right of membership for as long as is within its power to do so, and to seek to regain its full rights, flows from two main considerations. Firstly it has, and will always have, a duty and the capacity to co-operate in providing health services to humanity, and does not wish to withdraw itself of its own free will from this particular means of doing so. Secondly, and in this respect the situation is different from the position in other organizations where other decisions were taken, most Western nations, and others similarly opposed to the injection of extraneous political issues, did their utmost to prevent the regrettable action taken against South Africa, and these nations must therefore be given the opportunity and encouragement to reverse the decision and to re-establish the non-political and technical character of the World Health Organization.

Might I ask the hon. the Prime Minister that when statements are being made in the House by himself or other Ministers we are informed through the usual channels?

I move as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

I move—

We are living to-day in a very modern world, in a period of prosperity and progress and also in a period in which South Africa has made tremendous headway in the economic sphere. In February 1961 we introduced the decimal coinage system, but I maintain that in taking that step we did not go far enough. This reminds me of the story I heard about a man who was travelling in a horse-drawn buggy on a dusty road with the wind behind him. While he was riding along he met a man on the road and asked him how far he was still away from the town. The man replied, “How far away from town! Don’t you realize that you are in town already? You can’t see because the two rear wheels of your buggy have fallen off and you have been dragging them along all the time. Stop hitting your horse; get off and fix your buggy.” That is what is happening to our system to-day. Our decimal coinage system, the willing horse, is drawing the buggy while weights and measures are dragging behind, acting as a brake on our entire economy.

Mr. Speaker, it will be interesting to see how the various systems in the world came into being. In the early history of mankind, as you know, people were unable to count. There was no numerical system. They made use of their ears, fingers, toes, etc., and as time went on they gave names to those things so as to facilitate counting. Thus, for example, we have the Chinese word eul, which originally meant “two” to represent the two ears. At first the numbers were indicated by signs and this led to the introduction of the tally system. One of the first nations to use and to develop the writing system was the Sumerians in Mesopotamia, and this was known as the nail system. The Egyptians used separate signs for 1, 10, 100, 1,000, etc. Later on the Hebrews and the Greeks used their alphabet to represent certain numbers, and we find that subsequently the Romans introduced separate signs, amongst others the V for 5, the X for 10, the L for 50, the C for 100, the D for 500 and the M for 1,000. Our own numerical system derives from the Hindu system in which the basic number was 10, and then there were separate names for the numbers 1 to 9, and the 0 was used to denote and to fill in the blanks. This system is very simple as well as economic and it fits perfectly into our decimal system. The Arabs learned this system from the Hindus and brought it to Europe where it was first used in the fifteenth century A.D. after the printing art had come into general use.

Once people were able to count, they also started expressing weights and measures in numbers. Weights and measures play a very important role in our society. We weigh and measure things every day. The housewife uses weights and measures when she cooks or when she bakes. Weights and measures are used when people are given medicines. Victuals such as meat, butter, cheese, rice, etc., are measured by the pound; clothing is measured by the yard; petrol is sold by the gallon, and when we talk about the distance to town we talk about so many miles. It will be seen, therefore, that we make extensive use of weights and measures. When we measure things we make comparisons, and that is why all civilized nations to-day have fixed units of length, weight and content.

In the distant past when people first started measuring they took certain objects such as the hand, for example, the foot, the spear, the calabash, or something of that kind for the purpose of measuring. We still do so at the present time if we do not have a tape measure or a pint measurement, etc., at hand.

We find that the names of certain parts of the human body were used to express measurements. Thousands of years ago the first measurement which was used was the Cubit. “Cubit” derives from the Latin word cubitum and it means elbow; it represented the distance from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. That, in turn, was sub-divided into two spans, the span into three hands of four fingers each, and the finger into six grain seeds placed alongside one another. Two of these Cubits represented an ell or the distance from the middle of a man’s chest up to the tip of the middle finger; a fathom represented two ells, the height of a man at that time. In due course, because the foot was such an important part of the fathom as well as of the pace, it became the standard unit of measurement of height.

Although nations in bygone days used these units, they did not all attach the same meaning to the various units. There were very great differences. Thus we find that the Egyptian foot was approximately 12.16 of our inches, the Roman foot 11.67, the Mohammedan foot 14,186 and the later Rheinland foot 12,356. The Romans then went further and divided the foot into 12-inch widths, which they called the unciae, or the twelfth part. Here, then, we have the derivation of the English word “inch”. The Roman unit for long distances, divided into eight stages, consisted of 1,000 passus or double paces, and was called the millia passuum at that time. The English word “mile” is derived from the word “millia”.

The unit of weight amongst the nations around the Mediterranean Sea was the talent and the shekel, which we also read about in the Bible. A talent was the weight of a royal Egyptian cubic foot of water, and it was divided into 3,000 shekels. A talent represented about 94 of our pounds and a shekel was about half an ounce.

At that time smaller measurements were expressed in terms of so many grains of seed. Just as measurements of length were expressed in terms of the human limbs with which they agreed approximately, so the smaller weights were given the names of seeds, which were used originally as small weights—seeds such as the pawpaw seed, the mustard seed, the barley and corn grain and the carat bean. That is why we use the word “grain” as the smallest unit of the pound. According to an old 1266 Act, the English pound was defined as the weight of 7,680 grains of corn taken from the middle of the ear. The carat is an old Mohammedan weight; it derives from the seed of the locust tree and it later became the unit of measurement of precious stones. The word is also used to indicate the fineness of metals such as gold.

The solidus was a Roman gold coin of 24 carats. Pure gold therefore is regarded as the solidus or the whole of the 24 carats, and impure gold is regarded as containing so many twenty-fourth parts of pure gold. Gold of nine carats therefore contains nine parts of pure gold out of every 24 parts of the alloy or mixture.

We can now proceed to the bigger weights and measures. One of the bigger weights was the troy. The term “troy” probably derives from the weight which was used at fairs in the city of Troyes. It is divided into 12 ounces. The term “avoirdupois” comes from the old French Aver-de-pois, which means “goods by weight” and which was originally used to distinguish the pound weight from the pound sterling or money.

What is very interesting is the way in which areas were measured. Areas, such as the size of a piece of arable land, were indicated in various ways. One of the first methods was to express the size of a piece of land in terms of the amount of corn that could be sown on it. The old Teutons talked about a “bushel” of land, and what they meant by it was a piece of land on which a bushel of corn could be sown. A second method was to say how long it would take to cultivate the land either by hand or by using a span of oxen, and so it came about that people talked about a “four-yoke farm”. Our word “morgen” originally meant a piece of land which could be cultivated in a “morgen” shift. Later on areas were measured in units of certain lengths and breadths. Where people ploughed with oxen it was found convenient to let the oxen rest at the end of every furrow of a certain convenient length. This length, one-eighth of a mile, was called a “furrow long” or “furlong” by English farmers in bygone days. From the first furrow the farmer used to measure off a rod-width or rood for the oxen to turn. Four such oblong perches or roods formed an acre, and in this way the idea arose to measure land in acres and morgen. That is more or less how some of these systems originated.

I should like now to explain the metric system. It should be clear from this short review that I have given here of the development of our weights and measures why they vary so much. After all, in the early history of mankind people could not go and sit down and say, “We need a system of weights and measures; let us choose the best out of the whole lot”. In their daily lives they had to measure and weigh and make use of the best objects they could find. These new units were then defined more clearly and entrenched in the laws of the country. The metric system for weights and measures originated in an entirely different way. During the French Revolution when people were anxious to change the world, just as there are people to-day who have the same sort of idea, the National Convention caused a brand-new system to be devised. One hundred-thousandth of the distance from the Pole to the Equator was then chosen as the unit of length and it was called a “metre”. You will see, Sir, that the basis was entirely scientific. The other units which derive from the metre were arrived at by dividing or multiplying by ten so as to adapt them to our decimal numerical system. It must be noted that the units of weight and content are based on the unit of length, the metre, which only goes to show that it was done entirely scientifically. The gramme, which was accepted as a unit of weight, was defined as the weight of one cubic centimetre of water at four degrees Centigrade, and as the unit of content there was the litre, which was defined as the volume of a kilogram of water at four degrees Centigrade.

The use of the metric system is compulsory in all countries on the Continent of Europe to-day and its use is also permitted in Great Britain and in the U.S.A. There are 76 countries to-day where the metric system is used and where it has been made compulsory by law. There are seven countries which basically are not metric system countries but where the use of the metric system has been permitted by law, and then there are 39 countries only—and they are not important countries—where the metric system is not used.

As the world developed and as science developed it became necessary to have fixed and precise units which would be understood and recognized throughout the whole world. That is why an international conference was held in Paris in 1875 to decide on fixed units of length, weight and content. This conference decided to call into being the International Bureau of Weights and Measures under the control of a committee consisting of the representatives of 14 countries which were represented there, and that committee is still functioning at the present time.

As a matter of interest I should like to mention a few of these systems just briefly, together with the tables of weights and measures. As far as weights are concerned, there are no less than six systems in vogue at the present time, and this causes absolute confusion. Thus we have the avoirdupois weights which are used for weighing most merchandise and ordinary things in every-day life. Secondly, we have the troy weights which are used only for weighing precious metals such as gold and silver, and then we have the apothecaries’ weights which are used in dispensing medicines, drugs and poisons. Then we have the carat weight, which is used only for weighing precious stones such as diamonds. Then we also have the British imperial system. I may add that the use of this system is not lawful in commercial transactions in the Republic of South Africa. Then, lastly, we have the scientific system which I am advocating here, the metric system, which starts with a gramme as the basic unit and then goes on to the centigram and the kilogram. As far as measurements of length are concerned, there are also four systems. The ordinary one that we know is that 12 inches represent one foot, three feet represent one yard, and 1,760 yards represent one mile. Then we have the Cape system which is used for surveying and where 426 roods represent a mile. Here, however, we have the inconsistency that 1,000 Cape feet is equivalent to 1,022 standard feet. This is all very confusing. Then we also have a third system, the British imperial system, which is to be found particularly in horse-racing, where 220 yards represent a “furlong” and eight furlongs a mile. Then there is the fourth system, the metric system, which I am advocating and which is a scientific system, where the unit is the metre.

As far as content measures are concerned, we also have four different systems. In the case of liquids, two pints represent a quart and four quarts a gallon, and then we find in the case of wheat, maize and meal, etc., that it has been laid down by law that so many pounds represent a bag—200 lb. in the case of maize and 150 lb. in the case of seed, etc. We also have the apothecaries’ weights for liquids, and then there is the fourth system, the metric sytem, where the litre is the unit.

As far as areas are concerned, there are also four systems, the ordinary system where we say that nine square feet represent one square yard, and then we have the Cape land measures, where 600 square roods represent one morgen, and thirdly, we have the British imperial system where 640 acres represent one square mile. In South Africa the acre is recognized only in Natal as a lawful land measure. There land is measured in acres and farmers talk about having so many acres of land. Fourthly, we have the metric system again.

Inquiries have been instituted on various occasions in the past to see whether we should switch over to the metric system. Such inquiries have been instituted over the past 20 years under various Governments. Inquiries were also instituted under the former United Party Government, and that is why I think the Opposition should support this motion. In 1943 to 1945 the Board of Trade and Industries, which went into the question of the post-war reconstruction of our industries and the question of economic reconstruction generally, recommended that the Government should give attention to the gradual introduction of a metric system of coinage, measures and weights. In 1945, as the result of this, the Minister of Education appointed the Decimalization Committee under the National Conservation and Anti-Waste Organization, a committee which has become known as the Becklake Committee, to examine and to report upon the possibility of decimalizing our coinage, measures and weights. On 5 January 1948 this committee unanimously recommended, on page 84 of the report—

They did recommend, however, that immediate attention should be given to the coinage system. I just want to say in passing that according to this report there was practically nobody in South Africa who was against the metric system of measures and weights. They supported it practically, but the only difficulty was that because of their ties with Mother England they said that they could not switch over unless England and America first switched over. But apart from that they were entirely in favour of it. In 1949 the Minister of Economic Affairs requested the Board of the S.A. Bureau of Standards to carry on with the work of the Becklake Committee. With the approval of the board there then came into being the Main Committee for the Decimalization of the Union’s Coinage, Measures and Weights. That committee decided that there would be two sub-committees, one of which would go into our coinage and the other into our weights and measures. The Main Committee also decided to dispose first of the question of the decimalization of our coinage, and to do so quickly, and the result was that in February 1961 our decimal coinage system came into operation. Shortly thereafter the Minister of Economic Affairs asked the Bureau of Standards to examine the implications of switching over to the metric system of measures and weights. The first preliminary committee which had been appointed and which had not yet completed its work, completed its work in about September 1962 and a committee for the Decimalization of Measures and Weights under the chairmanship of Professor Tobie Louw of the University of Pretoria was then appointed. Here I should like to place on record that I am grateful for the fact that that committee was appointed, not so much because of the bodies represented on it, but because of their knowledge and experience of the country’s economic activities. In these circumstances I expect that committee to produce a well-considered and fine report.

The terms of reference of the committee were to inquire into and to report to the board of the S.A. Bureau of Standards upon (a) the feasibility and the implications of the adoption of the metric system of measures and weights in the Republic, and (b) the costs connected with a comprehensive inquiry which will include the financial implications and the planning of the change-over to the metric system. (Standards Bulletin of October 1962, page 29.)

Mr. Speaker, there are numbers of questions that we could ask ourselves as to why we should switch over to the metric system. We could ask ourselves what advantages and disadvantages would be attached to it; what would be the cost of such a change-over; who is in favour of the metric system and who is against it; is it a suitable system having regard to the composition of our population? Well, why should we switch over? Here I must point out that the introduction of the decimal coinage system, which is now functioning smoothly and successfully, has resulted in great savings in manpower because it has facilitated accounting and has made it possible for us to make greater use of accounting machines. The pattern of world trade has changed considerably since the report of the Becklake Committee was brought out in 1948. The metric system is being used to-day by something like 80 per cent of the world’s population, and producing countries which are not using the metric system are finding it increasnigly difficult to compete with those countries which do use the metric system in the rapidly expanding markets of the world, particularly Euromark, because the metric system is easily undersatndable and adaptable. I want to point out, too, that whereas the value of manufactured goods exported between 1948 and 1961 to countries where the metric system is used increased 17½ times, the value of manufactured goods exported to countries where the metric system is not used increased only ten times. South Africa, with her rapidly changing economy, with the shifting of the emphasis from mining and agriculture to industrialization, is going to find it very difficult in the future to find markets for her industrial products and to compete with countries which use the metric system of weights and measures, a system which is easily understandable.

I say that the advantages of this system are innumerable. For example, it is understandable both internationally and nationally; it results in the saving of money and time. It enables one to introduce standardization, with the result that further substantial savings can be effected. There may also be certain disadvantages, but I know of very few. It may be argued perhaps that the cost of switching over is a disadvantage. This is perhaps a factor that we can examine but whatever the cost of the change-over may be, we can recover it within three or four years by means of savings, just as we would recover the cost if Parliament were shifted to Pretoria, if I may say so in passing. The metric system is ideally suited to our population, particularly our Bantu population. The Bantu have a flair for decimals; they find it very easy to count in tens. Moreover, we know that when we introduced the decimal coinage system they found it very easy to adapt themselves to the new system.

In conclusion, I just want to pose this question: Is there anybody really who is against the introduction of the metric system? There are very few people in South Africa who are against it. It is clear from the report of the Becklake Committee that most people were in favour of the decimal coinage system and even those who were against it at the time cannot argue to-day that it is not a good system, now that they see how smoothly it functions. In the U.S.A., the most important of the countries in which the metric system is not in use, there are signs to-day that they are also trying to find ways and means of switching over to the metric system. Even in England there is a movement afoot to switch over. Most British industrialists feel that the change is inevitable and that the metric system, the most important system of weights and measures, should be introduced as soon as possible. Having given this review of the advantages and disadvantages, I now want to confine myself to the hon. the Minister.

Here we have a system which has been worked out scientifically and I want to say to the Minister that as far as I am aware this committee under the chairmanship of Professor Louw has almost completed its investigations. I do not know when the committee is going to report, but I want to ask the hon. the Minister to ask the committee to submit its report as soon as possible. Then I want to ask the Cabinet please to consider this principle before the end of the Session and to decide whether or not they are prepared to accept it. I am convinced in my own mind that this committee has no alternative but to submit a positive report requesting that this system be introduced immediately. Judging by the limited survey which I have made myself, we are all in favour of it and the longer we wait the more it will cost to put this system into operation. My request therefore is that this should be done as early as possible; that this committee should be given wider powers; that a few additional members should be appointed; that two Members of Parliament might perhaps be appointed to act as liaison officers; that this committee should report before the end of this year and tell us how to tackle this matter and at the same time submit a draft Bill to us. I move.

While listening to the well-prepared speech of the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. van Zyl), I found it difficult to determine why this motion has been introduced at all. It requests the Government to consider the advisability of introducing the metric system of weights and measures in South Africa. But a large portion of the hon. member’s speech was devoted to telling us that that is exactly what the Government is doing. Therefore I cannot understand why this motion is on the Order Paper. We know there is a committee under the chairmanship of Professor Louw of Stellenbosch which is doing exactly what the hon. member wants, at the instigation of the Government. The hon. member reminded us of the fact that this changeover was considered before 1948 and there was then a report that action should not be taken. Now another commission has been appointed and I am satisfied that the Government is considering this matter, just as it is being considered very actively in the United Kingdom at present. The British Standards Institution has for some time now been investigating this matter, and it is quite clear that the majority of people affected in that country, industrialists, scientists and engineers, are in favour of the changeover. We also know that the investigation was caused in the case of the U.K. by the attempt to enter the European Common Market, which, if successful, would have made some common system of weights and measures almost inescapable. We also know that in our case it is becoming necessary because of the changing pattern of our trade, and our growing relations with the other nations of the world which have another system than the British system. We understand that. The matter is being considered, and frankly it is difficult to understand why the hon. member for Sunnyside has moved this motion until at least we get the report of the Commission at present investigating the matter. The Government is considering it and it is acting in the matter.

But I should point out one or two things in the hon. member’s argument with which I cannot agree. I cannot agree that the virtue of the metric system is that it is more scientific than any other system. The metric system has been proved wrong, scientifically speaking, in more than one respect. Originally the metre was designed, as the hon. member has told us, as one ten-millionth of the distance from the Pole to the Equator. That was determined at the time of the French Revolution, but it has been proved to be a wrong measurement. We have before Parliament at present a Bill dealing with our weights and measures, where the metre is defined in terms of the radiation of a gas called Krypton 86. It has become just as arbitrary a standard as the foot or the yard, so I think that argument falls away. The only virtue I can see in the metric system is that it is a decimal system. There I agree with the hon. member. I think that is why it is finding favour throughout the world, especially in the less advanced countries of the world, and that is why there is a powerful argument in favour of a changeover to the metric system, not because it is more scientific but because it is a decimal system, an easier system to manipulate. But I want to tell you, Sir, that there is to-day no scientifically accurate correspondence between the measures of weight or mass of the metric system and the longitudinal and thus the cubic measurements. The defference is not great enough to affect commercial transactions, but when you come to very accurate scientific calculations, as you require when you are dealing with difficult engineering calculations, where the relationship between mass and length becomes important, and where you enter the stratosphere and go beyond where questions of weightlessness come into the picture, the metric system is not scientific. There is not a true correlation between the measures of mass and the measures of length. So we have to be a little careful. Fortunately in the case of the metric system there is in Paris the International Bureau of Weights and Measures Organization which was created in 1875 by the 37 states concerned. It is a world authority, and it is going into these problems and it is making changes. It is devising new measures. In the case of luminosity it has devised a measure called the Candella, which is infinitely superior to anything we have had up to now. It has devised another measure to deal with force of acceleration, called in English a slug, and in other languages a hyl, which is quite different from anything we had before. So we must not make the mistake of thinking that of necessity the metric system is scientifically superior to our own system. It is only superior because it is easier to work with, because it is a decimal system. From that point of view I have much sympathy with the request that has come from the hon. member, but let us move slowly in this matter. Changes are coming, as I have pointed out, under the influence of this body in Paris. Do not let us land ourselves in the position where we, in an over-hasty gesture to show our independence and to make changes, have to make constant changes. I think the advice given to the British people by the British Standards Institution should also be considered in this country, and that is that we should begin by education. Let us begin by emphasizing the decimal system more in our schools. Let it be taught thoroughly, so that when the time comes that the change is made, at least our children will know how it works. That should be Step No. 1. At the same time we should simplify some of the measures we are using in South Africa already. I think our land surveyors have a terrible time. Our linear measurements, even the foot and the yard and the mile, could perhaps be decimalized, especially the foot. All these measurements that schoolchildren have on their rulers like eighths and sixteenths should make way for simpler measurements where the inch is divided into tens to begin with, while this process of education goes on to acquaint our people thoroughly with the metric system. We must also consider that it is much easier to change the coinage to a decimal system than it is to change our weights and measures. You can change your coinage overnight, as we did. On one day it was announced that there would be this change, and the next day it was there. Again, the change of coinage does not affect your relationship with other countries to the same extent as would a change in the system of weights and measures. I was very interested to see the automotive industry and the petroleum industry during the investigation by the British Standards Institution that the United Kingdom should be careful, especially in fields like the automotive industry and the petroleum industry, not to anticipate action by the U.S.A. too much, because the relationship between Britain and the U.S.A. apparently in these fields of industry and enterprise is so close that it could lead to difficulty, real practical difficulties in the commerce of the British people if they anticipate America unduly. We should go into that, too, to make quite sure that if we make this change the effect on existing healthy international relationships in regard to commerce and an exchange of scientific information will not be unduly adverse. That seems to be the wise thing to do, because we do not require a certain deadline on which to make this change. The wise course would be to let these two systems run parallel for some time and to bring about changes in sections of industry or science from time to time over a period. It was suggested in other countries that the period should be from ten to 20 years. It seems to me that that is the course we should seek to follow in South Africa also, to bring about a gradual change resting upon a firm foundation of thorough investigation, which I am glad to see is proceeding, and secondly, resting on a thorough educational preparation for this change, so that it can be made smoothly and without embarrassment. I think that is all one need say. I want to finish where I began. I am glad that this matter is being investigated and considered, but it does seem redundant to move a motion asking for something which is actually being done.

I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. van Zyl), who gave us an historical review of the development of weights and measures. The hon. member points out that particularly after the ’thirties and the ’forties more and more pressure has been exerted that weights and measures should be decimalized. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) has also pointed out certain problems. I think both hon. members are agreed that there are good reasons for decimalization but that there are also certain problems connected with it, as has been correctly pointed out here by the hon. member for Yeoville. The fact that he himself advocates that we should do more, even at this stage, to teach our children this system at school is an indication that there is a feeling to-day that this system might well be introduced at some future date. It is difficult for me to say much about the merits of the matter at this stage, particularly in view of the fact that investigations are still being instituted by this Committee which was set up by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs under the Bureau of Standards. I can only point out that although representations were first made in 1925, after the Kemmering and Visser Report, that a decimal coinage system should be introduced, it was only in 1932 that a Bill providing for the decimalization of our coinage was drawn up, but that Bill was never passed. A lot of water flowed under the bridge before the Decimalization Act was eventually passed and before a decimal coinage system was introduced.

We find the first consideration in favour of a possible decimalisation of our weights and measures as far back as 1943 in the form of a recommendation of the Board of Trade and Industries after the Board had investigated the possibility of reconstructing our industries and introducing general post-war economic measures with a view to promoting standardization. The Board of Trade and Industries recommended in 1943—

The hon. member for Sunnyside has dealt fairly fully with the Becklake Report and I do not want to pursue this matter. As far as the Committee appointed by the Minister is concerned, its terms of reference were to investigate and to report (a) how best to obtain the full advantages of decimalization, particularly by inquiring into the practicability and the implications of the adoption of the metric system for weights and measures in the Republic, and (b) the costs connected with an exhaustive inquiry which will include the financial implications and the planning of the switch-over to the decimal system. It is clear from the terms of reference of this Committee therefore that the Committee has positive terms of reference; it is an indication that the Government is of the opinion that a prima facie case can be made out for a comprehensive inquiry. This Committee consists of Prof. H. T. Louw as Chairman, Mr. T. Bedford, deputy director of the S.A.B.S., Mr. D. Lion-Cachet of the engineering industry, Mr. A. A. Middlecote, the assistant director of the S.A.B.S., Mr. T. F. Muller of the mining industry, Mr. I. G. Murray representing commerce and industry, Mr. F. E. Rowland, superintendent of weights and measures, Mr. A. W. Schoeman, representing finance in commerce and industry, Mr. W. G. Thiel, the deputy superintendent of weights and measures, and Mr. J. L. Whitwell, the technical secretary of the S.A.B.S. Hon. members will see therefore that the members of this Committee have been drawn from a wide field; they are people who are connected with the practical application of weights and measures. The Becklake Report, which recommended the introduction of a decimal coinage system, recommended amongst other things—

Our economic position, as the hon. member for Sunnyside has correctly indicated, has radically changed since those days. We no longer have close links only with the few countries which are mentioned here. Many other countries have since switched over. As far as South Africa is concerned, we have made some headway already. Notice has already been given of certain amendments to the Weights and Measures Act, and the amending Bill will in all probability still be passed this Session. Equal status is given in this amending Bill to our present system and the metric system. If we decide, therefore, to adopt the metric system, the necessary enabling legislation will be on the Statute Book already and it will be easy to apply it. Viewed from this angle, therefore, there is no problem, because we already recognize both these systems as enjoying equal status in this country.

But I want to come back to the Becklake Report. The report says that the reason for the aforementioned recommendation is that it is partly because of the fear that such steps will give rise to problems in our business dealings with Great Britain and the U.S.A., that the opinion is held that South Africa, whatever the cost may be, should immediately follow their example if either of these two countries, or both, should decide to adopt a decimal system in full. Our pattern of foreign trade has changed radically since then and the argument that we must wait until these countries switch over therefore falls away. Relatively speaking, there has also been a considerable increase in our trade with countries which follow the metric system and whose populations constitute about 80 per cent of the world population. It seems obvious therefore that the position with reference to our weights and measures should be reviewed in the light of these changes and in the light of the rapid industrialization that has taken place in the Republic. A further fact is that the advisability of switching over to the metric system of weights and measures is at present receiving serious attention in the United Kingdom and in the U.S.A. A further reason why more serious attention might well be given to this question in South Africa is the fact that as long as we have a decimal system of weights and measures we will obviously not be able to reap the full advantage of our decimal coinage system. Let me say at once that it is generally anticipated that it will be much more difficult to decimalize our weights and measures than it was to decimalize our coinage system. Our Deeds Office has already made an experiment in this connection. Surveyors received instructions a few years ago to complete all new diagrams in morgen and decimal fractions of a morgen. This caused great confusion, especially, I think, to land-owners as well as attorneys handling these diagrams. I had to contend with that problem myself. Originally the size of a piece of land was indicated in morgen, roods and feet, and now suddenly one is presented with a diagram in which the size of the piece or land is shown in morgen and decimal fractions of a morgen. It presented an extremely difficult problem to make the necessary conversion. Well, this is only one of the problems and probably one of the smallest of the problems. It will not simply be a question of switching over from the one system to the other within a day; the old system will have to remain in operation for a considerable time, simultaneously with the new system. In point of fact, the Deeds Office eventually abandoned this scheme and reverted to the old system. We already have the example of what happened in the case of decimalization. We know that it proved easier to introduce decimalization in South Africa than the members of the Decimal Coinage Commission envisaged at the time. Moreover, the decimal system was understood more easily by the less literate sections of our population than the Commission visualized at the time. The way has already been prepared for an easy switch-over to decimal coinage and decimal weights therefore, but the problem lies in the practical application. India, for example, introduced both systems simultaneously, and so did Pakistan. They decimalized their coinage and their weights and measures simultaneously, but in their case it was comparatively easy because they had very little in the way of machinery and instruments. Our great problem is going to be the conversion of instruments, etc.

A questionnaire of a general nature which was sent by the Committee to a widespread section of the respective interested groups in this country is now being followed up by individual investigations to determine what difficulties each interested group will have to contend with in the event of a switch-over to the metric system. It is not possible for me at this stage, therefore, to say more about the merits of this matter, because this Committee has already received instructions to examine the merits. It is perfectly clear to me that the hon. member for Sunnyside holds very strong views about the immediate introduction of the system, but we must first await the report of the Committee. The report will then be submitted to the Government and if it is accepted by the Government in principle, then I take it that more or less the same procedure will be followed that was followed in the case of the decimal coinage system. After the Government had accepted the principle of introducing a decimal coinage system, all interested bodies were given an opportunity to go into the matter thoroughly and to submit memoranda to the Commission of Inquiry and to give evidence in person. I can scarcely imagine that a different procedure will be followed in this case, because this inquiry is designed mainly to elicit information and to see what the problems are. As soon as the private sector reacts to this proposal the matter will be referred to a Commission of Inquiry if the Government sees fit to do so. In certain respects the task of such a commission will be easier than that of the Decimal Coinage Commission, because the Decimal Coinage Commission also had to recommend, amongst other things, what system should be introduced, and it devoted a great deal of time and attention to the search for a suitable system. The Commission did such good work, however, that its recommendation was accepted not only here but also in Australia and in the Federation of Rhodesia, and even Britain is seriously considering the question of following our example, although they are not really keen on the same unit. This commission will not be faced with the problem of finding a unit because the unit is known already and the ordinary public have already become familiar with it. The great task of this commission will be to determine the problems and the cost and to go into the question of compensation in the event of losses that may possibly be suffered.

I think the hon. member is rather hasty in expressing the hope that finality will be reached before the end of this year. All we can say at this stage is that the Government certainly cannot take a decision in this matter until such time as the merits have been fully examined. Once the report has been submitted the Government will consider it as soon as possible. The sooner decimalization is introduced the better, because the number of machines that will be using the new weights and measures is steadily increasing. The longer we wait, the more the amount to be paid in compensation will rise and the more difficult the switch-over will become. The hon. member for Sunnyside may rest assured that the Government will not delay its decision long once the report of the S.A.B.S. Committee has been received. I want to thank the hon. member for the way in which he stated his case. We have noted the fact that the hon. member feels very strongly that early action should be taken in this matter.

I want to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister very heartily for this further information which he has placed at my disposal. I was not aware of the fact that further investigations were taking place on such a large scale. I was afraid that there would be a great deal of delay but it looks as though this system is going to be introduced after all in the not too distant future, and I am grateful for that fact. In the circumstances I should like to withdraw my motion, with the leave of the House.

With the leave of the House, the motion was withdrawn.

I move—

Flat dwelling is of fairly recent origin when compared with the various forms of house dwelling that have existed since time immemorial, and purpose of the motion is to consider whether the time has not come to make legal provision for the individual ownership of single units in multi-unit buildings. This is, and has been possible for many years in England, parts of the U.S.A., Scandinavia, France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Italy and many other countries. It is true that each of these countries have land registration laws that differ in varying degrees from those of the Republic, but nevertheless each country has found it not only desirable but possible to provide a system whereby a man may own, in the true sense of the word, his own flat or unit.

This is not the first time that this matter has come before the House, although it now comes in somewhat different form. On the seventh February 1957, the Registration of Sectional Titles Bill, a Private Member’s Bill, introduced by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) was referred to a Select Committee for inquiry and report. The Select Committee reported on 2 May 1957, inter alia as follows—

The Bill was dropped and the matter was never debated in the House. As a specific Bill was under examination at the time much of the evidence submitted dealt with the detail of the Bill and not with the underlying principle, and much of the criticism levelled at the Bill was in its proposed method of operation.

Before proceeding to consider the merits of the motion it is necessary to have clarity on one point. We know, Sir, that flats are presently said to be bought and sold. These transactions take place without any specific ownership of or title to a specific flat or unit, and are not true purchases or sales. They take the form of the purchase of shares in a company owning a block of flats, for example, so that in effect the buyer becomes a partner in the ownership of the building through his ownership of shares in the company. This ownership of the shares gives him the right to occupy a specific flat with or without the payment of rent as the case may be. The reality of this type of scheme is that the so-called owner of the flat is in fact nothing more than a minority shareholder in a property-owning company, with all the disabilities that go with such a situation. These disabilities may be very onerous. If, for example, the property company decides to take a bond on the building, its owner will be bound by a majority decision, although it may suit individual owners to have the property unencumbered. Conversely if it is decided that the property should be unencumbered, then again it might not suit individual flat owners. The so-called owner has no title to his flat. He cannot morgage it, or borrow against his investment. Complications arise should the flat owner decide to make improvements to his flat. These improvements may or may not be for his individual benefit. In other words, he has not got an asset which he is free to deal with in his own interest, and the whole system is cumbersome and unsatisfactory. In the event of the insolvency of the company, the so-called owner may lose his entire original investment. We also know that so-called certificates of title have been issued from time to time which have no force of law whatsoever, and the result is that the so-called owner loses his investment. The hon. the Minister of Lands referred to this matter in 1957 at column 6307 of Hansard, where he said—

Since then I think it has also become a racket in Parktown.

Well, the hon. the Minister has taken it nearer home. I am more than happy that he still regards it as a racket because apparently we are going to see eye to eye on this matter.

What I envisage is something similar to the Australian system, a system under which a building such as a block of home-units or of offices, built on land held under registered title, may be sub-devided into separate “lots” comprising the individual units, by lodging with the Registrar of Deeds what the Australians call a “Strata plan.” The balance of the building comprising the corridors, staircases, lifts, gardens, pathway, etc., would be common property. The owner of each “lot” would be issued with a separate title by the Registrar of Deeds which would allow each unit to be dealt with in the same manner as any other piece of property. A “Strata plan” sub-division is effected by the registration in the Deeds Office of a “Strata plan” which illustrates the units corresponding with the occupied areas (flats or offices as the case may be) and the common property. In other words, what you get is this: The ground on which the flats stands will be registered in the joint names of all the owners, as one ownership, in undivided shares. That does not interfere with our normal Deeds registration procedure. Then a subsidiary registration will be made for the separate flats in the names of the individual owners. This will be registered against the ground title deed.

The “Strata Plan” then lodged for registration must be endorsed with, or be accompanied by a certificate from a registered surveyor that the building is wholly within the boundaries of the “Strata Plan.” The “Strata Plan” would have endorsed upon it a schedule specifying the unit entitlement” of each lot and the aggregate unit entitlement of all the lots. This unit entitlement determines, proportionately, the voting right of each proprietor, the quantum of the undevided share of each proprietor in the common property, the amount payable by each proprietor towards the cost of the control, management and administration of the common property, payment of insurance premiums and so on, and serves as a basis for rating and taxing purpose. In respect of each lot there are implied cross easements for support and for provision of services, and a right to; shelter. The proprietor or proprietors of all the lots would upon registration of the “Strata Plan” be constituted a corporate body under such name as “The Proprietors—Strata Plan No. The body corporate would be responsible for enforcement of the by-laws and the control, management and administration of the common property. Its duties also include taking out all necessary fire and other insurance in respect of the whole building, the application of insurance money in rebuilding and reinstating the building if damaged, maintaining and keeping in repair the common property, complying with notices or orders by competent public or local authorities requiring repairs or work done on the land and the building. To carry out these powers and duties, the corporate body may establish a fund and levy the individual lot proprietors in proportion to the unit entitlement of their respective lots. The powers and duties of the body corporate would, subject to any restrictions imposed or direction given at a general meeting, be exercised and performed by the council of the body corporate, comprising elected representatives of the proprietors. The common property is held by all the proprietors as tenants in common, in shares proportional to the unit entitlement of their respective lots. As a general rule no share in the common property may be disposed of except as appurtenant to the lot of the proprietor and any assurance of a lot operates to assure the share of the disposing party in the common property without express reference thereto; but under certain special circumstances the body corporate may execute dealings on behalf of the registered proprietors in respect of the common property or part thereof by way of transfer, lease, etc.

The building would be regulated by byelaws providing for the control, management, administration, use and enjoyment of the lot and the common property. A model set of byelaws would be included in any legislation (in much the same way as Table A in the Companies’ Act) and would apply unless altered by the corporate body. These bye-laws would set out provisions relating to the duties of a proprietor, further duties of the body corporate, further powers of the body corporate, the constitution of the councils of the body, the holding of general meetings and the proceedings at those meetings, the method of voting, the amendment of bye-laws, special resolutions and House Rules to be made to suit the circumstances. The whole property for the purpose of rating and taxing would be valued as a single property. The rating authority apportions the valuation between the various proprietors proportionately to their unit entitlement and levies rates on those proprietors separately as if they owned property valued at such proportionate amounts.

This was one of the objections in 1957—the question of rating. Under this system that problem falls away. A public or local authority which has a statutory right to enter upon a part of the property would be entitled to enter upon any other part of the property, if necessary or expedient to exercize its statutory powers. Here you have a system for the registration of flat ownership that has been proved in practice. Similar systems operate successfully in other countries of the world. In Italy, for example, there are special provisions in the Italian civil code to deal with the ownership of flats. There are other provisions dealing with the appointment of administrators, etc., to enable the system to work smoothly. In all these countries I have mentioned legislation has been passed which has truly enabled a person to own his own flat. None of these systems are objectionable to our methods of land registration, which rightly is considered to be one of the best in the world. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think the system could be implemented without harming any of our established methods of land registration, rating, etc.

The other factors, apart from those I have been dealing with, are the human ones. I understand that the cost of building a two-bedroomed flat would be in the neighbourhood of R5,400 while the cost of building a two-bedroomed house is in the neighbourhood of R8,000. For this reason and for many other reasons some people prefer flats to houses. The time has come for us to follow the lead given by other countries. People should be legally entitled to own their own flats, without having to resort to diverse means such as the registration of companies to enable them to do so. Mr. Speaker, whether we like it or not—and many people do not—the flat era is with us. In 1960 3,858 dwelling units were built and 5,726 flats. In 1961 3,198 dwelling units were built and 5,190 flats. In 1962 2,743 dwelling units and 2,508 flats. To-day, providing the hon. the Minister dealing with the Rents Act will encourage people to build flats, there is no doubt that flat units will far exceed dwelling units, and if the problem of lack of housing is to be solved more and more flats will have to be built.

There is another interesting fact in relation to the ownership of flats and that is the question of income-tax because the houseowner is being preferred against the flat-dweller. The easiest way I can illustrate it. Mr. Speaker, is to give you an example. A and B each have incomes of R6,000 per annum. They have R10,000 to invest; both have the same problems; both must have somewhere to live. A buys a house for R10,000 and he uses his own money to pay for it. So his income is therefore the R6,000 per annum which he gets from other sources and his tax is R682. Now, Mr. B has different ideas. He does not want a house, he wants a flat. So he finds a flat for which he pays a rental of R50 per month which is equivalent to the 6 per cent interest on the R10,000 which Mr. A has already invested in his house. B, therefore, not having invested his R10,000 in a house, has this R10,000 to invest which he does at 6 per cent and he gets R600 per annum on that investment. So Mr. B’s taxable income is (a) the R6,000 he has as income and (b) the additional R600 per annum. That gives him an income of R6,600 per annum, because he has not used his R10,000 to buy a house on which there is no income, but has used that monney for investment and the proceeds of that investment he has to utilize to pay his rent. So his income is now R6,600 and his tax is R856 per annum. So because B did not invest his money in a house but in something else and hired a flat, his rent is no longer R50 per month. Because his additional tax is R174 his rent becomes R64.50.

He is the mug.

Yes, he is the mug. Now, Sir, there are many people who would like to own a flat. I would because of the tax I would save. And there are many others, but we cannot. The machinery for owning a flat is so difficult, so cumbersome and so unintelligent that we have to go on paying rentals. It is difficult for Members of Parliament to own houses the way we have to travel to and fro. So you have to invest your money, if you are lucky enough to have any, earn income on it, pay tax on that income and then pay your rent. If anybody in this House, or anybody else, is fortunate enough to have an incremental rate of tax of 50 cents on the rand they have to earn twice as much as their rental to be able to pay their rental. Therefore it becomes very important to a person that he should be able to have ownership, not only because of the fact that he will be able to bond his property or lease it or sell it, or deal with it as if it were his own, but also because of the incidence of tax. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this motion will commend itself to the hon. the Minister.

Notwithstanding the vast amount of interest which has been shown by hon. members in this discussion it nevertheless remains a matter of considerable importance to quite a number of people in South Africa. As the hon. member has said I said in 1957 that this was a racket and that it was a racket which originated chiefly in Cape Town and Durban—that is no reflection on the citizens of Cape Town or Durban; it just happened to have started there. Since then it has spread to the rest of the country. It is a racket in so far as that people think they are acquiring something which they are actually not acquiring at all. They think they are actually becoming the owner of that flat whereas they are not becoming that at all. They are in an extremely unprotected position if the business methods of the company, as the hon. member has said, are not above reproach. The so-called owner of the flat may afterwards find, through no action of his own, that he has ceased to be the owner of that flat. The company may go insolvent as a result of speculation or something like that. The position is really most unsatisfactory.

The hon. member went into a method by which this difficulty might be overcome. I think those hon. members who listened to him would have realized one thing in particular and that is that this whole mater is an extremely intricate one. The reason why no steps have been taken up to the present time to deal with this matter is because of its intricacy. If I might be allowed to recapitulate the history as far as Parliament is concerned it might help. As the hon. member pointed out in 1957 the hon. member for Pine town (Mr. Hopewell) introduced a private Bill into Parliament. I suggested to the hon. member at the time, before he introduced his Bill to which I was very sympathetic, that the matter should be sent to a Select Committee because of its intricate nature and because of the repercussions it might have. It was sent to a Select Committee which sat a considerable time on it, sufficiently long to discover that it was so intricate that they could do nothing about it at that time and they suggested that nothing should be done for the time being. They did, however, suggest that two other Acts of Parliament might be altered to improve the position to a certain extent but the Deeds Registry Office did not think that that would overcome the difficulty to any extent whatsoever.

The subsequent history is that I then asked the Deeds Registry Office to investigate this question and to see whether anything could be done. They recommended to me that I appoint a Committee to investigate the registration of flats as this was done in various countries overseas. The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) has mentioned a number of countries where legislation has been passed and where ownership does vest in the occupier of the flat —countries like Britain, France, West Germany, Australia and New Zealand. Most of that legislation was passed after World War II. But in the case of France and Scotland this practice seems to be older than the last war. I think this probably has something to do with the French and Scotch character in that they are both ownership-of-land conscious. A race which is very conscious of land ownership generally wishes to have title deeds that are, one might say, beyond reproach. I think that is the reason why these two countries were the first to do anything in this matter.

As a result of this recommendation I appointed a committee consisting of the Chief Registrar of Deeds, as Chairman and a small deeds office committee in collaboration with the Surveyor General and the Director General of Surveys of Cape Town. A certain amount of difficulty immediately arose between the surveyors and the Registrar of Deeds. The surveyor is a person who is accustomed to framing a plan in respect of flat country, a plan of land, and he could not see his way open to survey something up in the air. That is quite natural. At any rate that difficulty seemed to have been overcome. As the hon. member has pointed out there has lately been a growing desire amongst flat-dwellers to own their flats in a way in which their ownership would be safeguarded, which is not the case to-day. That committee went into the matter; they got literature through our consuls from all those countries where they have legislation on this matter. Although the legislation in the various countries is similar, that committee came to the conclusion that the French legislation was the most suitable. A considerable amount of literature on this subject is in existence. Various learned books have been written. There are books by a Mr. George and a Mr. Roth and various other people with regard to this matter. They all come to the conclusion that it can be done; that it is an intricate matter but that it is a necessary step that must be taken in view of the growing demand for flats and also because of the so-called trafficking in the sale of flats.

As the hon. member has pointed out we have a registration system in this country which I think—and we have reason to think so—is as good as that of any other country. Some countries think our system is the best. That is due to the fact that we in South Africa are very land conscious. Everybody in South Africa likes to have a piece of land registered in his name; he wants ‘kaart en transport’. No matter how humble a person may be he wants some time or other to have ‘kaart en transport’ of a piece of land. Even the flat-dwellers are to-day becoming sufficiently South Africans to want their particular flats registered in their names, although they are not situated on the land but up in the air. It is necessary for us, if we want to maintain our present system of registration, to make provision for this growing desire to have the ownership of flats registered in a proper way.

I don’t know on how many occasions this year private motions have been accepted by the Minister concerned. But I have no objection whatsoever to this House accepting the motion of the hon. member for Park town. Not that I like the hon. member’s politics but during my many years of experience in this House I have discovered that people who know very little about politics sometimes know quite a lot about other things. This applies to the hon. member who has introduced this motion. It is a want which is felt in South Africa and I came to the conclusion some time ago that something should be done in this matter. I want to say why I am perfectly willing to accept this motion and that is because, like a good Minister belonging to a sensible Party, I have anticipated the motion of the hon. member and the Chief Registrar of Deeds is already busy drafting a Bill to give effect to the motion which the hon. member has introduced to-day. So I have no objection whatsoever to accepting his motion except to say that it is rather ‘mostert na die maal’, to put it that way. But I have no objection to the hon. member moving a post-dated motion; it merely shows that this is a growing want. I know quite a number of members spoke on that Bill in 1957 and they all realized that this was necessary. I am glad to be able to tell the hon. member that we are busy with it.

What we will do is this: We will publish this Bill in the Government Gazette, I hope, in the second half of this year and we shall then ask interested parties to react to it and make suggestions. If the suggestions are acceptable we shall introduce a Bill during the 1965 Session of Parliament. It may be necessary to send it to a Select Committee to investigate the various reactions of interested parties. But we intend introducing legislation next year.

From what I have said I hope the hon. member will not insist on a commission being appointed because an interdepartmental committee was appointed. They brought out a report on which we are acting and we shall introduce legislation next year. I think that should satisfy the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister and I seem to be ad idem. He anticipated my motion and I have anticipated the fact that he was doing something about it. I think the hon. Minister will also agree that it is necessary to put these matters on the Order Paper occasionally for Ministers who are not as anticipative as the hon. the Minister. I am very grateful for what the hon. the Minister has said; I am very glad to know that this matter is being proceeded with and with the leave of the House I shall withdraw my motion.