I move as an amendment—

I just want to say that this amendment does not really change the spirit of the clause, except that it is in conformity with the agreement made with the Administrators concerned.

This amendment makes the original intention very clear, namely, that the Administrators must be consulted in respect of powers which fall under the provincial council before such powers can be delegated.

I move—

1. (1) The Parliament of the Republic of South Africa may by resolution of the House of Assembly and of the Senate, from time to time confer upon the council the power to make laws in respect of any subject specified in paragraph (a) of sub-section (6) of Section 17.

I feel that this is a sufficiently important clause for us to take a little trouble in first reading the existing provision, so that members may have a clear picture in their minds of exactly what we are setting out to do by way of this amendment. The existing subsection (1) of Clause 21 says that the State President (which is the Minister) may by proclamation in the Gazette confer upon the council the power to make laws in respect of any specified subject falling within any matter referred to in paragraph (a) of sub-section (6) of Section 17, and thereupon the council shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have the same power to make laws in regard to such subject as is vested in Parliament.

My amendment has the effect of transferring the right of vesting these powers in the council to Parliament, where we believe it belongs. What right has the Minister to delegate the supreme power of this Parliament to make laws to a body which he himself during the course of the debate has described as a body of people who are not capable of managing their own affairs? We do not agree with that point of view, but this Minister himself has belittled this body and the people who are going to serve on it. He said they were not sufficiently developed and not capable of managing their own affairs. As the result of that, he has had to insert safeguards whereby he retains the control and will not give any power or authority whatever to this body. Only last night he reminded us that the purpose of this body was not to be legislative, but that it was an advisory body.

I never said that. I deny that I said it.

Then I will accept the Minister’s word. My hearing must have deteriorated overnight. The point is that this Bill and the discussion of it in the Committee Stage have made it quite clear that it is intended as an advisory body, and where it has any powers at all, even to recommend to the Government that certain things be done, those have been circumscribed by a saving clause which has vested the right in this hon. Minister to decide whether they shall even make that recommendation or not. So, all through the piece, we have had the argument from the Minister and from hon. members opposite to show us that the Coloured people for whom this council is intended are not capable of managing their own affairs. That has gone on over and over again on almost every clause we have discussed in this Bill. The proof comes from the fact that the Bill does not fully implement the undertakings given to the Coloured people by the Prime Minister in 1961. From this side of the House we have made that point time and time again. So the purpose of my amendment is not to take away the powers, if any, which are given to the Coloured council in this clause—I have re-stated it in my amendment—but to give to this Parliament the right to delegate the supreme power to make laws, and not to this hon. Minister. Why should we give this Minister the right and the power to delegate our authority in the same area over which this Parliament has supreme power? And let me remind this Minister that it is his Government and his side of the House who have stated from time to time that they made this Parliament supreme. That has been their argument all these years. They are the people who put Parliament above every other body in this land, and yet here this Minister almost has the impertinence—I think it is impertinence —to come to this House and ask that he, a junior Minister—and the fact that he is a junior Minister is proved by the fact that his Vote is only No. 43 in the Estimates—shall have the right, by himself, and not acting in consultation with this House in any way, to delegate the authority of this Parliament to make laws, which will have the same force as the laws of this Parliament.

But this Parliament gives him the power to do so, and it can take away that right again.

Let the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) listen. He can get up and contradict me if I am wrong. This Minister can delegate the powers of this Parliament to another group of people whom he considers inferior. He can delegate to them the powers to make laws in reeard to such subjects as are vested in Parliament. Now, in the case of the Transkei the position is obviously different because this Parliament has decided to cut off a part of our country and to give it to another section of the community, and turn it eventually into a foreign country with a parliament of its own. But here he is giving this power to a body in the same area over which this Parliament has full and supreme jurisdiction.

What about your race federation plan?

The hon. the Minister of Transport obviously does not understand our race federation plan. I am prepared to give him a lesson in it, but he is quite wrong. But let us get back to the point under discussion. I and this side of the House are not prepared under the circumstances to give to this Minister, above all others, possibly, because during the course of this debate he has shown himself to be the Minister least suited to have these powers, the power to delegate the supreme right of Parliament to make laws governing a section of our community which resides within the area over which this Parliament has sole jurisdiction.

I am surprised at the audacity of a junior member of this Parliament in moving this amendment.

Order! Hon. members on both sides should refrain from making personal remarks.

The hon. member suggests that only Parliament, the House of Assembly and the Senate, should have the right to confer certain legislative powers on this council, but it must be remembered that Parliament is in session for less than six months of the year. It may be necessary for this council to consider urgent measures in which case they will have to wait for six months until Parliament meets so that Parliament can confer the necessary legislative powers on them. Hon. members of the Opposition are trying to wreck this council. Just look at the wording of this amendment, Sir—

Legislative powers which will probably have to be delegated to this council will now have to stand over until Parliament meets. The matter may not even appear on the Order Paper at the beginning of the session and six or nine months may pass before the matter comes up before this House. Hon. members of the Opposition want to wreck the whole idea of this council in that way and that is why I do not think the hon. the Minister can accept this amendment in any circumstances. I may just tell hon. members that on Tuesday evening I met a deputation of five members of the Coloured council. This was one of the clauses they were concerned about; I explained it to them and all five accepted it as it stands.

Sir, this clause is a very important one indeed and deserves the very careful consideration of this Committee. What does this clause purport to do? If you refer to the marginal note you will see that it purports to confer legislative powers on the council. And how does it purport to do so? It says—

The State President may by proclamation in the Gazette confer upon the council the power to make laws in respect of any specified subject …

That is to say, in matters of finance, local government, education, community welfare and pensions, and rural areas and settlements for Coloureds. Those are the five specified subjects to which this council is restricted. The council will be entitled to deal legislatively with any of these five subjects provided the State President confers that power upon them by proclamation in the Gazette. Sir, let us make it absolutely clear once again that the “State President” is merely a name used in this connection; when we use the term “State President” it means the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs.

No, the Cabinet.

Yes, he will go to the Cabinet and the Cabinet will authorize the Minister of Coloured Affairs to confer this power upon the council. The point I am trying to make is that this council can only function in relation to these five matters if the Minister, through the Cabinet, confers these powers on the Coloured council by proclamation in the Gazette. Surely, Sir, this is not conferring real legislative power upon this council, or indeed any sort of power at all. It is this clause which has invited such a great deal of ridicule and amusement throughout the whole country.

You are exaggerating.

Let me tell the hon. member that it is this clause which has been represented by the South African Digest, which is issued by the Government, in the following light—and let him now swallow these words. What does the S.A. Digest say in relation to this very clause?—

Then it goes on to say in relation to this very clause—

In other words, should a proclamation be issued by the State President on the recommendation of the Cabinet, what happens then?—

Does my hon. friend still say that I am exaggerating? This comes from the organ of the Government itself, the S.A. Digest. That is what the S.A. Digest says in giving a résumé of this Bill and of the effect of this clause. I repeat that this clause is of sufficient importance to warrant the most careful attention of this Committee. My hon. friend rose to protest against the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis), because he says that that amendment is impractical; that you cannot give effect to it because this Parliament will only be sitting six months of the year; it will be in recess for the remaining six months, and how can this Parliament from time to time confer legislative power on this council? Well, I dealt with that situation in an amendment which I have on the Order Paper, and I now move the amendment—

The effect of my amendment will be that the council, not by authority of the State President, not by authority of the Minister of Coloured Affairs, shall have power to make laws in respect of any specified subject, and I am again restricting it to the five subjects that we have already authorized the council to deal with; the council shall have power to make laws in respect of any specified subject falling within any matter referred to in paragraph (a) of sub-section (6) of Section 17, and the council shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have the same power to make laws in regard to such subjects as is vested in Parliament. In other words, we restrict the council to the five subject-matters that we have already dealt with in Clause 17, e.g. the question of finance, local government, education, community development and pensions and rural areas and settlements for Coloureds. Real legislative power will then be vested in the council in respect of those subjects without the interference or domination of the Minister of Coloured Affairs, and then this criticism that rightly comes from the S.A. Digest and from those who criticize this matter will disappear. Then, Sir, the S.A. Digest and others who criticize this measure will not be able to say that the impotent powers that the council will have will only be to pass Bills of the choosing of the Minister of Coloured Affairs, instead of his having those Bills passed by Parliament. I say that the hon. the Minister can go a long way to eliminate the ridicule that has been thrown upon this clause if he will accept the amendment that we put forward here. After all, we have restricted the council to these five subject-matters that I have mentioned; they cannot go beyond these five subject-matters. Why not vest true legislalive power in the council without the domination or interference of the hon. the Minister.

Order! I regret that I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment in sub-section (1) as their effect would be to extend the legislative scope of the council beyond that contemplated by the House when the Bill was read a second time.

It is a good thing the country is not dependent for its information on the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) if he wants to know the truth. What are the facts in connection with this matter? The facts in connection with this matter are that in Clause 17 this Parliament is asked to delegate powers to this council in respect of certain matters. Those matters include finance. It is specifically stated how those finances should be made available to the council. Secondly local government—and in respect of local government this Parliament has already passed a law in which the basis is laid down—and, thirdly, rural areas and Coloured settlements. In respect of those rural areas and Coloured settlements too, this Parliament has already accepted a basis; fourthly, social welfare and pensions and for that purpose this Parliament has already accepted a law as well. In other words, the matters in respect of which this House is asked to give the Coloured council administrative and legislative powers have already been laid down in the form of legislation. What is assumed here is that further administrative steps flowing from that legislation may perhaps have to be taken, and then this council will be able to take those further steps. But what does the Bill say further? This Bill provides that those powers may, by proclamation, be entrusted to that council after the Cabinet has deliberated the matter, assumed joint responsibility and advised the State President to issue such a proclamation. It is not the Minister of Coloured Affairs who makes the decisions, as suggested by the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg). What does the Bill provide further? I may not discuss that clause at the moment, Sir, but we must read these clauses in relation to one another. The Bill provides further that no legislation adopted by the council may clash with an Act of this Parliament. In other words, the State President will not be able to entrust this council with power to make a law which clashes with an existing Act of this Parliament. But, Sir, hon. members of the Opposition completely ignore the facts reflected in this Bill.

However, I want to come to a second point. Let me say this to the hon. member for Umlazi who holds himself out to be such a senior member in this House. I am very pleased that I am one of the junior Ministers because that means I shall still outlive him as a junior member. The hon. member is very concerned about the fact that this council will not have legislative powers. What does his amendment amount to? His amendment amounts to this that he wants to deprive this council of all legislative power, and the main stigma that was attached to this council during the second-reading debate—that was the chorus we had from the Opposition throughout—was that this council was a mockery because it would not have any legislative power. Now that we are getting to the crux of the matter, now that the matter is put to the test, what does he do? He puts both his big feet into the trap. He now tries to deprive the council of its power, power which they according to him, do not have. That simply shows how little notice one can take of the hon. member for Umlazi. That is the sort of stupid argument the Opposition have made themselves guilty of right from the start. I am sorry but I am not prepared to make this side party to such stupidity and that is why I shall not accept the amendment of the hon. member. He objects to the legislative powers the council has but the chorus we continually had from that side was that the council had no legislative power. The hon. member for Peninsula now wishes to give the council more power while the object of this clause is to make the transfer orderly. The amendment I have moved establishes the procedure whereby there will be consultation with the provinces where they are affected and with the Central Government where the Central Government is affected. After there has been consultation we shall act within the powers given us by this Parliament in Clause 17. These are the facts, Sir, and any other representation of the contents of this Bill is false.

The hon. the Minister will remember that when we discussed Clause 19 I moved an amendment to the effect that we should substitute “this Parliament” for “State President”; in other words, I suggested at that stage that we were taking the power of the legislature, that is to say, Parliament, and placing it in the hands of the Executive, i.e. the Cabinet, as the hon. the Prime Minister correctly pointed out. Sir, that was a minor matter really. It was only in regard to the fixing of the emoluments of the members of this council. But now we go very much further; we now say that they have the power to make laws at any time. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) has pointed out that there may be occasions when urgent measures are required. Well, we have carried on in South Africa for well over 50 years with Parliament sitting only five months a year, and when there have been urgent matters, on very rare occasions—perhaps once in a decade—we have had a second session of Parliament. I cannot conceive of a second session being necessary to give additional powers to the Coloured council. I feel that it is unnecessary to give these powers to the Cabinet. What we are asking is that the power to authorize legislation should be given by this Parliament. It may possibly become merely formal consent; that I cannot say; it depends on the circumstances in the future. But I am very reluctant as a member of this legislature to hand over this power to our Cabinet. Our Cabinet cannot make laws for South Africa; they may not make the laws; we in this House make the laws—hon. members sitting on that side and on this side of the House. The Cabinet may suggest them and put them before us but we are the people who make the laws, and it has happened occasionally that private members have put laws through this House.

The Cabinet is the body which formulates the policy.

The Cabinet may formulate the policy and submit the Act to give effect to its policy to this Parliament. But the absolute power in any democratic country rests with the legislature, not with the executive. Therefore, Sir, I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umlazi.

I just want to say a few words about the practical value of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis). Let us assume for a moment that the hon. member for Umlazi remains in the Opposition and that his amendment is accepted; in other words, this side of the House remains in the Government benches. If there were to be a suggestion that legislative powers in respect of a certain matter should be given to this council, surely it can only come from the Government; it will only be the Government who will be able to give effect to such a suggestion, not the Opposition. Supposing the Government suggested that such legislative powers be given to the council. What could that hon. member do if there were such a suggestion? He could either support or reject it.

Are you simply a rubber stamp?

No, I wish to analyse the practical value of the hon. member’s amendment. The only thing the hon. member will be able to do will be to support or reject that suggestion by the Government side, in which event he will in any case be in no better position than if he were to leave the matter in the hands of the Minister or of the Government. Alternatively, if he does not agree with the suggestion he must oppose it and if he does so he delays the process further. [Interjections.] Sir, if hon. members do not like to hear what I am saying here they should in any case give me an opportunity of saying it; I know they do not like it. The only thing the hon. member can do is to oppose it when the Government suggests giving legislative power to this council and in that case he will be delaying the granting of legislative power to this council still further. In other words, what he is really asking for to-day is the right to delay the granting of legislative power to the council still further.

To discuss.

In any case he says the council has no legislative powers.

May I ask a question? Does the hon. member’s argument amount to this: Is he suggesting that he regards this Government as a dictatorship?

Quite correct.

I do not think that question deserves a reply. I am trying to analyse the practical value of the hon. member’s amendment. If this side of the House remains in power and that side remains in Opposition they can only delay the granting of legislative power to that council or they must agree with what the Government does because the governing party who makes such a suggestion surely has the majority in this House. All we are asking for is that the Government should be able, when it deems it necessary, whether the House is in session or not, to entrust that council with legislative power. The position would be the same if that hon. member were ever to sit on the Government side. In that case he will have the power, when he deems it fit, to delegate legislative power to this council. Therefore, an analysis of his amendment will amount to the same thing if that side were in power.

The hon. member for Peninsula suggested that it would be exclusively within the power of the Minister to entrust these legislative powers to this council. Surely that is not correct. Let us look at the last two lines of subsection (1)—

In other words, it is a subject, in the first instance, in connection with which legislative power is given to this House. In other words, this council will only get legislative power within the framework of existing legislation approved by this Parliament, and only within that framework. The position is the same in respect of Provincial Council ordinances. The Provincial Council ordinances may not clash with Acts of this Parliament and legislation passed by this council may not clash with Acts of this Parliament either. They will have power to make laws in regard to certain subjects within the framework of the legislative powers entrusted to them.

I just want to refer to sub-section (2). I wish to point out how necessary it is that the Minister of Finance should approve of such legislation. Yesterday the hon. member for Kensington said: “Yes, reference is made here to finance but where are they going to get those finances from and how are they going to spend it?” There are two ways of dealing with finances. [Interjections.] No, I know it is not this clause but the reason is clear here why it is so necessary that the hon. the Minister of Finance should be consulted because the finances over which this council will have control will have to be voted by this Parliament and because of that the Minister of Finance must be properly informed about the matter and make the necessary provision. In order to be in line with the provisions of Clause 20 (3) it must also be done by the mediation and approval of the Minister of Coloured Affairs.

The hon. member who has just sat down has removed the very cloak with which this Government always clothes itself when it deals with Parliament or with the executive or any of the functions of government. Sir, this is a most scandalous admission from an hon. member of this House. What he said was that the amendment of the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) did not really make any difference at all because, he said, even if the legislation came, in terms of the amendment, that is to say, from Parliament, then it comes from the Government in any event so it does not make any difference. That is what he said. What a scandalous admission! What it amounts to is that as far as the hon. member is concerned this Parliament is the Nationalist Party caucus; that the decision of the Nationalist Party caucus is the decision of the executive, and the decision of the executive, as we know, is the decision of the hon. the Prime Minister. That is what it means. What the hon. member has just done is to admit to the world that he is just another one of the sychophants who are prepared to back anything that the Cabinet does. Shame on him, Sir! Shame on him as a member of this House; shame on him as a person elected to represent the people!

If that is your only argument it is a very poor one.

It is not my argument, Sir; it is the hon. member’s argument. That is what his argument amounts to. Does the hon. member sit in meetings of the Cabinet when the State President is advised what he should do in this regard? Of course he does not. What the hon. member is saying is that he does not care that he is not there because anything that the executive does is O.K. by him because he is a member of the Nationalist Party and it is the duty of every member of the Nationalist Party to do what he is told. Sir, what an extraordinary reflection upon that hon. member, which he has also cast on every other hon. member on that side of the House.

The amendment of the hon. member for Umlazi is simply this, that we as Parliament should deoide from time to time what powers should be given to this council, to which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North), the legal adviser to this body, says, “Oh, you cannot really do this because you might have to wait six months or nine months”. Good Lord, Sir, the hon. the Minister says that he is not going to set up this council until 1966, so how does the argument of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) hold any water at all?

When it starts functioning.

When it starts functioning in 1966. Surely one would think that the hon. member, who is the legal adviser to this body, will have some idea by 1966 as to how he is going to formulate the particular proclamation which the State President is going to promulgate.

That is to say, if he is still there.

Hon. members over there are prepared to abrogate all their powers to the executive and, moreover, they are prepared to do it without any inkling as to what sort of legislation this body is going to pass. Sir, let us examine this. This body is going to pass laws which will have the force and effect of an Act of Parliament; they will be statutes. The only reservation that there is in relation to the effectiveness of such a statute is that it must not be repugnant to any existing Acts of Parliament. This power which is granted in this Bill is, in any event, fallacious when you look at it in this regard: Nowhere does it say the area or the people to whom the law is to apply. All the Bill says is that the council will have the same power to make laws in regard to such subjects as is vested in Parliament. It does not specify the area to which such laws will apply; it does not specify the people to whom they will apply. It does not say that those laws will only apply to Coloured people.

Now you are getting really clever.

You cannot reply to us. Section 59 of the Constitution of the Republic sets out the powers of Parliament very clearly. It states that it is the sovereign body in relation to the Republic of South Africa. Section 85 tells you the areas over which the provinces will have jurisdiction; Section 37 of the Transkeian Constitution Act deals not only with the area of jurisdiction but it also stipulates the people to whom the laws of that council will apply, whether they be inside or outside the Transkei. But this Bill does not. All it says is that the laws of the council will be the same as Acts of Parliament. Now, Parliament has the power to make laws in relation to any subject it likes, in relation to any people it likes and in relation to any part of South Africa it likes. Is that the right this council is supposed to have? Is it supposed to have power to make laws only in relation to the Coloured people or in relation to all the people of South Africa?

I am very pleased to see the hon. the Minister is completing his education by having with him at all times a copy of our policy—he has just taken it out of his drawer. Let me tell the hon. the Minister that when we are the Government and when we start framing the laws in relation to our policy, we shall make it clear that a communal council will have power to deal with members of that group in relation to that communal council and not in relation to anyone else in the country.

If this council is only going to make laws in relation to the Coloured people, the hon. the Minister mpst say so. He must not leave it as it is here—“in regard to such power as vested in Parliament”. That means that council have unlimited power in respect of all people. It is no good the Minister arguing that when a Bill is passed by this body it will contain a provision to the effect that it will only apply to Coloured people. What is being given here, Sir, is unlimited power in respect of certain limited subject-matter in relation to all the people of South Africa and in relation to all the areas of South Africa.

I put a case to the hon. the Minister during the second reading which I want to put again: Take an area in which no Coloured people actually live or trade, an area to which Coloured people do not normally go. Supposing that is a White area. Can this council make a law to apply to those Coloured people who just walk through that area for instance? Can they do it? It is not clear at all. If the Minister really intends to give this council the power to make laws the Minister must tell us what they are. [Time limit.]

The somewhat indignant attitude of the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) did not impress me greatly. I shall tell the hon. member why not. The hon. member made a great issue of the fact that this House did not retain all the responsibility and that it granted certain powers to the executive authority, powers which this House really ought to exercise itself. The hon. member for Kinsington (Mr. Moore) also said that. I take it that the hon. member for Durban (North) I nows a great deal about the development of constitutional law in the world. Take the development of the British constitutional law: The British Parliament never did the things he is so indignant about to-day and says we are not doing. The “Orders in Council”, “Letters Patent” and other measures taken by their “Board of Trade” were all taken on behalf of the executive authority. The British Parliament never did the things he indignantly demands this Parliament should do on the around that it would otherwise be an infringement of the rights of our sovereign Parliament. That has never happened in the history of our constitutional law.

You have a British bias; that is your difficulty.

I only want to point out to the hon. member that his argument is not quite correct—he is too indignant. England even went so far as to give constitutions to countries, which shortly afterwards became dominions, by way of executive action; they did not pass laws through the British Parliament for that purpose. It so happened that our Constitution of 1909 was an Act of the British Parliament but many others were not.

On the basis of that I want to say to the hon. member that his indignation has not convinced me. But I now come to the real point made by him and also by the hon. member for Kensington. In Clause 21 this Parliament lays down the subjects on which the Coloured council can pass legislation. It clearly states—

The five, namely, finance, local government, etc. are, then set out in Clause 17 (6) (a)—“as they affect Coloured persons”. Surely the field of the legislative power of the council is defined here. Surely it is a very wide field, Mr. Chairman. Take “finance”; that is a wide field—take community welfare, education, pensions, etc. This clause on which we differ so widely only provides that the State President, i.e. the Minister, i.e. the Cabinet, may hand over to the council certain specified subjects within that wide field and say: “You may make laws in connection with these” and those laws will be valid in terms of the instrument we are to-day passing here. The State President cannot hand over to the council anything which is outside the field of the legislative power of this House, a field which we are now demarcating and entrenching in this legislation, to legislate over. That is why I honestly differ from hon. members opposite; I think they are very wrong.

The Minister may have made his stand clear as to what he believes this council will do and how it should function. Hon. members opposite have been at some pains to try to deal with the difficulties of executive government but I think it is also essential that we have regard to the prerogative of Parliament in regard to this whole matter. I therefore move as an amendment—

1. (3) The Minister shall cause a copy of every proclamation issued under subsection (1) to be laid upon the Tables of the Senate and the House of Assembly within 14 days after publication thereof if Parliament is in ordinary session or if Parliament is not in ordinary session within 14 days after the commencement of its next ensuing ordinary session.
2. (4) Every such proclamation shall cease to have the force of law 90 days after it has been laid upon the Tables of the Senate and the House of Assembly unless before that date it has been approved by resolution of the Senate and of the House of Assembly.

It was not possible to put this amendment on the Order Paper but I have provided the hon. the Minister with a copy. We are dealing with a serious matter, Sir, in so far as Parliament itself is concerned. This clause is of major importance to this new executive council but it is of even greater importance to this House and to Parliament as the final arbiter in all matters of administration. My amendment is designed precisely to preserve the sovereignty of this Parliament. Whenever Parliament surrenders any of its legislative functions and passes these on to some sort of subordinate body such as this new council it is very necessary that Parliament should still remain master of a situation of its own creation. And that is what my amendment is designed to do. In this case the surrender of power by Parliament is to be by a process of sub-delegation of legislative power to this council, power which may be included in a proclamation issued by executive government.

The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) rather complicated the matter instead of elucidating it by dealing with the scope of the word “subject” as he has done. He makes it more imperative, I think, that my amendment be accepted because if the subject of delegation is to be as wide as the terms within which he spoke the need for preserving the prerogative of Parliament in a matter of this nature becomes all the greater. In effect my amendment will leave the executive government a free hand to act as it deems fit. It will remove the practical difficulties which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) and the hon. member for Ceres have referred to, but at the same time it will ensure that there will be approval by this Parliament of what has been done by proclamation. It is not sufficient that Parliament should only be kept informed; it should also have the opportunity to approve or to disapprove. If Parliament itself should disapprove of the powers conferred upon this council by proclamation it is obviously in the public interest that such disapproval should be signified at the earliest possible time. Such a disapproval should be signified after proper debate and consideration in this House. My amendment will have the effect of just doing that. That safeguard is essential here because again we are dealing with arbitrary powers, powers which are set out in this clause. These powers are set out, as the hon. member for Ceres has indicated, in very wide and unlimited terms. Once the council is given those powers it makes it laws as though those were laws of this Parliament, subject only to one reservation and that is the repugnancy rule which is contained in Clause 25. The repugnancy rule which applies also to Provincial Ordinances is the only reservation at present.

The principle set out in the amendment I have just moved is one which has been accepted by this House on at least three occasions in earlier legislation, and one of those was legislation introduced by this same hon. Minister, namely, the preservation of Coloured Areas Act, No. 31 of 1961. That was an instance where the prerogative and the sovereignty of Parliament were preserved, as they should have been. This legislation is far more fundamental, far wider, and less clearly defined to this House as to Vhat is going to happen. In this case, therefore, there is greater need for the safeguards contained in my amendment.

Let me repeat, that the clause itself is important as far as the council is concerned but it is much more important as far as this House and Parliament itself are concerned. If we are to observe the rules of parliamentary government this is an instance where there should be a preservation of the sovereignty of Parliament. As I have said, my amendment removes the practical difficulties raised by hon. members opposite as to delays; it leaves the executive a free hand but it places upon the executive this additional duty of justifying what it has done before this Parliament. If there is to be approval it will be the approval of this House as an institution. If there is disapproval, as there might be on occasions, that disapproval should be signified as early as possible in the form which will make it most effective. I hope hon. members will not advance the argument that proclamations are at any rate laid on the Table of the House and become public property. We know, as a practical proposition, such action has no real significance in the House. There is a necessary addendum to that tabling of documents which will place an onus not on a member of the Opposition but on the executive, the Government itself, to get approval of what has been done in a proclamation of this nature.

I am prepared to accept the first part of the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman), namely, (3). I am not prepared, however, to accept (4) because I think it will only have a delaying effect and cause a great deal of trouble, also to this House. I do not think it will, at this stage, contribute in a practical way, to facilitating the process we are starting in this Bill.

In any case we can read it in the Government Gazette!

Is that the attitude of the hon. member? But I am in any case addressing myself to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South). I am not dealing with the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell).

I am, therefore, not prepared to accept the first part of the amendment because the council will always feel it is knee-haltered in respect of those very things Parliament has already decided in principle to delegate to it.

I wish to return to the argument advanced particularly by the vocal member of Durban (North). I again want to make those few submissions and I challenge the hon. member to deny that they are correct; in the first place, that legislative powers are entrusted to this council in Clause 21, and they are entrusted in respect of specified subjects as set out in Clause 17. When he gets a turn to speak the hon. member can use it to deny this if he wishes.

I can read.

In other words, we have now reached a stage where the official Opposition, through their own action, have made fools of themselves by suggesting that legislative powers were not being given to this council. That is the first point which is as clear as a pikestaff. The second point is that by way of an amendment the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) wants to deprive the council of the powers we are giving them here.

That is not true.

He wants to set a long delaying action in motion so as to make that impossible.

My second submission is that provision is made in this Bill that the legislative powers entrusted to this council may not clash with any law of this Parliament. I challenge the hon. member for Durban (North) to deny that.

I told you that when I spoke.

The third point I want to make is that where this council is now given legislative power, basic legislation has already been passed by this Parliament in respect of these subjects. I wish to mention those subjects again: education, community welfare and pensions, local government, rural areas. In other words, this Parliament has already passed basic legislation with which the legislation of this council may not clash. Hon. members cannot deny that.

All that is asked here is that a process should be set in motion on the basis of legislation already passed by this House and within areas which this House has already, by way of legislation, determined. Because there are rural areas for the Coloureds and there are town and urban areas for them. The hon. member saw me take his party’s statement of policy out of my drawer a moment ago. Even his party adopts the attitude that bodies of this nature can be established for a national group without taking any notice of a specific area.

I know that.

Very well. In other words, the whole argument of the Opposition this afternoon is merely to envelop something, in respect of which they have fallen into their own trap, in a cloud of prejudice. Their propaganda has amounted to nought. And because it has amounted to nought, and they have been exposed by their own actions, we get this opposition this afternoon.

I naturally have to leave it to the hon. the Minister to accept or to reject whatever he wishes to, but I must point out that the acceptance of sub-section (3) and the rejection of sub-section (4) makes the whole amendment quite meaningless. The hon. the Minister accused us of inconsistency when we said, as I did, that this was a toy Parliament with no distinct legislative power. I abide by that, Sir; I do not think it has distinct legislative power. That is one of the reasons for my amendment. As I have tried to point out, my amendment is designed to preserve the prerogative of this Parliament. The hon. the Minister himself has told us that we have already accepted the principle in other legislation that sub-delegated legislative powers of this nature must have the approval of Parliament. If he regards that as “knee-haltering” the council then his argument is fallacious. In fact, it will have the opposite effect. Because as long as the proclamation itself stands, without the approval of this Parliament, that proclamation can be revoked at any time. The power to do something always includes the power to undo it. Once such a proclamation is revoked, as it can be revoked, by executive government at any time the council itself will be “knee-haltered” to a far greater extent; its uncertainty prevails. But if the Minister accepts my amendment it will mean that the approval of Parliament of what the executive government has done will stand and cannot be undone again. As far as that matter is concerned approval will have been granted by Parliament and it cannot be undone without the concurrence of Parliament itself. So that the argument the Minister has advanced to reject paragraph (4) of my proposal is not based on sound grounds at all; it is fallacious.

I do not want to sink to the level of the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) nor to the level of the language he has used. The fact of the matter is this: I have indicated that the practical effect of the amendment of hon. members will be a delay in granting legislative power to this Coloured council.

I want to say a few words in connection with what the hon. member for Durban (North) has said about the unrestricted powers, as he calls them, given in Clause 21. He objects to—

… have the same power to make laws in regard to such subject as is vested in Parliament …

which appears at the end of Clause 21 (1). He says, in terms of our Constitution, this Parliament has unrestricted power to make laws and that the legislative power which is given here to the council must consequently also be unrestricted because that power is not circumscribed here. Mr. Chairman, we have so often had the experience in this Committee that hon. members opposite have either not read the Bill or have not read it properly, because ever so often, one of them has got up and made allegations such as that. It then immediately became clear that they simply did not know what the legislation was all about. He also referred to the Transkeian legislation where restrictions were placed on the scope of the legislation they could make. He says the Minister must tell us what his intention is and if his intention is that they should only be able to make legislation in connection with matters affecting the Coloured people he should say so. I think that was the argument of the hon. member for Durban (North).

Nearly.

If the hon. member looks at Clause 21 he will see it says—

If we turn back to Clause 17 (6) (a) we find it reads—

“in so far as they affect Coloured persons”! Is that a suitable reply to the hon. member?

No. I read that before I spoke.

The hon. member explicitly put it to the Minister that if he intended it to be only in respect of the Coloureds he should say so. But it is not necessary for the Minister to say it; the Bill says it, if the hon. member would only read it. I see no difficulty in that regard.

I want to take the point raised by the hon. Minister a little further. The hon. Opposition agree that we are indeed giving legislative power to the Coloured council in this legislation as it stands at the moment. The only provision we make is that the State President will be competent to say, by way of proclamation, when and in respect of which subjects those legislative powers may be conferred on them. But in effect they are getting it now. Hon. members opposite now want to change the clause in such a way that it will be the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa which will have the right to decide on the legislative powers they are to have. If you leave it to the Senate and the House of Assembly to grant them those legislative powers, Sir, it means they do not have those powers; it means this Bill does not yet confer any legislative powers. In that case they will only get those powers later and provided this House and the Senate decide they can have them. Their amendment, therefore, will mean a delay in the granting of those legislative powers which the United Party were so anxious in the second reading to confer upon those people. They are now retrogressing on that road with the amendment they have moved.

I was well aware of the provisions of Clause 17 (6) (a). It is quite a different thing to say that you are going to make laws which will only apply to a certain group of people than it is to say that you can make laws in so far as they affect a certain group of people. Let me illustrate this. Job reservation affects the Coloured people, group areas legislation affects the Coloured people, education legislation affects the Coloured people. You can make legislation which relates to other groups and to other areas and to other matters and they will have an effect upon the Coloured people. They will affect the Coloured people because they are citizens in South Africa, the place in which the laws are made. This is quite a different thing. The hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, who is sitting here, when he brought his Transkeian Act, made it very clear. In the first place he made provision that the Legislative Assembly should have power to make laws not inconsistent with the Transkeian Act in relation to all matters appearing in Part B, and to provide for the amendment and appeal of any law, including an Act of Parliament, so far as it relates to any such matter … and applies in the Transkei.

You are now trying to get round the issue.

No, I am not. I know that this does not necessarily have to have territorial boundaries. But then he goes on to say: “or to any citizen of the Transkei, whether such citizen is resident within or outside the Transkei”. Then the Act went on in sub-section (2) of Section 37 to say: “Where in terms of the Schedule, the Legislative Assembly is empowered to make laws applicable outside the Transkei, or in relation to citizens of the Transkei … and specifically, Sir, the people to whom the laws would apply were listal. That is not done here. Here it talks about making laws in so far as they affect Coloured persons. It does not say, as it did in the Transkeian Bill and as it would under a United Party Government in relation to communal councils …

You are running away from the issue.

Will the hon. Minister indicate by way of interjection what I am running away from?

Reply to the point I made.

I will reply to what the hon. Minister has said. The hon. Minister rejected the amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman), but if the argument of the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) was correct, then of course the hon. the Minister would have accepted the amendment, because what the hon. member for Ceres said was that it makes no difference whether this House approves of the laws, or whether the Minister does. It comes to exactly the same thing, it is all being done by the Government. If that argument is correct, then surely the hon. Minister can accept the second part of the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South). Either the hon. member for Ceres is wrong or he is right, and if he is right, then the hon. Minister should accept the second part of the amendment. Let me say that the hon. Minister’s gesture in saying that he accepts the first part of the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) amounts to nothing at all. It may have been a gracious gesture, but it means nothing at all. The Minister can lay it on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament. So what! The State President by proclamation in the Gazette has to indicate this in any event. We all get the Gazette sent to us free of charge and we will be able to read it there. So the acceptance of the first part of the amendment does not take the matter any further at all. But what the hon. Minister is running away from as fast as he can is the thought that in the first place Parliament should decide. He puts up some reasons why it should be the way he has put it in the Bill. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) suggests a way in which the hon. Minister can do what he wants to do, and all he has to do then is to come back to this House. It is not going to affect him one little bit, it is not going to affect the standing of the proclamation one little bit, according to the hon. member for Ceres, because according to the hon. member for Ceres all the Government members who are here are just going to vote like a lot of sheep who answer the call of a whistle.

No, no.

Yes. I can understand the hon. Minister running away, but the hon. member for Ceres must not run away also from what he said. He said that it makes no difference whether it is done by the Minister or whether it is done by Parliament—in both instances it is done by the Nationalist Party. That is what he meant. Mr. Chairman, it is quite a different thing to say on the one hand that it is difficult for Parliament from time to time to decide what powers this body should have or in respect of which matters it can make laws, from what it is to say that Parliament should not for ever relinquish any sort of control that it might have in relation to the matters that it is now giving away. An amendment such as the hon. member has proposed has very often been accepted in this House. At least it would be a graceful gesture, after the speech of the hon. member for Ceres, a graceful gesture to our parliamentary institutions, to our Constitution, to accept the second nart of the amendment.

What is the second part?

It says that every such proclamation shall cease to have the force of law 90 days after it has been laid on the Tables of the House of Assembly and the Senate, unless before that date it has been approved by resolution the Senate and the House of Assembly. But in their haste to rush and vote according to what was decided in their caucus, according to the whistle of the hon. Minister, the hon. members …

Order! The hon. member is now repeating what has been said more than once.

Yes, Sir, I am coming to a new point. They seem to have forgotten another statute which applies here very much and that is the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. What does the preamble say at the end? “We are charged with the task of founding the Republic of South Africa and giving it a constitution best suited to the traditions and history of our land.”

Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause.

With submission, may I address you on that point?

Order! Will the hon. member resume his seat.

On a point of order, may the hon. member not address you on a point of order?

The hon. member may not argue with the Chair.

May I address you on a point of order, Sir? The point of order that I wish a ruling from you on is the question as to whether, this Bill and this clause being a constitutional matter and affecting the provisions of the Constitution Act in relation to the powers of Parliament, I may refer in the debate on this clause to the Constitution which is being affected? That is the point of order on which I ask your ruling.

The hon. Minister has from time to time repeated certain phrases that he used in his second-reading speech, about “hypocrisy”, a “farce”, and so on. This is the clause that makes the whole issue a farce. This is the clause that breaks the Utopian bubble that the hon. the Prime Minister held out to the Coloured people. This reminds me of the story of a man who wanted to be very good to one of his employees, and he had a £100 note and he tore the note in half and he said: “Here is £50 for you.” The employee thought that he had £50, but it was of no value to him. The hon. the Minister gives the half of the £100 note to the Coloured people, but he knows that it is of no value to them. If the hon. Minister wants to give these people certain powers, he must accept the amendment of the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) to delete subsection (2), because then the clause will read that “the State President may by proclamation confer upon the council the power to make laws in respect of any specified subject falling within any matter referred to in paragraph (a) of sub-section (6), and thereupon the council shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have the same power to make laws in regard to such subject as vested in Parliament”. That is a power, and the hon. Minister has to a certain extent confirmed the point I want to make namely, that this Parliament has already made certain laws in regard to the very subjects dealt with in Clause 17. But the Minister is further protected. He has already indicated that there is a clause coming forward, which we still have to discuss, that whatever law this council may make in terms of the first part of Clause 21 (without sub-section (2)), it still cannot be inconsistent with any Act of Parliament, and the Governor-General will not be able to consent to any law made which is inconsistent with any law that Parliament has already made. Then why must you have sub-section (2) in this Bill? Why does the hon. Minister only give them half of the £100 note, which has no value? The hon. Minister has throughout this Bill bound the council hand and foot. They have already got chains around their feet, they have already got chains around their arms, and under this clause, just to make sure that they will not be able to do anything, he puts a chain round their neck. These people have got no freedom of movement. They are marionettes who will have to dance according to how the hon. Minister pulls the strings. I put the question to the hon. the Minister: Why do you want to make these people a spineless body, or group, duly elected as far as the majority is concerned, without powers? Why does he deny them the right to have real powers in order to look after the interests of their own people? The hon. Minister says that he is not concerned about the democratic election of people. They can only pass a law which he, the Minister, agrees to. Really, where in any parliament in the world are members of a democratically elected body so bound hand and foot in relation to the interests of their own people and in relation to matters which affect their own people? I want to say to the hon. the Minister that is offering the Coloured people exactly nothing. The sky is the limit!

What do you offer them?

I offer them a Common Roll with the same political rights as I have. That is what I ask. I will not accept anything less for the Coloured people. This is the clause about which Mr. Arendse wrote. The members of the Coloured council say, rightly or wrongly, that the consequences of these provisions were never explained, and this Bill may not have seen the light of day (they say) if they had known the implications of this clause. The hon. Minister should accept the amendment of the hon. member for Peninsula to delete sub-section (2). Let me repeat also that the hon. Minister can be present at the meeting of the executive committee, he can talk there to them. He will know what type of law they want to pass. He will be there with the Secretary for Coloured Affairs to guide them in regard to any laws. He is the man who mediates when they want to see any other Minister in regard to any matter affecting the Coloured people. He is there all the time. I can hear this new council singing the song “Me and my shadow”. The hon. Minister as their shadow will be there all the time. He has got every possible power to control these people, to guide them, to advise them, to lead them. But he still wants them to be there as marionettes. “No law that I do not agree with, shall be passed by this council.” [Time limit.]

I do not wish to take much notice of what the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) has said, but I should like to revert to the basic point of view adopted by members of the United Party. It has been the point of view of the United Party throughout this debate, and during the second reading too, that the powers conferred upon this Coloured council are not sufficient. That was their basic standpoint. Now this particular clause provides that the State President may, by proclamation (in other words, the Cabinet, or the Government), confer upon the Coloured council certain powers to pass certain laws. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the United Party now object to the State President or the Government having that power. They want this House of Assembly to have that power. Had this clause provided that the State President may by legislation or by proclamation repeal the power to pass certain legislation, then I could understand that hon. members opposite would like to have their say, or would like to object if the Government wishes to repeal that legislation. But this clause specifically provides that the State President will confer that power and not curtail it. In other words, it is something he will give. I do not see any point at all in their attitude. If he is to confer legislative powers upon this council, hon. members surely ought to be glad if they want to be consistent.

Now I should like to refer to the argument of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South). He said that the power to confer a power and to revoke a power are two concomitant matters. But that is not correct, for the legislative powers affected in Clause 21 are powers that have already been provided for in Clause 17. In other words, that power in Clause 17, will not be capable of repeal by the State President by way of proclamation, because this Bill we are now dealing with would have to be amended in that event, and such an amendment can only be made by this Parliament and nobody else. In other words, there is only one matter that is in question, and that is the extension of legislative powers and not the abridgment thereof, and if it is the argument of hon. members opposite that this Coloured council has or is being given less power than they would like to confer, then surely they should say: It is immaterial to us whether it is conferred by Parliament or by the State President or by whomsoever it may be, but as long as there is a grant of rights, we shall abide by it and we shall be satisfied with it.

The other point raised by the hon. member for Durban (North) has no substance either. Originally his point of view was that when the State President does anything by proclamation, this House of Assembly will not be given an opportunity to discuss it. In other words, it would be done outside, and we would have no say in the matter. My point of view is that whatever this Coloured council may do, or whatever legislation it may pass, or whatever is published by proclamation in the Government Gazette in connection with the powers of this council, the House of Assembly will in any event be able to discuss it. But if the hon. the Minister accepts the first part of the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South), it will in any event be provided for specifically. In other words, the Opposition has no argument in this case either. They are now merely confusing a matter which is as clear as daylight to us, and one just cannot understand why they are adopting these confusing tactics.

The hon. the Minister, and also the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) adopted the standpoint that this clause now gives legislative powers to the Coloured council. But surely that is obviously not so. If the amendment of the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) had been accepted, this council would immediately have become a legislative body. But the argument of the Opposition has been consistently correct: If this clause goes through and the Bill is passed, then the new council is still only an advisory body and not a legislative body at all. It is quite wrong for hon. members opposite to say that this clause makes this Council a legislative body. All that this clause says is that the State President may by proclamation grant certain legislative powers to this council. But it may also be that he never does so. In other words, the difference between the two standpoints is quite clear. It is simply that the Minister wants to have this position, that when it becomes the will of the Cabinet that legislative powers should be granted to this body, then the Cabinet must be able to go to the State President. But, as I say, that may never become the will of the Cabinet. But the difference between the two sides of the House is that the Minister wishes to have the position that when it becomes the will of the Cabinet to give this body legislative powers, it should be able to go to the State President. We ask that if and when it becomes the will of the Cabinet to grant legislative powers to this body, the Cabinet should come to Parliament, and not go to the State President. We are not necessarily against the Cabinet developing the will to give them legislative powers. Not at all. Nor are we opposed to its being granted such legislative powers, if that is satisfactory. The whole difference between the two sides is that in fact they want to grant the Cabinet legislative power. That is what it amounts to.

Oh no.

If this clause is passed, it will mean that the moment the Cabinet develops the will to give this body legislative power, it can immediately give effect to it by administrative action. We say that we are not opposed to its developing that wall, but then the tradition of Parliament should be honoured and it must come to Parliament, which will then give it that right, and Parliament can then discuss the matter and judge of it.

Will you then be opposed to it?

Then the matter can be judged on its merits. But the effect of this clause is against the whole tradition of Parliament, and this side of the House cannot possibly accept it because, in effect it gives legislative powers to the Cabinet.

I am not rising to waste time, but I feel this is an important clause of the Bill. I appreciate the explanation given by the hon. the Minister, and I can see many practical reasons for it, and I also see good reasons for certain of the amendments moved here. But arising from this clause, much publicity has been given in the Press to the Bill, which could have been avoided. There has been publicity which has cast suspicion on this Bill to a greater extent than was merited. I should like to make it very clear that my personal view, for good reasons, is that if the Minister had acted in a different way in connection with this matter, it would have been unnecessary.

Oh, do not try to make reproaches again. I specifically dealt with this in my second reading speech.

Had I been satisfied with the explanation given by the hon. the Minister I would not have spoken on the clause again. [Interjections.] The hon. member at the back here may say I am stupid, and possibly I may be, but I can at least read and write, and when I do so I do not misconstrue what I read. I specifically dealt with this clause in my second reading speech, and I confined myself to it. I put it to the hon. the Minister that if he were to be a little more patient and not be so quick-tempered and refrained from being so offensive in his utterances, much misunderstanding could possibly be averted.

Order! The hon. member must discuss the clause.

I intend to discuss it.

Then the hon. member must do so now.

As regards this clause, it is possible for me, as a result of my knowledge of what occurred in the existing Coloured council and possibly may be foreseen in connection with the constitution of the Coloured council contemplated by this legislation, that certain restrictions are necessary, but as regards this clause I still wish to know why, every time any aspect of this legislation was discussed, it was the final argument of the Minister that the Coloured council itself had asked for a certain clause, or that they had asked for a certain power. Why is it then that this specific clause was not discussed with the Coloured council? Why is it that the action taken in connection with this clause was such as it was? I have said before that much misunderstanding has arisen in connection with this clause, which creates the impression that this council will have no power unless the hon. the Minister is willing to confer such power upon them and gives his approval in regard to a certain matter.

The Department informs me that they and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) discussed this clause specifically.

At a certain stage a deputation was appointed by the council. I was unaware of this until I read about it in the Press.

And the night before last they approved this clause.

Now we hear that this deputation approved this clause the night before last, but when the deputation asked for an interview with the Minister to discuss the matter, he refused to meet them.

That is not so.

But the Minister himself said so.

May I just say that I never at any time refused to receive a deputation from the council on this clause. In fact, I never refused to receive any deputation, and I hope this untruth will now come to an end.

It is an inexplicably strange thing.

No, it is only the truth.

I am not seeking any suspicion. The only thing I cannot understand is how it is possible that the Minister told us here, on a previous occasion, that it was not necessary for him to discuss it with the deputation, because he had discussed the matter with the council itself.

Once again that is not a correct version of the facts. For heaven’s sake, have you no regard for the truth?

It seems to me one can never repeat anything the Minister has said unless one has his Hansard report in front of one, and in most cases that is impossible.

On a point of order, I ask your ruling. Is the hon. member entitled to cast a reflection of that nature upon my honour?

Will the hon. member repeat what he said?

I did not cast a reflection. I said this is an inexplicable problem to me …

No, adhere to what you said.

Will the Minister repeat what he heard me say? I may be making a mistake, but I should like to hear what impression the Minister gained from what I said.

On a point of order, the hon. member said it was an inexplicable thing to him; he could never repeat what the Minister said unless he had the Minister’s Hansard report in front of him.

Yes, that is what I said, and to prove that I shall have to digress from the clause.

Order! No, the hon. member is now discussing the clause, and he must confine himself strictly to it.

My problem still is that in connection with the misunderstanding that has arisen on this clause …

Order! The hon. member is repeating his own words now.

In that case, in view of the fact that it is impossible to bring it to the attention of the Minister in an honourable and proper manner that many of the problems could have been averted …

On a point of order, may the hon. member say it is impossible for him to bring something to the attention of the Minister in this House in an honourable and proper manner?

Order! The hon. member’s words are quite unintelligible and irrelevant. The hon. member must now resume his seat.

Sir, may I address you on a point of order?

No, I have ordered the hon. member to resume his seat.

On a point of order, I understand that the hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) said it was not possible for him to proceed to put a certain point of view. I ask you to accept that that is what he meant, and that he has not been disrespectful.

Order! That is not a point of order.

Question put: That sub-section (1) stand part of the clause.

Division called.

Order! Will the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Schoonbee) please take his seat.

Sir, I ask your ruling. I was paired off.

On a point of order. The hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Schoonbee) was standing at the bar before the bar was closed. He advised that he was unable to get out because he was too late, whereas he was in fact at the bar when it was open. I ask your ruling as to whether he was entitled to remain here when he should not have been in the Chamber.

As soon as the bar is drawn by the Serjeant-at-Arms and the doors are locked members cannot move out of nor can they come into the Chamber as somebody tried to do yesterday. The hon. member for Pretoria (District) was inside the Chamber at the time the bar was drawn and he therefore had to take part in the division.

The Committee divided:

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and amendment proposed by Mr. Lewis dropped.

Question put: That sub-section (2) stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and remaining amendment proposed by Mr. Bloomberg negatived.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Coloured Affairs put and agreed to.

New sub-section (3), proposed by Mr. Plewman, put and agreed to.

New sub-section (4), proposed by Mr. Plewman, put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 22,

I wish to move the following amendment—

The selection of a bank into which shall be deposited in terms of sub-sec. (3) any moneys paid over to the council, should, and I think would normally be in the hands of the Treasury. I speak with no authorities in front of me, but I think it will be found that in much of the legislation which deals with this very aspect, that choice is in fact left to the Treasury. The fact that the Minister of Finance plays a considerable part in our legislation is borne out, e.g. by sub-sec. (6) of the same Clause 22; in which there is reference to the Minister of Finance in connection with any audit that may be carried out of the accounts of the council—and even in the preceding Clause 21, there is also reference to the Minister of Finance.

If you move “after consultation with the Minister of Finance” I will accept it.

In that case I move—

I think that will dispose of the point I raised.

Sir, I want to put a question to the hon. the Minister. I think the procedure in the House of Parliament is that the Public Accounts Committee meets very often and discusses the reports of the Auditor-General. Sub-section (6) provides—

Is it intended that the report of the Auditor-General shall also be submitted to the Public Accounts Committee of this Parliament, or is the Minister of Coloured Affairs going to be in the same position as the Public Accounts Committee? Is it intended to bring the reports of the Auditor-General before the Select Committee on Public Accounts? Because Parliament, after all, votes the moneys. I only want to know whether that is the intention of the hon. the Minister.

I have no objection.

Because otherwise it will mean that although Parliament votes the money, the report of the Auditor-General will not go to the Public Accounts Select Committee.

It is automatic.

I believe it is automatically covered. I just wanted that point to be clear.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Gorshel put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended put and agreed to.

On Clause 26,

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name—

Sir, if you will be good enough to look at Clause 16 (1) you will see that this Committee has already passed a provision whereby this council may from time to time adopt standing rules and orders not inconsistent with this Act for the regulation and conduct of its proceedings and the dispatch of business. In other words, we have vested in this council the right from time to time to adopt standing rules and orders. In terms of this clause that we are considering now, Clause 26, we are making provision to enable the Minister to make regulations in regard to various things, including the regulation of the proceedings of the council, as well as the sessions of the council and meetings of the executive committee, with regard to the procedure in connection with the introduction, submission and disposal of Bills, and the absence of members of the council from council meetings, and attendance at sessions of the council. It is obvious that if you are going to allow the Minister to make these regulations without regard to the provisions of Clause 16 (1), which we have already passed, you may have a conflict of regulations, and that is why I suggest that in order to clarify the position the Minister may be prepared to accept the condition that the regulations made by him shall not be in conflict with the standing rules and orders adopted by the council in terms of Clause 16 (1). If the hon. the Minister is prepared to accept that, then there is no point in arguing the matter further. Do I understand that the Minister is not prepared to accept it?

No.

Well, then I think the Minister, if I may say so with respect, is adopting a very unreasonable attitude, because I can see no reason whatsoever why the Minister should not say that in making regulations in terms of this section, he will not do anything inconsistent with the standing rules and orders which the council may have adopted in terms of Clause 16. If the minister is not going to circumscribe his powers as suggested in my amendment, then I think the power which we have already invested in the council in terms of Clause 16 (1) amounts to virtually nothing. I do not know whether the Minister appreciates my point. This Committee has already agreed to vest in this council the right to adopt standing rules and orders for the regulation and conduct of their proceedings and for the dispatch of their business; now the Minister wants to take the same powers unto himself. It is a duplication of regulations. Surely the Minister must realize that if he is going to take the power to make regulations, then he should give an undertaking that he will not impose on the council regulations which will be inconsistent with the standing rules and orders which they have adopted and which can only be passed, in terms of the limited powers they have, with the approval of the hon. the Minister. I cannot see the Minister’s objection to this. Sir, this is a reasonable request. We do not want to have any duplication of these regulations. If the Minister wants to take the power unto himself to impose these regulations upon the council, then we say that he must see to it that those regulations are in no way inconsistent with the standing rules and orders which the council is entitled to adopt for itself in terms of Clause 16 (1). Until I hear from the Minister what his real reason is for refusing to accept this amendment, the matter is so self-evident that I do not want to waste any time by arguing it any further.

I move the amendment standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood)—

In doing so I think I am giving the hon. the Minister a golden opportunity both to have his cake and to eat it, in so far as the argument of the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) is concerned, because if sub-paragraph (b) is deleted, then what has already been accepted by the Committee in Clause 16 (1) will stand, without that conflict between the two clauses to which I referred yesterday. The hon. member for Peninsula may not have been present in the House when I drew the attention of the hon. the Minister yesterday to the fact, when we were discussing Clause 16 and more particularly sub-clause (1) of that clause, that there were certain phrases there which were almost identical with the provisions of Clause 26 (b) and that the very peculiar position would arise, that although the council has been given the right to adopt standing rules and orders not inconsistent with this Act for the regulation and conduct of its proceedings and the dispatch of its business, the Minister also takes unto himself the right to do virtually the same thing under Clause 26 (b). I think his advisers will agree, certainly privately, that there is hardly any difference between 16 (1) and 26 (b). Surely the hon. the Minister did not intend that he should be in collision at any time with the council because they have made a rule and he then says, “No, I should have made that rule; I am satisfied with the rule, but under 26 (b) I should have made that rule and so I am going to make it; you have no business to make it under 16 (1)”, whereas they will be entitled to say, “But we are entitled to make that rule for the conduct of our proceedings under 16 (1)”. Sir, I do not want to press this unduly, but it seems to me that there has been some oversight on the part of the hon. the Minister, and I think he will lose exactly nothing by agreeing to the deletion of 26 (b), thus leaving the right and the power to make rules and regulations in regard to the proceedings in the council in the hands of the council, where I believe he wanted that power to reside. I hope the hon. the Minister will deal with this matter now; he did not deal with it yesterday; his answer may be more in point under Clause 26 than it was under Clause 16.

I do not think hon. members need make a great to-do about this. This clause was inserted after having had a great deal of experience of the existing council. I think it is really an attempt to provide instruments whereby one can ensure that there will be good order in the council at all times. It is quite correct that the council can draw up its own standing orders in terms of Clause 16; it is not subject to the approval of the Minister. They can draw up their own rules to maintain order. But there are two points I should like to make, and I do not do so with any motive of wanting to hurt people. The Coloured population, as hon. members know, have the tendency to quarrel amongst each other. Especially when they meet in a council there is a particular tendency to quarrel, worse than in our case.

That is impossible!

The hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) has referred here to the dissension which has arisen in the existing council from time to time as the result of jealousy between factions and for purely personal reasons. I do not wish to say too much about this matter. I just state it as a fact. It is a fact which we have to bear in mind. The present chairman of the council, who is a good chairman and knows how to conduct the meeting, has no powers, and any attempt on the part of the council to define its own powers has not made much progress hitherto. One may have the situation that the new council will also not be able to apply rules to itself which a House like this, which has the experience, has applied to itself. I was not personally responsible for this clause; it was the result of the joint experience of the people who work with the present council. The interpretation placed on it is that the council will be allowed to draw up its own standing orders. It is only if the council does not take steps to deal with a situation which may arise, and as the result of which the council may be wrecked, that the Minister will use his power to ensure the orderly functioning of that council. That is what is envisaged here, and I do not think that we should make this a big point of difference. This provision is not intended to emasculate the council; it is not intended to get conflicting rulings. This power will only be used if the council itself does not make rules to preserve good order.

I am not very impressed with the assertion of the hon. the Minister that all this is being done with the full knowledge and approval of the present council and at their request. I am afraid that our information in that regard is totally different to what has been said by the hon. the Minister, and in due course that position will be dealt with. But whether the present council has agreed or not does not matter two hoots, because it does not mean that the members of the present council are going to constitute the new council. We are legislating here for a body which we hope will be a permanent body in this country. Sir, this Committee has already decided in dealing with the previous clause that the council may from time to time adopt standing rules and orders not inconsistent with this Act. In other words, any standing rule or order passed by this council which is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act will be ultra vires, but they shall have the right to adopt standing rules and orders consistent with this Act for the regulation and conduct of the council’s proceedings. Under this clause that we are now discussing the Minister wants to take similar powers unto himself. We say to him: Take those powers by all means but insert a proviso to the effect that you will not make any regulations inconsistent with rules already adopted by this council in terms of the power vested in the council in Clause 16 (1). Surely the Minister will appreciate that the powers we have already vested in these people are such that they cannot do anything inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. He will therefore have the eventual right to determine whether the standing rules and orders which they adopt are in conformity with this Act. All we say is that if the Minister does impose any further regulations he should not pass regulations inconsistent with the standing rules and orders already adopted by the council. I can see no reason why the hon. the Minister should not agree to that proposal. I think that the Minister’s decision to refuse to accept what is a very reasonable proposition can only lead to some idea in the minds of the Coloured people that the Minister is going to take the power unto himself, by regulation, to impose upon this council standing rules and orders in total defiance of what these people may decide for themselves. I say that if we are going to establish a council such as this, which is going to remain a permanent body in this country, it is our duty to see that this council is given protection in the sense that any standing rules and orders approved by them will be carried out and will not be replaced by other rules and orders which the Minister may frame in terms of this clause.

Another paragraph that I want to deal with is paragraph (d) in terms of which the Minister may make regulations in regard to the absence of members of the council from council meetings. We have already decided in this Committee, under Clause 13 under which circumstances a member of the council will lose his seat. Surely the Minister cannot by regulation do something contrary to what we have already decided here. Sir, I think this is a very important clause. If we are going to give the Minister the power by regulation to control the affairs of this council, then I think he should give an undertaking that he will not impose a regulation in defiance of and in conflict with regulations already passed by this council in terms of the provisions of this measure. I would urge the hon. the Minister therefore to reconsider this matter.

Sir, it has taken me literally a moment to paraphrase Clauses 16 and 26, and I think it may be of assistance to the Minister, and of interest to the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg), if I read the two relevant clauses, for the purposes of comparison, without the unnecessary or irrelevant words so far as our argument on Clause 26 is concerned. For example, Clause 16 (1), paraphrased would read—

Clause 26, on the other hand, similarly paraphrased, would read—

The importance or significant words are identical in both those clauses as paraphrased. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will not seek to deny that, and I maintain that there must have been some oversight—I am not trying to apportion blame because I do not know enough about the mechanics of the drawing up of this Bill—but clearly there has been some oversight, and so we find that in 26 (b) there is almost a replica of 16 (1); it is almost a carbon copy. I am not trying to suggest that it is the intention of the hon. the Minister to diminish in any way the powers which have already been conferred on the Coloured Persons Representative Council in this regard in Clause 16 (1); but if these two clauses are to form part of the Act—in other words, if the Minister refuses to accept the amendment which I have moved for the deletion of paragraph (b)—I assure you, Sir, that that is where he will have a conflict, quite unnecessarily, with the Coloured council, because any reasonable person—I am not talking about people who wamt to distort the clause in order to suit their own purposes—any reasonable person interpreting Clause 16 (1) is entitled to say, in regard to the proceedings of the council, “there is a section of the Act which says that we, the council, have the right to make regulations governing the proceedings of the council”. Equally, anyone seeking to interpret Clause 26 (b) is entitled to insist that the Minister has the right to make regulations for the proceedings of the council. Well, both cannot be correct. I think that whereas the Minister in his reply dealt rather with a possible allegation by the hon. member for Peninsula—I am not sure that he alleged it—that in 26 (b) the Minister was trying to take away powers which he had already conferred on the council in 16 (1), I want him to consider the argument purely on the merits of a good piece of draftsmanship, something which will not give rise to any doubt in the minds of either the council or the Minister and his Department and something which will not—as I believe this present situation, if allowed to remain in the Bill and therefore the Act, will— create conflict and differences of opinion which can only be resolved and which I believe will have to be resolved by amendment thereafter. What does the hon. the Minister say in regard to the simple proposition that Clauses 16 (1) and 26 (b), when all the unnecessary words have been deleted, are almost word for word identical except, that 16 (1) starts with the word “council” and 26 (b) ends with the word “council”? They are almost identical, except for the head and the tail, which in each case is the council—but for the rest, they are identical. Whether or not the hon. the Minister accepts this argument, I believe that he should explain to us why it is necessary to duplicate powers in a Bill which has already become a matter of some contention, as he knows, and which may become a matter of greater contention in the future—and this clause can only add to it, Sir.

I want to express my surprise that the Minister has not yet found out from the people who are responsible for the drafting of this clause just why it is there. The Minister said a few moments ago that he did not know much about it, and I do not blame him because it is a question of legal interpretation and he is acting on advice. But I raised this whole question a day or two ago and the Minister should have been in possession of the answer as to why this clause has to be inserted. Sir, I would like you to give me a ruling as to whether this clause is not inconsistent with something that we have already passed. I take the point that under Clause 16 this committee has already given the council the power to adopt regulations in regard to the conduct of its proceedings. I think, with respect, Sir, that I can ask you to rule that this paragraph is redundant and that it is contrary to the powers already given in Clause 16. May I have your ruling before I proceed?

The hon. member may continue.

Sir, I do not want to be unkind or try to catch the Chair unawares but I have raised this matter before and I do contend that if we pass this paragraph we would be, contrary to what we have already decided to do, giving to different people the same power. The Minister has helped us in no way; he cannot explain why he wants this power. I feel that we are wasting our time. The Minister is just standing there; he refuses to answer. He is just playing hard to get. If I had a lollypop I might be able to entice him. Anyway I think we are wasting time with this Minister, he does not know the answer.

Sir, I want to put the question to the Minister in this way: What procedure will be followed in framing the regulations which the council is empowered to frame in terms of Clause 16? What is going to happen is this: The Department of Coloured Affairs will get a set of standing rules and orders which the council, at an earlier meeting, had suggested should be the standing rules and orders. In view of Clause 13 which provides for the unseating of a member if he has been away from a meeting without leave and following upon the point made by the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) the Minister “may” make regulations in regard to—

That is Clause 26 (d). It can conceivably happen and I do not think the hon. the Minister is so naive as to suggest that there would be two sets of rules. I believe the real crux of the matter is in the words used by the hon. the Minister yesterday namely that people might get on to the council who would create pandemonium. I think it is there where the real essence of the case lies. I put it to the Minister this way: A standard set of rules and regulations will be submitted to the council or the executive who will probably appoint a committee to go into the matter. The hon. Minister and the Secretary for Coloured Affairs have the right to attend meetings of the council and of the executive committee. The situation then arises that the Minister uses his powers of persuasion to get them to agree to the standing rules and orders which are submitted for their consideration. I want the Minister to tell us what other conditions he has in mind to impose. Standing rules and orders are submitted to the council, accepted by them, the Minister has had an opportunity of discussing them with the council and to modify or amend them by suggestion, by advice or by persuasion. The council then accepts those standing rules and orders. The Minister is now asking for additional power under Clause 26 to have another set of standing rules and orders. I say quite frankly that the one clashes with the other. Here I agree with the hon. member for Boland. Because at that stage the Minister will know what further restrictions he wishes to impose on that council. It does not make sense to me. In the case of the legislative bodies of the country and the provinces they have a committee on standing rules and orders and I foresee the same thing happening in the case of this council. If somebody were to get obstreperous and there was no method of dealing with him I think the council would seek advice. They could be urged to get advice. The necessary changes could be made to their standing rules and orders and everybody would be happy.

I have the uneasy feeling that the Minister persists in treating members of the Coloured community as infants. The members of the new council will in all probability not be those of the present Union Council of Coloured Affairs. There will be new people. I am not suggesting that the existing council does not consist of responsible people. I am equally sure the new council will consist of responsible people an’d they would like to make their council work: They would like to give it the benefit of their advice without having to say: “We have made rules and regulations but the Minister wants to impose other restrictions on us”.

Let me deal with Clause 26 (c). Surely the rules and orders which this council will adopt will deal with—the procedure in connection with the introduction, submission and disposal of bills, laws, reports and resolutions of the council.

If the standing rules and orders do not embrace those particular aspects and activities, what are they going to do? What authority will they have? Why should that be the prerogative of the Minister?

In regard to this question of the absence of members from meetings of the council, if a member gets by in terms of Clause 13, which has been agreed to, will another set of conditions be imposed upon them? Surely that cannot be the intention of the hon. the Minister. I repeat, the Coloured community consists of responsible people. If they make the standing rules and orders they will observe them. I do urge the Minister to see the wisdom of what I am telling him this afternoon. He and his officials will have every opportunity to urge these people and to persuade them to adopt any rules and orders he may submit to them for consideration. And, he has the right to attend their meetings and to discuss those rules and regulations. He may not vote; that is all. He can tell them why he wants a particular rule or why it should be like this or that. I think they will accept them. I make a direct appeal to the Minister to make that concession and to delete this clause.

It appears to me the hon. the Minister is not prepared to make an amendment to this clause. It is obvious to anyone who reads these two clauses that an amendment is most desirable. As has been pointed out the provisions are in conflict. This is the sort of thing which leads to quite unnecessary trouble and friction. I hope, at the very least, that the Minister will be prepared to give us an undertaking that he will have these two clauses examined by the law advisers in order to get a sensible provision on the Statute Book when this Bill goes through the Other Place.

Question put: That paragraph (b) stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and amendment proposed by Mr. Gorshel negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Bloomberg put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

On Clause 29,

I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to the wording of this clause. It deals with the extension of the period of office of the council constituted by Act 46 of 1951. I take it what the hon. the Minister intended was that he; through the State President, may from time to time by proclamation in the Gazette extend the period of office of the Union Council for Coloured Affairs. The clause, however, reads as follows—

I do not think the hon. Minister intended that. I think what he intends is to extend the life of the Union Council from time to time.

The law advisers preferred it this way.

With due respect to the law advisers I think this has created the impression in the minds of som*; of the councillors, councillors who have asked us to deal with this matter, that the hon. the Minister is taking power, through the State President, to extend the period of office of any member of the Union Council. I want to move an amendment to eliminate that fear in their minds. The amendment I wish to move reads as follows—

It will then read what the Minister has in mind, namely, that—

I suggest to the Minister that this clarifies the position and gives effect to what he has in mind. If you leave the wording as it is the impression will be created—as it has been —in the minds of certain members that the Minister may exercise his power to extend the life of any particular member of the council. The way I have put it makes it perfectly clear that the Minister can only extend the life of the council as a whole.

I cannot accept this amendment. This matter was thoroughly considered and was deliberately framed in this way by the law advisers. The reason is obvious, viz., that we are faced with a period in which the life of this council will have to be prolonged from time to time. There are, inter alia, quite a number of nominated members on this council, and it does not follow that the Government now undertakes at all times again to nominate all those members when their period of office expires. The Government must be free to nominate whom it wishes.

I must say that the more we listen to the hon. the Minister the more we are surprised that he still has the support of any Coloured man in South Africa. The Minister now says this clause must remain as it is because he really wants to get rid of some of the nominated members …

Nonsense!

He did say that. The hon. the Minister said he was not prepared to give an undertaking that all the nominated members of the present council would remain. I think every member of the present Coloured council believes that the life of the present council will be extended as it is at the moment. The long delay over these clauses is due to the way the Minister handled our side of the House.

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

Sir, the Minister has made a statement which has shocked me and I think it will shock members of the Coloured council. It has been an unfortunate statement. The Minister has told us in this debate that he is going to nominate people who will carry out his policy, the policy of the Government.

Order! This clause has nothing to do with the nomination of members; it deals with the extension of the period of office.

Am I not entitled to answer the Minister’s reason why he wants it in this form? The Minister gave us a reason. The purpose of the amendment of the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) is to ensure that the Minister shall not be able to seek out A, B, C and D of the present council and say: Your time has expired; you must go. Because that is what this amendment means. The Minister will now have the power to get rid of those people in the council who are a thorn in his flesh.

He did not say that.

He said so. I shall apologize to the Minister if I understood him incorrectly. The Minister gave me that impression. The Minister said “daar is baie genoemde lede op die raad” …

He did not refer to “genoemde lede”.

The Minister did mention nominated members.

That is not “genoemde” members.

All right, “benoemde” members. Now you will see what is going to happen. Sir. The Minister has already given us an indication of how he is going to deal with this new council: “Boys, you must march to my tune otherwise you are dismissed from the army!” “If you do not dance to my tune, you are going to be dismissed.” I have never yet heard anything more shocking from a Minister who wants to gain the goodwill of the Coloured people.

If there is any just man on that side of the House he will see to it that when the Minister extends the life of the present council he extends it as it is to-day. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member an opportunity to deliver his speech.

Sir, I want to say this. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) told us that he met five members of the council on Monday evening. One of those members has since spoken to me. He told me that they asked the meaning of this clause but could not get satisfaction.

What did you tell him?

I shall tell you. I told him we had already studied the Bill; that the very point he had raised with me was the point we would raise in this House because we were not prepared to allow the hon. the Minister to get rid of certain nominated members merely because they had used their democratic right, not only to criticize the Minister but to criticize the Government. I say, Sir, this is a scandalous statement; it is a scandalous situation. The Minister admits that he wants the power to get rid of his opposition in the present council. We shall not tolerate that.

Mr. Chairman, I want to repeat clearly what I said. The period of this council expires on a certain date this year. Until then this is a nominated and an elected council. Their period of office expires when that date arrives. The Government will deal timeously with the question of who will be their successors. I do not intend binding the Cabinet in advance in regard to this matter. That is why we follow this wise course of providing that there will be a council until the new council can be established. I am not prepared to say to-day that those members will not be reappointed; nor am I prepared to say that they will be appointed. That is a matter which the Cabinet will have to decide as and when suitable. The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) is at liberty to make as much misuse of this matter as he likes. That will not stop the Government from fulfilling its obligations.

Sir, this clause is not as innocent as it appears at first sight. When I originally moved my amendment I put it to the hon. the Minister that everyone was under the impression that what he had in mind was to take the right to extend the life of the existing council until such time as the new council came into being. Everybody accepted that as being the position.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that, from information which has been conveyed to us that is the impression he conveyed to the existing council. He conveyed to them the impression that the life of the existing council would be extended from November this year, from year to year, until such time as the new council came into being.

I cannot decide alone. That is a Cabinet decision.

You must speak on behalf of the Cabinet. We are dealing with a Bill.

At the convenient time I will make my recommendation to the Cabinet.

What will your recommendation be? This is not a laughing matter. We are dealing with an important statutory body, and we were under the impression that this clause merely gives the Minister the right to extend the life of that statutory body. But that is not what he is seeking at all. In terms of this clause as I read it now, if it is left unamended, he takes the right to extend the period of office of any members of the council.

May I ask the hon. member a question? The hon. member says that he understood it to mean the council, but if you read the words here, it says: “The State President may from time to time by proclamation in the Gazette extend the period of office of any member of the Union Council.” How can that be the council?

The answer is a very simple one. The council at no time had this Bill before it, and the hon. Minister will hear more about this in due course. The council at no time had this Bill before it.

That is an untruth.

They were given certain assurances by the hon. Minister and by the legal adviser, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel). They were under the impression that this Bill contained the resolutions that the council had unanimously adopted. I want to say this to the hon. Minister that he can go to any one of these councillors at random and ask them whether they conscientiously knew that what he was seeking now, namely, to extend the life of any member of the council as against the life of the whole council was ever told to them. He will find out from them that every one of them was under the impression that the life of the council as a statutory body would be extended until such time as this new council came into being. That is our complaint. If the hon. the Minister genuinely wants to have some statutory body kept in being until this new body comes into existence, we will support him. That is what we are seeking, and when I moved my amendment I thought that that was so palpable that the hon. the Minister, if that was his bona fide intention, would gladly accept the amendment. But in his reply he has indicated that that is not his intention, that he wants to have the right to say which members’ lives will be extended as members of this council and which will not. The present council consists of 27 members of whom 15 have been nominated by the Minister, and 12 have been elected. We know that from time to time some of them have revolted against some of the actions of the Government in relation to Coloured Affairs, and obviously what the Minister would do is to see that anyone who has raised difficulties at all against the Government during the time of their life as councillors will not receive an extension of office.

Where do you get the right to say that?

The Minister himself has indicated that he wants to reserve that right unto himself. If the Minister wants to take the right to extend the life of the existing the council until such time as the new body comes into being, everyone will support him. Not a single word of objecion will be raised against that, because we think that there should be some Coloured council in being until this new body comes into existence, but until that time let him take the right to himself to exend the council as a council. What he is doing here is that he is taking the right to extend the period of office of any member of the council, and therefore I suggest that he can use this in some ulterior way to deprive some of the elected members of the right to remain members of this body until this new body comes into being. I think it is quite wrong. He can also take away some of the nominated members.

How can he terminate the service of some of the elected members?

At the end of this year the life of the council will be at an end. In terms of this clause the Minister can then extend the life of the council by nominating certain members and eliminating others, and therefore he can eliminate anyone who is opposed to the policies of this Government. I think it is grossly unfair and wholly inconsistent with what has been conveyed to the council.

I cannot understand the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg). He must realize that we are now in Committee and that the Committee is discussing Clause 29 of the Bill. The hon. member is now discussing matters here that do not appear in this clause. He is discussing things which apparently took place outside.

Order! The hon. member may not make that allegation.

With due respect, I sat here listening to the hon. member for Peninsula alluding to matters not printed here. We are dealing only with the clause as printed here, and my objection is just that we may only discuss this. I want to confine myself to this clause. When I read this clause, it is very clear to me that the Minister is now taking the power to extend the life of a member as a member of the existing Union Council. As I understand the position, the life of the Union Council terminates at the end of November. Now the Minister is taking the power, and he has stated clearly why he must have this power, and I can find nothing wrong with that, namely to keep a council there until the new council is constituted, to ensure that there will be a council until this new one is constituted in terms of this Bill. Now the Minister is taking the power to extend the period of office of any of the existing members of the council, and the point I wish to emphasize is that when the period of office of such a member is extended, it will be a privilege he will be enjoying if the Minister thinks fit. It is not a right he can claim. If the clause had provided that the Minister takes the power to extend the period of office of the whole council, the hon. member would have been correct, and then the Minister could not exempt certain members. But the clause provides clearly that the Minister may extend the period of office of any member for not more than a year at a time; each one but also any one individually, and if the Minister is not disposed to extend the period of office of a certain member for a year, the Minister is not doing that member any injustice. He serves the full period for which he has been chosen or nominated to the Union Council. Then the Minister may in his discretion extend the life of any one of the members, and probably all of them. But the Minister is taking these powers in order to ensure that there will be a council. We are thankful the Minister is not prepared to accept this amendment and we ask him to retain the clause as it is printed here because it has become very clear from the discussions we have had here that hon. members opposite are trying to wreck this legislation and render it inoperative. For that reason it is very desirable and necessary that the Minister should take these powers to ensure that the Union Council will continue to exist, but that the Minister should also take the power, if there are elements in the council who will permit themselves to be used as the instruments of certain elements in South Africa, to get rid of those members, not by discharging them but merely by not extending their period of office for a year.

May I reply briefly to what the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) has said. I want to repeat what I said a moment ago that it was always the intention of the hon. Minister that the life of the council would be extended, and not the life of individual members.

That is not in the Bill.

I agree that the Bill does not say that and for that reason I have moved the amendment. In support of that contention of mine, I say that the members of the present council with whom we have discussed this and at whose instance we are now moving this amendment, have made it perfectly clear that that was the message conveyed to them by the Minister and by the law adviser. But I want to go further and I want to show that what we have said here was the true impression created by the hon. the Minister in the minds of everyone, and I want to bring as witness the South African Digest issued by the Department of Information, which deals with this very point. They say—

They then deal with the contents of the Bill and then go on to say this—

This comes from a Government Department, from the Minister of Information. I ask the hon. Minister to give effect to what he told the people, to give effect to the solemn assurances that he gave to the existing council that the life of the council would be extended until such time as this new body came into being, and that is not what he is doing under this clause. In this clause he is taking the right unto himself, at his whim, to eliminate anyone who, at any time, may have said something against the policies of this Government. If the Minister thinks that that is the way he is going to win the confidence of the Coloured people, he is mistaken. In the interest of trying to make this Bill an effective one, which will carry the goodwill and the esteem of the Coloured community, and the esteem of the existing council, I ask the hon. Minister to again consider accepting the amendment that I have moved.

Look, we must now draw two distinctions. The first is that the period of office, the life of the existing Union Council of Coloured Affairs will in any event expire on a certain date during this year, and in the second place that the Government will then in any case, even if there were no such law, have to decide on its nominated members. Is that clear? At that stage, or before that stage, the Government must in any event decide whether or not it is going to re-nominate the 15 persons. In other words, it has that power in any event to decide whether the people it has nominated will retain their membership or not. All I have just said is that I am not prepared to bind the Cabinet in advance. I shall go to the Cabinet with my recommendations, but it does not follow that the Cabinet will accept my recommendations, although they may adopt all of them. It may be that as regards the 15, I may recommend that a change be made for one reason or another. I would have had that right in any event, whether or not this Bill is passed. It is in respect of that that I said I am not prepared to bind the Cabinet in advance.

Now we come to the group of elected members. In respect of the elected group, it seems to me I have only one of two alternatives if I wish to do the right thing. I can say that their term of office will be extended or I can say that I shall not extend the term of office of a member, and that he should fight an election.

There is a third choice, namely to fulfil your promise.

What is that?

The one you made.

Neither I as the responsible Minister nor my Department have ever made a promise to this council that the term of office of all the members would be extended. At no stage has such a promise been made. Any statement to the contrary is untrue, and is made simply to cause trouble again. It seems to me hon. members are only looking for trouble. Permit me to say that never in my whole life have I met with a more unpleasant spirit on the part of the members of the Opposition who refuse to accept the word of anyone. If they are doing so out of contempt, I should like to say the same applies to them as far as I am concerned. If they will not treat me with propriety, I am not prepared to deal with them with propriety. For what do we have here now?

[Inaudible.]

Just listen to that! The respectable hon. member for Durban (North), who virtually drools respectability. Look at his behaviour. Now I shall repeat, merely in the interest of the truth, that the term of office of these 15 members would in any case have expired, and in respect of these 15 member J cannot bind the Cabinet in advance. Hon. members know that. Why are they demanding something from me that they know I cannot do now? As regards the elected members, I can adopt one of two courses. I can either say to the man that I shall extend his term of office or that he must take his chance and fight an election. That seems to me the equitable course to adopt. But if I were to proceed to nominate them, then you will hear something. The same people who are making so much noise here this afternoon, will then say I am nominating them because they are “stooges” and because I am afraid they will be defeated at an election. I am predicting that here in advance. The hon. member for Peninsula who is wagging his finger at me now will be the first one to make misuse of it. That is why I say a game is being played here, a game for which I have the greatest contempt.

Comic opera is nothing compared to what is going on here.

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

With respect, the hon. Minister said that he has got to consult the Cabinet, that he cannot bind the Cabinet beforehand. But in his second-reading speech, which is still fresh in our mind, the Minister put out his chest and said “As long as I am the Minister, that will be the policy”. Then he was the hero, the big boy. As long as he is Minister, that will be the policy. Why can he not say: As long as I am the Minister, these people will remain members? Why not? Because the hon. Minister knows that there were reports in the Press for a considerable time that the life of the present council would be extended and I challenge the hon. Minister to say where he has denied those statements at any time? There have been reports in every paper. I shall not refer to the S.A. Digest because I am quite satisfied that Frankie Waring is a Fifth Columnist.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw those words, but I did not mean them in that sense.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, should the hon. member not apologize, as he has called a Minister of State a Fifth Columnist?

I have withdrawn that expression because I did not mean it in that sense.

You are an anti-Christian.

If I am so anti-Christian …

Order! The hon. member need not reply to that interjection.

What I am trying to convey with regard to the hon. Minister of Information is that he has made two statements which the hon. Minister of Coloured Affairs has denied. So he is trying to undermine the hon. Minister. This is a world-wide publication, it is sent to all parts of the world and sent to every Member of Parliament and to every member of the Coloured Council, and they read it.

Order! The S.A. Digest is not the responsibility of the Minister of Coloured Affairs.

It is not the responsibility of this Minister, but it is the responsibility of the Cabinet, and is issued by a member of the Cabinet, and there is such a thing as collective responsibility.

That makes no difference, the hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

The point I really want to make is that it has a world-wide publication and it confirms what we have said that the life of this council would be extended. There has never been any doubt about it.

Order! That argument has already been used repeatedly.

Mr. Chairman, the Official Opposition has not taken part in the discussion of this clause so far, but I must take exception to the remarks of the hon. the Minister. The hon. Minister ended up by saying that he had never seen in his life in Parliament such a bad spirit as shown in the discussion of this Bill.

This clause.

It does not only apply to this clause, it applies to the whole Bill.

Then you should say so at the third reading.

The Minister should ask himself why there is such a bad feeling, why there is this bad spirit?

Order! That has nothing to do with the clause.

On a point of order, the Minister chastised this side of the House and he gave vent to his feelings on this point.

The hon. member must now come back to the clause.

Sir, it was in connection with this clause. The hon. Minister must ask himself why there was this bad feeling. He said that in no other debate had he seen a spirit of this nature. Why is that? These are the same members on this side who have taken part in the other debates, but of course this is not the same Minister, and this Minister by his attitude has brought this upon himself.

Do not think that I am sorry.

Why do you squeal then? Why did the Minister mention this?

Order! Mr. HUGHES; The Minister himself has made us suspicious of this clause. We were not taking part in the discussion until the Minister rose, and I ask the Minister now: If this council’s life ends at the end of this year, why does he not nominate new members then? He would have the power to nominate members then. He can nominate his members in the ordinary course, and the elected members can be elected in any event. We understand that the new council will not come into being until 1966. Why does he not let the law take its ordinary course? Why must the Minister now take powers to prolong, to extend the membership of any particular member? He says that he will not bind himself as to what advice he will give to the Cabinet. He is asking us in fact to give him a free hand, a blank cheque, and we refuse to do so. We are not going to give this Minister any blank cheque in this matter.

I should like to reply to the hon. member. I am not going to reply to his childish statements, but the hon. member wants to know why I am proposing this extension. I have repeatedly explained that the period of office of this council is coming to an end; we are now repealing that Act and putting a new measure into operation, but I am taking additional powers, so as to be able to ensure that the council will be able to carry on with its work because I want to have a council with whom we shall be able to continue to deal as we have done in the past. I could very easily have remained silent; I could simply have allowed this council to cease to exist. But I am not doing so. What I visualize is that there will be a transition period during which we will still have to have a council. All I am saying now is that I cannot bind the Government in advance in respect of the nominated members, just as little as I could bind it even if the council had to be reconstituted for five years under the existing Act. Surely that is clear. As far as the elected members are concerned, I can follow one of two courses. There are 12 elected members, and I can either extend the period of office of the elected member by appointing him for a year or I can say to him, “No, you will have to fight an election, because I am not going to appoint you.”

Why not let them fight an election then?

I can do so; it is possible under this provision. I have explained that here repeatedly, and I took exception to the fact that hon. members opposite refused to accept my word. I do not know what this quarrel is all about, and I do not know why the hon. member entered this quarrel.

I think the hon. member for Peninsula has raised something that has let the cat out of the bag. That is the whole situation here. The hon. Minister could by a very simple clause extend the life of the council, but he condemned himself out of his own mouth when he said that he is not going to commit the Cabinet in advance or say who are going to be nominated. This clause is so worded that he can extend the life of an individual member, and that means that some members will not have their lives extended, and I submit that those would be the people who have been difficult and awkward. I want to say to the hon. Minister that outside, it is believed by the Coloured community that the life of the council will be extended, as it stands, and that the machinery of the council will go on and that if there are vacancies they will be filled in the normal way. That is the way things should be done. That is the way the thing should work, and I just feel that the hon. the Minister, who has been getting very cross—it is quite unwarranted because we are arguing our case from our knowledge of what the people outside think and believe, and that case has been stated fairly and in moderate terms. The interpretation of this clause as it stands is quite simple and straightforward.

Order! That argument has been used also.

Let me just round it off and I will conclude. It means that some people will not be reappointed.

Mr. Chairman, I think …

On a point of order, is the hon. member for Boland not speaking on this subject for the fourth time now?

No, it is the third time.

I rise merely to make a personal statement, to try to remove anything that I might have said in regard to the Minister of Information. When I said that the hon. the Minister of Information was a fifth columnist, I did not mean it in that sense. I should like to tender my apology. I did not say it in the sense of meaning anything derogatory to the Minister. I just make this statement in order that there should be no doubt about the matter.

It is perfectly clear that it will still take a long time after the passing of this Bill to take all the necessary steps, such as the delimitation of constituencies and the establishment of the necessary machinery; it will take longer than the life of the present Coloured council, and the impression which has existed hitherto is that the life of the present council will have to be extended so as to bridge this gap. Sir, when the hon. the Minister explained why he was unable to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Peninsula, I listened with great sympathy to the Minister’s explanation because I know that in spite of the fact that he has defended this Bill, clause by clause, by saying that the Coloured council asked for it and that he tried to justify it on that ground, in spite of what may have been the considered opinion of this council …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause; he must not repeat arguments which have already been advanced.

With respect, this is no repetition.

It has been stated frequently.

My experience is that there are many members of the present Coloured council, both elected and nominated members, who could be improved upon, and my sympathies were with the Minister when I thought of the wrong nominations that were made. Sir, very much better people could have served on this council, but to-day they are being praised as the people responsible for the formulation of this measure. But if I have to judge—and I do so in all sincerity—by the Minister’s intolerant attitude towards criticism of any kind, then I cannot help having misgivings as to the type of members who will be appointed in the future. The Minister has stated clearly that that amendment cannot be accepted because when this council reaches the end of its life, nominations will have to be made again and it does not necessarily follow that the same members will be nominated again. [Interjection.] Sir, there is another reason why I cannot support this amendment and that is that I am afraid that not only will the Minister nott be able to get rid of dead wood on that council but that he will also get rid of people because they dared to think independently and to criticize him.

That has also been said before.

If it has been said, then I am glad thait I had an opportunity to emphasize it.

Question put: That the words “any member of” in lines 59 and 60, stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and amendment negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to. (Official Opposition and Messrs. Barnett, Bloomberg and Holland dissenting.)

On Clause 30,

I move the amendment as printed in my name—

1. (i) “Administrator” an Administrator acting •in consultation with and with the consent of the executive committee of the province concerned;

This is also an amendment which is an outcome of the agreement arrived at with the Administrators; this amendment is designed to give effect to that agreement.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 31 put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Title of the Bill put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Order of the Day No. II to stand over until Orders of the Day Nos. Ill to V had been disposed of.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will allow me to do something which, I think, I owe this House. You will remember that yesterday afternoon while the House was sitting I entered the Chamber after the doors were closed. I have considered the matter and I am of opinion that my entering the Chamber in that way was not in keeping with the dignity of this House. I therefore offer my apology.

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. On Clause 4,

I move—

1. (3) A candidate shall pay in connection with any examination conducted or diploma or certificate issued in terms of sub-section (1) such fees as the Secretary may, in consultation with the Treasury, determine: Provided that, if in the opinion of the Secretary there are good reasons for doing so, he may exempt a candidate from paying any such fee.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. On Clause 11,

I move—

I am not speaking to the amendment, but I should like the hon. Minister to give us some further information about this transfer in the Service, covered by subsection (b) (2): “Any person other than an officer in the Public Service”. Does this mean that any teacher in a vocational school is now subject to all the regulations of the Public Service, even so far as conditions of service are concerned?

Yes. This is now being brought into line with the Civil Service Act. That is the object of this clause.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 13,

During the second reading debate, I made a suggestion to the hon. the Minister in regard to sub-section (2), which reads: “The Minister, or if authorized thereto by the Minister, the Secretary or any other officer in the department”. I mentioned to the hon. the Minister that this should be a senior officer in the Department, because he is giving very considerable powers. I want to know whether the hon. Minister has given that consideration and whether it is possible to consider an amendment there.

I have devoted attention to the matter. Firstly, it is the practice always to make this delegation to a senior official and not to a junior one. The second reason why it is not specifically mentioned is that the Public Service really does not know where one should draw the line when one talks of a “senior official”. If it is left to discretion, then in fact an official who is senior in the Service will be appointed, but if we specifically have to say “senior official” this can give rise to the difficulty I have mentioned.

What is the practice to-day?

It is delegated to senior officials, such as assistant secretaries.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Business suspended at 7 p.m. and resumed at 8 p.m.

Evening Sitting

I move—

A reasonably comprehensive explanatory memorandum in connection with this Bill has already been made available to hon. members and there is therefore little that I can really add at this stage. Nevertheless, I should like to take this opportunity to give a brief résumé of the principles contained in the measure before the House. I do not want to take up the time of the House unnecessarily, and as far as possible I do not want to make myself guilty of tedious repetition of the contents of the explanatory memorandum issued together with the Bill.

Hon. members will have inferred from the Bill and the memorandum that all the proposed amendments are aimed at ensuring the smoother administrative and technical application of the principal Act, for commerce as well as the Division of Weights and Measures. At the same time the protection at present enjoyed by the buying public in terms of the Act is not being reduced.

I may mention that all these amendments emanate from proposals received from the Superintendent of Weights and Measures with reference, firstly, to the problems and inconvenience experienced in the past by commerce, and secondly, from problems experienced by the Division of Weights and Measures itself in the application, administratively as well as technically, of the present Act, and thirdly, the need to obtain full recognition for the weights and measures of the Republic. Lastly, the First Schedule of the present Act is replaced by a new First Schedule in order to adapt the definitions of South Africa’s units of land measurement to the modern techniques of determining standards in regard to weights and measures. These definitions are of course based on purely scientific calculations in regard to which the layman will normally be able to say very little.

As the result of the origin of the first two groups of amendments which, from the very nature of the matter, were brought to the notice of the Superintendent of Weights and Measures by way of representations made to him, and which were therefore also from time to time discussed with the bodies concerned, I believe that I can rightly say that this Bill ought to enjoy the support of both commerce and industry and the buying public.

As has already been indicated in the explanatory memorandum, South Africa hitherto could, strictly speaking, lay no claim to the international recognition of its standards of measurements and weights, due to the fact that we were not a member of the International Convention for Weights and Measures. Because of this fact, South Africa had no direct access to the headquarters of the Convention, in other words, the International Bureau for Weights and Measures jn Paris, France, in order to verify our weights and measures directly by comparison with the international standards. For this South Africa had to rely either on the U.S.A. or the United Kingdom. Now, however, the Republic has become a member of this convention and in future, and due to the fact that we are now in possession of a certified international standard prototype of the kilogram, which serves as the basis for the verification of weights and measures, whether metric or otherwise, we can make direct comparisons with the international standard in Paris. The Bill therefore envisages in the first place giving legal status to the certified prototype of the international standard kilogram as our national standard. With this prototype kilogram as the national standard, the departmental, regional and working standards of the Division of Weights and Measures can be compared and verified. Clauses 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 and 12 of the Bill make the necessary provision for this. In fact, Clause 31 of the Bill, which contains the technical definitions of the country’s land measurement units, can also be included in this group. I believe that these developments and proposals are an important forward step in the sphere of South Africa’s control of weights and measures.

The next main object of the Bill is to modernize the present principal Act and to adapt it to the numerous new measuring, weighing and sales techniques which have been developed in recent years, without in any way derogating from effective control. In fact, this control is improved because legal recognition is now granted to quite a number of justifiable and commendable practices, which, strictly speaking, was not possible in terms of the present Act. In this regard, I refer hon. members particiilarly to Clauses 3, 13 to 16, 18, 19, 23, 24 to 26 and 29 of the Bill.

As is indicated by the explanatory memorandum, provision is now being made mainly, in terms of the proposed Clause 13, for the Superintendent of Weights and Measures, in particular circumstances, to grant exemptions from certain requirements of the principal Act, depending on the principles of construction and/or the purpose for which weighing and measuring instruments are used. In this regard I may mention that it has become a large-scale practice in commerce to determine the weight of certain commodities which are of equal weight, size and form and which are sold in pre-packaged form, by way of counting those commodities by means of specially designed machines. Strictly speaking, these machines cannot be assized in the true sense of the word, but the Superintendent will now be given the right to test the accuracy and working capacity of these machines, and either to approve or to disapprove of their use in commerce. This is a tendency which has speedily developed in most modern countries, and in view of the fact that we do not want to lag behind, legal provision for the effective control of this method is therefore essential.

In connection with this development, I may mention the provisions envisaged in Clause 19. As hon. members will know, there is nothing which in practice, even with the most accurate scientific methods, can be determined absolutely accurately. Therefore this Act and the regulations which may be issued in terms of it provide for certain maximum deviations in regard to instruments for weighing and measuring. These deviations are absolutely minimal. The oresent Act, however, allows no deviation at all, whether too much or too little, as far as for example the weight of commodities is concerned, except in the case of commodities which, inter alia, are subject to loss of or possibly an increase in the moisture content. Even with a view to the antiquated methods of weighing and packaging, this very inflexible provision of the Act is not quite logical, and where in modern times one has to do with speedy and bulk packaging, the task of the Division of Weights and Measures simply becomes impossible, apart from the fact that practically every trader is unjustifiably exposed to prosecution. In this way it may happen that out of every thousand packages of pre-packed tea there are 980 which show an absolutely minimal overweight as compared with the weight indicated, while the remaining 20 may show a minimal underweight. In terms of the present Act a trader is guilty of an offence in respect of the full thousand packages. It is therefore proposed now that also in these cases maximum deviations will be allowed. These deviations may. however, not be greater than those allowed in terms of the Act in regard to weighing and measuring instruments.

Clauses 14, 15 and 23 mainly involve better administrative control as, I believe, is quite clearly set out in the exolanatory memorandum. while Clause 16 particularly provides that length and content measures which are. for example, made of glass and which are therefore not subject to the ordinary deviations, will not continually have to be assized. That will result in considerable relief for assize officials, particularly if we bear in mind the acute shortage of the necessary staff that has been experienced for years already.

Clause 24 also contains important provisions in the sense that the Suoerintendent of Weights and Measures will in future keep a register of all orivate persons who repair and service weighing and measuring instruments. These persons will be subject to strict tests before beine placed on the reeister as qualified persons for the Dumoses of this Act. In the course of their work they will have to comply with certain requirements and procedures prescribed by law.

As is indicated in the Explanatory Memorandum, the necessity for this control emanates from the laudable development in commerce properly to keep the weighing and measuring instruments in order so as to ensure that they operate as accurately as possible. For this purnose they enter into contracts, for example, firms supplying scales, or they train their own maintenance staff. With the fast development of this practice, hon. members will, however, agree that a reasonable measure of control by the authorities has become essential.

A last clause which is of interest and which I want to mention at this stage arises from the increasing use of cash registers, particularly in self-service shops, bazaars, etc. In this regard I refer to Clause 26 of the Bill. To fit in with this development it is proposed in this clause that in the case of commodities sold by weight, the net weight thereof should be indicated either on the container or on an accompanying invoice or other document. The reason for this is that cash registers are so designed that they cannot print the weight of the goods on the dockets when goods are sold by weight. The proposed provision is therefore a concession to the trader who makes use of cash registers, whilst the purchaser of those goods is still protected.

The remaining clauses of the Bill, viz. Clauses 1, 2, 4 to 6, 17, 20 to 22, 27, 28, 30 and 31 to 34, result either from the substantive amendments proposed in the other clauses of the Bill, or are of such a simple or trivial nature that I do not believe the House will expect me to explain them one by one. I move.

We on this side of the House welcome this Bill. It serves a very useful purpose. It enables the Government to check on the mechanics who work with the instruments of weighing and measuring to make sure that they are qualified, and it gives the Superintendent of Assize power to investigate and to make certain that in all respects the average—and I say it with emphasis— weighing or measuring instruments is correct. It really protects the buyer, which is naturally what the Government should be trying to do, to the extent that he can now rest assured that any pre-packed goods he buys are governed by special measurements and that he will receive full weight. It also serves to protect the buyer who buys goods which are weighed in front of him, provided he himself takes enough interest to see that the scale is working and that the seller is not resting his hand on the wrong side of that scale.

There are, however, certain parts of the Bill which are not quite clear, clauses which I think we will have to ask the hon. the Minister to explain in the Committee Stage. In particular, there is the new Clause 7, which deals with the relation between our standard measurement, which rests with the C.S.I.R., and the international kilogram, which is kept at Sevres outside Paris. This clause is most puzzling. The only explanation which I and some of my legal friends can place upon it is that we expect either that the international standard will deteriorate and change or that our own will deteriorate or change, because either both are kept in relation to the international standard, and surely if by any chance our standard kilogram, which as I say is accepted by the C.S.I.R., should deteriorate, surely the easiest way is to bring it back to correctness rather than to change its value. I am sure that that interpretation is not correct, but we have not been able to arrive at any other. I therefore hope that the Minister will undertake to look into that matter and explain it to us. We also want to speak about Clauses 18, 19 and 20, and we particularly wish to ask that perhaps the apothecaries’ weights should also be assized. It is felt by some pharmacists that the present weights and measures used by apothecaries, which are actually of very long standing and which weigh very small amounts, should be assized and checked carefully, and the question is whether or not we should move further towards the international metric system, even in regard to apothecaries’ weights and measures.

In regard to the Schedule, I am quite sure that this new Schedule was not submitted to the C.S.I.R., because it is not really correct. Surely, while we are introducing a new schedule we might as well bring it as up to date as we can. If we are modernizing our system of assize and our system of measuring and the teaching of the mechanics, and if we are bringing the whole assize system up to modern standards, surely we should not repeat errors which are known to be international errors. Here I particularly wish to refer to the First Schedule. The emphasis now is on basing the measurement on the metre, i.e. the international metre, and not the imperial yard. The same, of course, applies to weights, whether it should be the pound or the kilogram. There are many advantages in changing from the pound to the kilogram; instead of making the kilogram the measurement of the pound, to make the pound a proportion of the kilogram, and the same with the yard. I do not think that is a disadvantage. But the question of the litre—that is usually defined as being the volume occupied by one kilogram of air-free, distilled water. The omission of the words “air-free” is considered to be serious by scientists. I am sure it is an oversight and that it will be corrected. Similarly, the gallon is the volume occupied by 10 lbs. of air-free distilled water. Those are matters which I am sure can be easily dealt with. But the introduction of Items 4 and 5 of the Schedule, i.e. the square metre and the square yard and the cubic metre and the cubic yard—those were formerly permitted for trade purposes but were not assizable, and now they are made assizable. You will notice, Sir, that in the Schedule, Item 3 (b), the gallon, being the volume occupied by 10 lbs. of distilled water, of a density of .998859 grammes per millilitre—it is given in litres. Further down, what do we find in the new (5) which is now introduced in the Schedule, the measure of cubic content is the cubic metre. It is a well-known fact that the cubic metre and its corresponding measurement, the millilitre—there is an error in the litre, so that we have a cubic measurement which is based on the metre and another which is based on the litre, and they do not agree, and they should agree. Therefore I think that if we are introducing a new schedule we should drop the cubic metre and use the litre as the measurement because that is the one which is now universally accepted. Why should we persist in an error which took place somewhere in the 1880s and was only found later when space and weightlessness came to be measured. By using the cubic metre as a measurement of capacity, we are perpetuating an error, and for the work of scientists it will be a very serious error. If this Bill is only meant to refer to grocers’ shops and butcher shops, this would be all right, but this is the standard measurement for this country and the Minister should look carefully into the matter and get the advice of the C.S.I.R. as to whether he should persist with this error which disturbs scientists when they have to do accurate measurements.

This is the main argument that I think can be put up against this Bill, that it is loosely worded and difficult to understand in some instances, although I hope the Minister will be able to explain our difficulties, and finally, there are two errors which exist in the Schedule.

I think the gist of this Bill is contained in a sentence in the introduction to the Memorandum, that the kilogram and not the pound is now declared as the primary national standard of the Republic by way of legislation. We define the pound that we have used throughout history as a decimal of the kilogram; I think it is .45359237, which has been known for many years as the best approximation of the relations between the pound and the kilogram. I think it is all to the good, that we should refer to this international standard and not to our pound, because the definition of a pound varies from country to country. It varies from South Africa to America, and from Britain to America, etc. I think one of the reasons why this Bill has been introduced is because the original Act was badly drafted, certainly the English version of it. Now we are assured that our standards of weights and measures will be in the hands, not of a Government Department, but of the C.S.I.R., and that completely satisfies us. I do not think it is necessary to refer to any particular clauses in the Bill except that I should like to say a word about Clause 25, which refers to the question of measuring liquids by weight. We speak about a bottle of beer being 12 fluid ounces. I think it should be essential in South Africa that a pint of beer or a bottle of wine should be defined as a measure and not as a weight. That is just a suggestion, and it does not really fall within the province of this Bill. Apart from that, we welcome this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support given to this Bill by the hon. members for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) and Kensington (Mr. Moore). They have indicated that in the Committee Stage there may perhaps be certain aspects which they would like to discuss, and in view of the fact that this is a Bill of a technical nature containing quite a number of scientific references, I believe that in trying to resolve those differences we will try to find the best solution, because the intention is to have a Bill which is as good as possible, and that it should be as clear as possible. It is true that in the past certain mistakes crept in in regard to certain provisions, which have been repeated, but we still have the two systems in the country, and this Bill provides for both. In regard to the metric system, there is a committee of the Bureau of Standards which is investigating the possibility of introducing the metric system. The work of that Committee is already far advanced, but it has not yet reached the stage where they can report. In the meantime we have to deal with the practical position that both systems are still applicable here.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) referred to the system of weights and measures of apothecaries, doctors and hospitals. The position is that, according to our law advisers, that is included. When medicine is sold by weight, this Act applies to those persons. It is not applicable when a doctor makes up a prescription and the medicine he dispenses is included in the account he sends. Then it is not sold by weight, but there are hospitals which have directed requests to our Assize Section for their weights and measures to be assized. It is our object that in so far as commerce is concerned the scales and weights must be accurate when goods are sold by weight and by measure, but the few items mentioned here by hon. members can be discussed further in the Committee Stage, and if it is in any way possible to improve on them technically, we shall be prepared to devote attention to that.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

Before explaining the provisions of the Bill, I just want to point out briefly that some of the proposed amendments give effect to certain of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Safety in Mines, which was appointed after the Coalbrook mine disaster in 1960.

When the recommendations of the Commission were discussed last year under the Mines Vote in the Other Place, I gave the assurance that a large number of the recommendations of this Commission had been adopted and had already been put into effect, and also that the necessary legal amendments would be submitted for consideration this year.

It is, however, not only as the result of the findings and the recommendations of the aforementioned Commission of Inquiry that it becomes necessary to amend the Act, but also, for example, because of changed circumstances and arrangements for a better delimitation of the work between inspectors of mines on the one hand, and inspectors of explosives on the other. This Bill is not contentious in any resoect, and I believe that if we go through it clause by clause hon. members will have a clear idea of it.

Clause 1 amends and supplements the definitions in the Mines and Works Act, 1956. The designations “Deputy State Mining Engineer” and “Assistant State Mining Engineer” are added and defined so that the holders of those posts may act in those capacities in terms of the Act and the regulations, for example when the State Mining Engineer delegates certain duties to them. That is contained in Clause 1 (a) and (b). Then the definition of “Works” is amended to exclude explosives factories, water supply undertakings, Escom power stations and their distribution systems, in view of the fact that these undertakings more suitably fall within the scope of the Factories, Machinery and Building Construction Act, 1941. This change is approved of by the Departments of Economic Affairs and Labour, who were consulted in regard to the matter.

The concept “inspector of explosives” is deleted from the definitions, in view of the fact that such inspectors are not subject to the instructions of the State Mining Engineer and in fact do not do the work covered by the Mines and Works Act. For that reason the reference to inspectors of explosives is also omitted in a few other places in the Act.

The definition of “mines” is being amended to include quarries also, in order to fit in with other legal provisions which indicate that quarries are included in that term. And lastly the mine safety committee is defined. Provision is made for this committee Clause 3, and I shall say more about it later.

Clause 2 contains a purely consequential amendment. Deputy and Assistant State Mining Engineers are being added, and at the same time inspectors of explosives are deleted from the list of officials supervising mines and works. Clause 3 provides for the establishment of a mine safety committee. In order to include mine-owners and also the mine-workers in so far as suoervision over the safety and health aspects of mining are concerned, a mine safety committee is being established to advise the State Mining Engineer in regard to these matters and also in regard to any other matter affecting the safety or health of people employed in mines, or on matters for which the Act provides. It is in no way the intention to transfer to this Committee the executive powers and duties in regard to supervision by the State Mining Engineer and his inspectors. This Committee will act in an advisory capacity exclusively, and on that basis its establishment is being supported by both the employers and the employees in the mining industry.

Clause 3 further provides for the appointment of what we may call a “panel of experts.” The Commission of Inquiry into safety in mines pointed out that expert technical knowledge and wide experience of all branches of mining are freely available in our country, but that in the past disappointingly little use was made of it by the State Mining Engineer’s Department, to the detriment of safety and health. The Commission therefore recommended that a panel of carefully selected experts. be appointed and it expressed the opinion that in emergencies, such as rescue attempts or at times when there is doubt in regard to safety after a serious accident, such a panel can be a very valuable supplement to the State Mining Engineer’s Department. Such a panel has in fact already been appointed administratively, but legal provision is now being made for its establishment. Members of the panel are empowered, with the written consent of the State Mining Engineer, to enter a mine or works in order to perform their duties. They must, however, do it in such a way that they do not obstruct or hinder the work.

Clause 4 deals with the general powers of inspectors and other officials. The proposed new provisions in this connection are in essence the same as the existing sections which provide for the entrance and inspection of mines and works by inspectors and other officials, but with the omission of inspectors of explosives who, as I have already said, do not function in terms of the Mines and Works Act. A new provision which should be mentioned here is that it is clearly stated that an inspector may order the suspension of work at a mine or works, or portion of a mine or works, if he considers it necessary in the interests of health and safety. In terms of the existing Section 3 (3) of the Act, appeal against the decision or instruction of an inspector may be lodged with the State Mining Engineer in the manner prescribed by regulation. This provision can result in a delicate position arising where the State Mining Engineer or one of his immediate subordinates perhaps in fact advised or gave instructions in the first instance to the inspector concerned. The proposed new Section 3 (3) now provides that appeals may go to a special commission which will be appointed in a manner prescribed by regulation. The proposed new Section 3 (4) provides that when such appeal is noted the instruction given by the inspector will be suspended until such appeal is finalized, except in cases where the State Mining Engineer is of opinion that serious danger exists. This is a precautionary measure against the unnecessary closing down of mines.

The provisions of Clause 4 are largely based on the recommendations of the Marais Commission. Clause 5 merely contains a consequential amendment which is necessary if the amendment envisaged in Clause 4 is accepted. The main change envisaged by Clause 6 is the provision that the State Mining Engineer may have investigations instituted by a panel consisting of as many officials as he considers necessary (as opposed to investigations by only one inspector or official, as is the position at present). In the case of the more serious accidents, or in cases where the circumstances are complicated, it often happens that more than one person has to make the investigation. Provision is also made for investigations into conditions on any mine which may affect health or safety, where the employees direct a written request to the head of a State Department or the proposed mine safety committee that investigations should be instituted. The heads of State Departments are included here, mainly with a view to the interests of Bantu employees. The provisions of this clause are based on the recommendations of the Marais Commission.

Clauses 7 and 8 contain minor consequential amendments which will be necessary if the amendments contained in Clause 6 are accepted.

In Clause 9 it is provided that nobody, except under certain prescribed circumstances, may work two or more shifts per day (24 hours) underground in a mine, or may be allowed to do so. This amendment was proposed by the Mineworkers’ Union, which is of the opinion that the existing provisions of Section 10 relating to the limitation of the number of hours of underground work per week are not sufficient. The Union points out that cases occurred where mineworkers had to work a double shift per day, or even longer. Such a practice is of course at present quite legal, provided the prescribed number of working hours per week (48) is not exceeded. The fact that overtime work, i.e. that beyond the normal daily shift, is sometimes necessary and that it is impracticable to try to control overtime by means of legislation, is generally realized, but the Mineworkers’ Union insists that the working of double shifts should be controlled even though there are circumstances in which this cannot be prevented. If a mineworker who must work the next shift unexpectedly does not turn up, or when a mineworker at the end of the week changes over to a different shift, this is unavoidable. Then there are of course also times when double shifts are justified as the result of accidents and other emergencies. The joint committee of mining trade unions, as well as the Chamber of Mines, support the provisions of this clause.

Clause 10 provides that females, except in certain cases, may not be on duty at night at a mine or works in respect of the activities of that mine or works. This prohibition, however, does not apply in the case of women who hold responsible managerial or technical posts or who are employed in medical, health or social welfare services. “Night” is described as the period between half an hour before sundown and half an hour before sunrise. These amendments are necessary as the result of the provisions of the International Labour Organization Convention in regard to night work by women. Those provisions were accepted by South Africa.

In regard to Clause 11, I want to mention the following: The existing Section 12 (1) (b) of the Act permits the issuing of regulations prohibiting or restricting the building of roads and railways over, and the erection of buildings, etc. on, land which is being undermined. However, it does not cover the case of land which, although it is not undermined, is in fact dangerously near open holes, such as for example the Big Hole at Kimberley or at the Premier Mine, where periodic subsidences take place. The new proposed provision in this clause will make it necessary to take the necessary precautions also in respect of land situated near or in the vicinity of any mines.

A further proposed provision gives effect to an understanding arrived at between the Department of Mines and the Department of Economic Affairs, and also the Chief Inspector of Explosives, that the control exercised by inspectors of explosives at mines will not extend further than the magazines above ground. This will ensure a better division of the respective responsibilities of inspectors of mines and inspectors of explosives. Clause 11 (c) contains a consequential amendment, to omit inspectors of explosives, which will be necessary if the amendment in Clause 1 (d) is accepted. Finally, I want to point out in connection with this clause that the Act at present limits the penalties which may be imposed for contraventions of the regulations to R300 or a maximum of 12 months’ imprisonment. It is the intention to issue a regulation which will make the theft of explosives in mines punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment which will be a more powerful deterrent, and therefore it is necessary to delete the present limitation in the Act in so far as the illegal obtaining or possession of explosives is concerned, and to make it possible to prescribe a maximum fine of R500 or a maximum period of imprisonment of 12 months, or both such fine and imprisonment.

Clause 12 envisages an amendment of the Explosives Act, 1956. This amendment also emanates from an agreement arrived at between the Department of Mines and the Department of Economic Affairs to the effect that the transfer and transportation of explosives from mine magazines to the spot where mining takes place should no longer fall under the Explosives Act, but under the Mines and Works Act.

We on this side of the House welcome this measure. I do not propose to follow the hon. the Minister where he has dealt in great detail with some of the provisions of this Bill. We accept that it was his duty to do so and he has, in fact, given us a very full explanation. But there will be a further opportunity of discussing details of this Bill during the Committee Stage and accordingly I do not propose to deal with them in detail now.

At this stage I should like to say that we can be very proud of the splendid record of this country in respect of this matter of mine accidents, tragic as many of them are. Of this we had a reminder only a few days back, a reminder of that fact that anyone who goes into a mine in whatever capacity, is always in danger of meeting with accidents. I am referring to the tragedy which occurred a day or two ago on the West Rand when one of our leading mine managers and his assistant were killed. It is as well to remember that this happened while they were going to the assistance of another miner, a Native miner, who was trapped in the mine in question. I should like to express my sympathy with those who were left behind as a result of this tragic event. Two very distinguished men were taken from us— an example of the hazards to all ranks and occupations which go to make up the mining industry.

I have already said that we welcome this Bill. Any improvement we can make in the legislation for the protection of our mineworkers is of the utmost importance to this country. We have, I think, made a tremendous contribution in this matter of safety on mines, a contribution which has been of value not only to us but also far beyond our own borders. In this connection I think it can be said that we have a record which can favourably be compared with that of any other country in the world. Of this we can be proud. This record is the outcome of the co-operation between the technical staff on our mines and the very efficient men who have been in charge of the Government Department concerned. Here I want to say at once that I believe that South Africa is extremely fortunate as regards the quality of the men available to be placed in the very important position of Government Mining Engineer, as well as in other positions where we have had a series of men who have made a tremendous contribution through the years to the safety of those who go into the mines.

This legislation constitutes a departure in certain respects but we approve entirely of its aims. I have said that we can discuss some details during the Committee Stage. I do not think it necessary, in the circumstances, to go into any detail now. We must remember that we, as one of the most fortunate countries in the world perhaps as far as our mineral wealth is concerned, have played an important part in the past and have an important part to play in the years which lie ahead. The improvements which this legislation aims at will, I am sure, have the effect of upholding the very high standard which has been set in this country in respect of this question of safety and the security of the men whose contributions in the field of mining have played such a big part in the development of this country.

I should like to support the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) in what he has said about this Bill. There are one or two further observations I should like to make to-nieht. Let me say at once that it is very pleasing to see that the lesson we learned from the terrible disaster at Coalbrook has been acted uoon and that we have taken steps immediately to rectify the position, so as to ensure that such accidents will not happen aeain. In this connection, it is leasing to see that the Government Mining Engineer shall have control of and shall supervise all mines, works and machinery and also that he will virtually be in control of explosives. This constitutes a very important step forward.

I now want to say something about the mine safety committee which is going to be established. It is obvious that this must be a very highly specialized group of people. I regret, however, that in the relevant clause no definite specification is given of the type of individual to be appointed. In one case, particularly, we must ensure that at least two medical officers shall be nominated to serve on that committee. Right throughout this Bill we see that precautions are going to be taken particularly for the health and safety of the mineworker. It is, therefore, very important that the Minister should ensure that at least two medical officers are appointed to that committee. As far as I am concerned, I should like to see these medical men being appointed from that excellent group of people who are serving the mines at the present time, either as full-time medical officers on the mines, or medical officers working for the chamber, or for the Pneumoconiosis Board. These are the people I should like to see on the safety committee. Their advice will be of great value to the mineworker and he, i.e. the mineworker, will also have more confidence in this committee if there is this type of man on it. Not only will they be able to give advice on the question of the prevention and treatment of accidents, but they will also be able to give advice on the question of dust control underground and in the surface workings of mines, the pollution of the air, and the water in the mines. These are aspects of mining which we must now start controlling properly. The type of medical officer I have talked about is a person who will be able to give much help and advice to the safety committee in these respects.

In Clause 9 we find that provision is being made to prevent people from overwork. I am, however, a little perturbed at the proviso which is being included here because I feel that a mineworker is probably always the first to come to the aid of his fellow worker. If any accident takes place on a certain mine, volunteers come from many other mines to help. I am afraid that some of these mineworkers may be a little over anxious and keen to do the rescue work. Consequently we must be careful to avoid those who have just come off a shift from going underground again for the rendering of help. It is under such periods of stress and strain that further accidents can very easily take place. That happens because of fatigue on the part of the rescue workers. Consequently the mine manager of the mine where an accident has occurred must make sure that those volunteers are not men who have just come off a shift. Even under normal circumstances it is terribly dangerous to go into an accident area. How much more is it under the stress and strain which attend an accident. I should like this to be borne in mind. Perhaps we can bring this up again at a later stage.

Another danger is that a rescuer stays too long underground. In this connection I should like to see the hon. the Minister insisting that no rescue worker be used for more than a period of four hours at a time.

Do you want such a provision to be incorporated in the regulations?

Yes. I know of cases, and I am sure other hon. members also know of cases where rescue workers just did not want to come up but wanted to continue their rescue operations. This is particularly the case in the event of fires. That is terribly dangerous and also unfair to themselves and their dependants. I say we should protect these people who want to do such good work for their fellow workers.

Otherwise this Bill is excellent and I support it. There is one other point of which I should like to have clarification, i.e. the provision in Clause 10 that no female shall work at night. Who are the females who work on the mines at night? Do they work on the manganese mines, for instance, or are they sorters? What do they do? I should like the Minister to tell us.

I want again to join my colleague, the hon. member for Germiston (District), in supporting this Bill and in wishing it well.

One appreciates that there is so much unanimity between the Opposition and the Government when discussing measures dealing with safety in our mines. The tragic happenings at Coalbrook have made us realize that we cannot take chances as far as the safety of our workers is concerned. After all, mining is dangerous work. The mineworker is continually exposed to danger. In the first place, there is the danger of accidents and, in the second place, the mineworker runs the risk of contracting one of the occupational diseases. That is why every mineowner is compelled by legislation to take certain precautions. These measures are and remain the responsibility of the mine-owner. On the other hand, the State is responsible for ensuring that certain minimum safety measures are complied with and that they are carried out. The Marais Commission found that there was some doubt as to the adequacy of the supervision exercised by the State over safety in the mines.

In this connection there are three interested groups in the mining industry which are dependent upon one another. In the first place there is the mine-owner, in the second place, the mineworker and, thirdly, the State. The State must, through the State Mining Engineer’s Office, ensure that the mine-owner applies every possible means to guarantee the safety of his workers. In the report of the Commission on Safety in Mines mention was made of the lack of co-operation and mutual confidence between the mineworker and the State Mining Engineer’s Office. This resulted in a lack of confidence and suspicion which in its turn undermined the status and prestige of the State Mining Engineer.

An effort is being made by means of the amendments that are envisaged here to bring about safer working conditions for the mineworkers. This is being done to a large extent by the provisions of Clause 4. This matter has already been dealt with by the hon. the Minister. I believe that in the second place, more co-operation can be obtained and greater mutual confidence can be established by the setting up of a Mine Safety Committee for which provision is made in Clause 3. In this connection the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) said that provision should be made for the appointment of doctors to that committee. As I see the matter, the three interested groups which I have mentioned will be represented on that proposed committee. These groups are the State, the mineworker and the mine-owner. The purpose of the committee is to promote co-operation between these three groups. I believe that the plea of the hon. member for the appointment of doctors to the committee can be given effect to in terms of Clause 3 (9) (a). In terms of this provision it is possible to make use of the expert medical knowledge which the hon. member has in mind. On the other hand, to give doctors representation on the committee will, in my opinion, affect the very essence of and the intention inherent in the setting up of this committee. I believe that the setting up of a committee of this nature is intended to promote increased co-operation between the three aforementioned interested groups and to establish greater mutual confidence between the office of the State Mining Engineer and the mineworker.

We believe that the supervision which the State has to exercise over the question of safety in mines will be improved by means of this legislation. This is the mineworker’s strongest guarantee against accidents and occupational diseases. These proposed amendments will also eliminate unpleasantness and ought to promote a spirit of confidence which will be in the interests of both the employer and the employee. The status of the State Mining Engineer will also be enhanced and his office will then occupy the position of trust which it ought to occupy.

We are all speaking with one voice on this measure. Of that there cannot be any shadow of doubt. Some years ago we all were in the shadow of the calamity which occurred at Coalbrook and during the last couple of days a very old friend of mine was killed in a mine accident. But, as I said, we all speak with one voice on this measure although I want to disagree slightly with what the previous speaker said in regard to the medical representation on the proposed safety committee. The hon. member for Rossentenville asked that there should definitely be medical men on that committee while the hon. member for Welkom said he did not think that should be laid down. I disagree with him there because I think it should be laid down. The medical side is of importance and a doctor should consequently be on each safety Committee. I do not want to talk too long on this matter. I just want to remind the hon. the Minister that the safety rules must always be under scrutiny but should not go so far as to interfere with the management of mines. Interference may be by junior and incompetent officials. What is required, is rather the co-operation of the Department with the managements. That should be looked after by experts.

With these few words, I want to sit down saying that I am extremely pleased that this Bill has come forward.

It is very strange that I should have to thank my neighbour and colleague for the attitude that he has adopted in connection with this legislation! That is something that does not happen every day! But it is true that a great deal of unanimity exists when dealing with measures by means of which human lives can be saved. Mining to-day is one of our most important industries. Underground work is, however, very dangerous and in this regard it is of importance that the State should ensure that the safety and health measures that have to be taken are of a high standard. Human lives are at stake and the health of the worker is also at stake. That is why we are very grateful that this legislation has been introduced. I also want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Welkom (Mr. H. J. van Wyk) and express the hope that these measures will in their turn promote confidence in the State Mining Engineer’s Office. As one who represents a constituency having a large proportion of mineworkers, I want to say that there was a time when the mineworker had very little confidence in the actions of certain persons in the Office of the State Mining Engineer as well as in his regional offices. I sincerely hope that this legislation will restore that confidence.

I am afraid that when we come to the question of the closing of mines, not very much attention is given to the safety of the worker. I am afraid that the regulations in this connection are often bypassed and that more attention is given to production than to safety of the mineworker. Only recently we read how two well-known mining personalities lost their lives. They were known to me personally and I want to join the hon. member for Germiston-District (Mr. Tucker) in expressing my sorrow at the tragedy. These were two men who were prepared to do anything for the mineworkers. The manager of this particular mine was even prepared to make an investigation before the mineworkers started working and he met his death in this way. We are afraid that the regulations are not always complied with strictly enough. The motive appears to be one of production rather than the safety of the., worker. We are perturbed at the number of mining accidents that have taken place during the past few years. We also know that the mineworkers are becoming worried in this regard, particularly those working underground. They are continually asking whether sufficient attention is being paid to their safety and whether the regulations are being complied with properly. Are these regulations framed in such a way that the worker can comply with them and at the same time make a reasonable living? I hope and trust that the negotiations which are now in progress between the Mineworkers’ Union and the mine-owners will result in agreement being reached as far as the wage structure is concerned. As the regulations read to-day the mineworker cannot make a decent living.

I want to raise another matter as well. We appreciate the fact that the mines to-day are doing such a great deal to promote the safety of the mineworker underground. But I do not think that the mines are going far enough in this regard. For example, only some of their officials are compelled to take a course in first-aid. I think that the time has come when every employee on the mine, both White and non-White, should take a course in first-aid. I am convinced that if every worker takes a course in first-aid, this will tend to minimize to a large extent the incidence of accidents underground. I want to make an appeal to mine-owners. These first-aid competitions are at the moment being held only on Sundays and I want to ask them whether it is not possible to hold these courses during the week. This will enable those people who have conscientious objections to participating in these first-aid competitions on Sundays, to participate in the competitions on other days.

It is an ordinary game.

I am not making a plea for an “ordinary game”. I have great respect for the hon. member but I want to tell him that more than 90 per cent of the people working on the mines certainly do not want to participate in those competitions on a Sunday. Those who want to participate are welcome to do so. I am making a plea for the 90 per cent who have conscientious objections to participating in these competitions on a Sunday. Do not let us bring politics into a matter about which the hon. member knows very little. Those people have conscientious objections to participating on a Sunday and they have very good reasons for thinking as they do.

I want to support the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) in regard to the question of proto-teams of mineworkers. Very few people know the value of these teams to the mines in general. They are made up of trained men, men who are trained to fight underground fires. It is probably one of the most difficult tasks imaginable to fight an underground fire in those narrow passages. I support the plea of the hon. member for Rosettenville that we must have comprehensive regulations in order to control the duration of underground shifts. I admit that this will cost a great deal of money but I am convinvced that in this respect money is no object in the hon. member’s view; all he is interested in is the health of the workers. That is why I support him in this. I also want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister, in co-operation with the mining companies, to ascertain whether regulations of this nature cannot be drawn up.

The hon. member also referred to female clerks. The only female clerks on the mines are those working in the Assay Department and they usually leave work at 5 o’clock. We do find that female clerks work overtime in the time office. We cannot restrict these female clerks in the time office and say that they have to go home half an hour after sunset, because that will make the position on the mines impossible. How are the mineworkers going to be paid at the end of the week or at the end of the month if the female clerks have to go home at a certain time? I hope therefore that this provision will not be made applicable to those female clerks. Now that we are no longer a member of the International Labour Organization I wonder whether we should not delete the provision in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, we all welcome this legislation. We are grateful that there is so much understanding between the mineworkers and the mine-owners. We trust that this legislation will be of great benefit to mining in the Republic.

I want to avail myself of this opportunity to pay a tribute to the work done by the Red Cross in connection with the training of those who take an interest in first-aid work in the mines. On a recent trip through the mines at the invitation of the Chamber of Mines, the work done by those trained in first-aid was explained in detail to me. Although we have evidence of the number of accidents that do take place there is no evidence of the number of accidents that are avoided as the result of timely warnings by those who have been trained in first-aid work. I think we have to consider this aspect when we consider safety in the mines. The fact that the previous speaker has pleaded for a greater number of mineworkers to take a course in first-aid is significant. I want to associate myself with his remarks and indicate that this is possibly one of the best ways of inculcating into all workers the need for safety. Every mineworker must be made aware, through the training they can obtain from the Red Cross and other organizations, of the value of first-aid. I am taking this opportunity to pay tribute to the Red Cross and those organizations, because I think we are apt to take for granted the work done by these voluntary workers who are responsible for extending first-aid education to those mineworkers who are interested. I want to add my plea to that of the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) that everything should be done by the management and by the Minister’s Department to encourage as many as possible to take up first-aid courses in the interests of their own safety and in the interests of those they work with.

I appreciate the support that has been given to this legislation. So much appreciation has been shown by hon. members on both sides of the House that I do not think it is necessary to add very much to what has been said. Mining remains one of the most dangerous industries in the country. But the record of the mining industry, as far as safety is concerned, is a very proud one. Because we are now making further efforts to bring about improvements in this regard it is understandable that this legislation will receive the support of all of us present here and that the argument is advanced that the mineworker himself should do far more to equip himself in order to be of assistance in cases of emergency.

The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) said that when accidents occur, the helpers should be restricted to certain hours of working. I can quite appreciate the argument that there is danger, people who have been working for some length of time may suffer from exhaustion which in its turn can have a detrimental effect upon them personally. But there is also the human factor. When they know that their comrades are in trouble, they will not allow themselves to be influenced by time. I think that it would be very difficult in practice to say: “Your time is up you must fall out,” when a critical stage has been reached in the rescue operations. I do not think this can be done. If the hon. member feels strongly about this matter, we may perhaps be able to discuss it again during the Committee Stage.

The hon. member for Rosettenville also referred to the mine safety committee and suggested that doctors should serve on that committee. He said that he would discuss this matter further at the Committee Stage. I shall therefore not deal with this question now. After discussion in the Other Place this matter was held over for further investigation in order to ascertain whether it was not possible to enable doctors to have representation on this committee. I think therefore that we can discuss this aspect further during the Committee Stage.

The hon. member also asked whether there were any women working underground on the mines. I think that was his question. The Mines and Works Act, No. 27 of 1956, provides in Section 11 that—

The Act provides therefore that no woman may work underground in any mine, no matter what kind of mine it may be. Reference has been made here to the panel of experts. I can only say that the persons who have been appointed are enthusiastic in their co-operation. Their services are already being utilized and I am sure hon. members would like to know who they are. Fourteen of them have been appointed. One is a professor in mining at the Witwatersrand University; another is a professor in mechanical engineering at the University of the Witwatersrand; there is a professor in electrical engineering at the University of Pretoria; Mr. J. J. P. Dolan, retired consulting mechanical and electrical engineer at Rand Mines, Limited; Mr. O. Rau, retired chief inspector of plant; Mr. G. B. Batty, retired consulting mining engineer, Consolidated Goldfields; Mr. E. C. Airth, retired mine manager, Durban Roodepoort Deep; Mr. A. G. Cundill, mine manager, Vlakfontein Gold Mining Company; Mr. N. Ramsay, retired consulting engineer, Staford Meyer Group; Mr. G. F. Rautenbach, Managing Director of Brakfontein Navigation Steam Collieries. He was a member of the Marais Commission and has since died. Mr. A. E. Fraser, consulting engineer (Coal) of Rand Mines; Mr. J. R. I. Rademeyer, consulting engineer who was also a member of the Marais Commission. There is also a person nominated by the Mining Union’s Joint Committee and, lastly, there is Mr. P. J. Malan, the General Secretary and Manager of the Underground Officials’ Association. Hon. members will agree with me that these persons who have been appointed for a period of two years to act in an advisory capacity as far as their expert advice is concerned, cover a very wide field as experts and that they are able to render very good service.

I think that I have covered the most important points raised by hon. members. We can deal in more detail at the Committee Stage with the other points that have been mentioned.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

During the recent discussion of the Electricity Bill in terms of which Escom as agent of the Industrial Development Corporation will be able to set up, manage and control power stations, power lines and so forth in South West Africa, I said that it was also our intention to effect a small amendment to the Industrial Development Act of 1940. The Bill before the House is the result of this intention.

Although the Bill consists of eight clauses there is in reality only one clause which contains a new principle. All the other amendments are simply being effected in order to adapt the wording of the present Act to the changed constitutional position of South Africa. As far as Clause 1 is concerned, hon. members will note that, for the purposes of the principal Act, South West Africa will now be regarded as being part of the Republic. In this connection I want to explain at the outset that there was doubt in some circles in regard to the powers and authority of the I.D.C. beyond the borders of the Republic. It was said that the I. D.C. had no power at all to do anything outside the Republic. This statement is wrong and has been declared to be so by the Government law advisers after a thorough study of the principal Act. In short, legal opinion holds that in general the I.D.C. can enter into any contract or do anything, either in or outside the Republic, as long as such action is calculated to achieve one or other of the aims of the I. D.C. or is to the direct or indirect advantage of industry in the Republic. But the I.D.C. cannot do anything beyond the borders of the Republic if such action is not to the advantage or in the interests of one or other industry in this country. In other words, the Corporation is not able to establish factories in another country or to assist in the establishment or financing of such factories if no advantage is to be derived from a step of this nature by any industry in South Africa. In the past, the I.D.C. has adhered strictly to this line of action.

On the basis of this legal opinion, and with a view to the possible setting up of power stations etc. in South West Africa, which is envisaged by the Electricity Amendment Bill, it is clear that no benefit from the setting-up of such power stations etc. will accrue to any industry in South Africa and for this reason it is now being proposed that the principal Act be amended in this respect, that South West Africa be regarded as being part of the Republic for the purposes of the principal Act and, accordingly, for the I.D.C. to do anything.

During the discussion on the Electricity Bill I said in connection with Escom, and I want to repeat it now as far as the I.D.C. is concerned, that as illogical as it would be to establish a second Escom at great expense for the possible erection of large power-generating installations in South Africa—which, from the nature of the matter, would at the outset suffer from a Jack of the necessary experience—just as illogical would it appear to be to establish a second I.D.C. in South West Africa, also without the necessary experience and simply for the sake of possible industrial development. This is a case therefore where two strong bodies with mature experience like the I.D.C. and Escom can be utilized for further industrial development in the country without incurring great expenditure.

In conclusion I should also like to repeat what I said in the case of the Electricity Bill— that there cannot be the slightest doubt that this small amendment of the law will eventually be to the advantage and benefit of development in South Africa and the territory of South West Africa in respect of which we bear a great responsibility.

This is a gentle-looking Bill; it looks entirely innocuous—I don’t want the Minister to gather from this remark that we are not entirely supporting it. He said it really extended the powers of Escom to sell current in South West Africa and the Protectorates which, from the point of view of South Africa, would be very important. He also said the possible effects of that on South African industries must be watched. I think he said it would be ridiculous to encourage industries in Rhodesia, South West Africa or the Protectorates, when they become independent, if the encouragement of those industries by the extension of the powers of Escom and the I.D.C. would lead to our own industries being detrimentally affected.

In regard to these extra-parliamentary bodies, we have so often been told, Mr. Speaker, when we have complained about their actions not being helpful in regard to other businesses in South Africa, that the Minister concerned had no power, or was very loth to exercise any power which he had, because he was not so sure what his power was, and therefore he could not give us the information asked for. I would like the Minister to confirm that whatever the I.D.C., under these new powers, does in regard to assisting industries outside the Republic of South Africa he and Parliament will have the power to keep a check on them. We are entirely in favour of assisting our neighbours but not at the expense of our own country. If the Minister will give us that assurance that he will retain these powers to stop possible difficulties, he will have our full support, subject to one or two other points that will be dealt with by speakers after me, for this Bill.

I should like to say a word or two especially in regard to Clause 3. This clause provides for an amendment to the original Act. Section 4 (h) of the original Act reads—

Despite what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said about legal opinion, it has apparently now been found that it is advisable to have the matter regulated and to introduce this amendment which says clearly not “outside the Union” but “in any country or territory”.

The Industrial Development Corporation is a Government-sponsored Corporation. We on this side of the House have always maintained that it has certain responsibilities to Parliament. This case I have mentioned in the past—and I propose to deal with it again this evening—is the case of a subsidiary of the I.D.C. namely Fine Wool Products of South Africa. Fine Wool Products of South Africa is a good, successful company. It is a company of which, I think, the I.D.C. must be very proud. We receive their annual report every year and I am very grateful for that. I want to quote from the 1960 report where we are told—

You will remember, Sir, that Southern Rhodesia raised the tariff wall to 20 per cent. That meant that Fine Wool Products lost part of their market. In 1961 I found the following in the Directors’ report—

They were considering establishing a company, Fine Wool Products, a South African company, in Rhodesia in addition to being established in South Africa; something similar to what we are now asked to approve of in the Bill before the House.

I come to the following year, 1962. Looking at the Profit and Loss Account I find that Fine Wool Products give us on the debit side: “Income tax Rhodesian—R114”. Here we have a South African company which is, I assume, established in Rhodesia in some manner and we are paying income tax in Rhodesia to the tune of R114. Now that is not the important point. The important point is that we have companies in South Africa to-day who are exporting to Southern Rhodesia. And we have a Government-sponsored company under the auspices of the I.D.C., i.e. Fine Wool Products, established in Rhodesia and competing with our own companies exporting from South Africa. I do not think that was the original intention of the Industrial Development Corporation, Mr. Speaker. The I.D.C. was given the power in this Act I have quoted from to encourage the development of industries in South Africa. We are now expanding it to this extent that this company has a subsidiary or had one in Rhodesia—I don’t know what the position is to-day; we don’t get sufficient information.

In discussing this Bill, Sir, I want an assurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister that the Industrial Development Corporation will not be able to establish companies outside South Africa to compete with South African companies. At present they are establishing companies to compete with South African companies; they have gone far beyond the original scope of the proposed development of the I.D.C. The hon. Minister knows it is not germane to this discussion to-night, but he knows what our attitude is. All through the years our attitude on this side of the House has been that the I.D.C. which was established by the United Party during the war years, in 1940, should be accountable to Parliament. We have argued that throughout the years; we have argued that the authority of this Parliament should be supreme. Where Government money is invested there should be accountability to this Parliament. We don’t mean accountability in the narrow sense of a Government Department. We have something broader in mind. But we feel that is essential. There is no accountability to-day, however. I have in the past outlined what the I.D.C. has done. They have established companies in South Africa in such a manner that they were interested in a take-over bid—competing with other companies in South Africa. I am not speaking against the I.D.C. but I do say this: There should be a greater measure of accountability to this Parliament. We don’t wish to pry into the private affairs of the I.D.C. The hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs said we were anxious to find out secrets. We don’t want to know their secrets, but we feel that where Government money is invested—and it is public money—there should be accountability to this Parliament. There is one shareholder only, the Government. Therefore we insist on accountability.

I want this assurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister that if the Industrial Development Corporation is given the authority under Clause 3 to establish a company outside South Africa, either in South West Africa or Southern Rhodesia or in the countries in the North, we shall have accountability to this House. We should know what is happening. I think that is essential. Every well-conducted company has an annual meeting where the shareholders can call the directors to account. Nobody calls the I.D.C. directors to account. They are completely free. The only person to whom they are responsible is the Minister who nominates the directors. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to give us the assurance that there will be no competition with our own industries.

Sir, I should like to bear out what the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) has said. I think many of us have been worried about many developments in I.D.C. policy. A short while ago, for instance, attempts were made in a take-over bid for Cuthberts. Cuthberts was a well-established concern, well managed and it was not necessary for the Government to assist it at all. It was a sound investment. The I.D.C. had to find £3,000,000 sterling to pay out the British shareholders in that takeover bid. At that time the Treasury could only supply the I.D.C. with £1,500,000 sterling for their purpose. But the point I am trying to make is this: As I see it the I.D.C. is there to help to start new industries. Once that industry is on its feet the I.D.C. should slowly off-load those shares on to the investing public, as a sound investment, approved of by the I.D.C. The small investor will know he can buy those shares because it is a sound concern. In that way the I.D.C. gets its money back and can use that money to start a new industry. It should not be a holding company. In other words, it should not invest its money in a thoroughly established company with a view to drawing interest. It should simply help to support private enterprise; see that a company is well run and when it is on a sound basis sell out those shares to the public; give the South African investor a chance of coming in at a premium, of course, at a profit to the I.D.C. When the I.D.C. gets that money in it should put it into an industry.

I feel very strongly about the point raised by the hon. member for Kensington—there should be accountability to Parliament. All said and done the Government is the only shareholder.

The hon member has made a very strong point and I don’t wish to be repetitive. But the hon. member for Kensington has stated quite clearly—I did not know it as a matter of fact—that the I.D.C. was starting companies outside South Africa. Surely that was not the original idea, for which the Corporation was created, particularly if those new companies which are started outside are to compete against companies already established in South Africa itself. What is the sense in starting a new company here if you go across the border and start a similar industry there, with our money, I presume, to compete against the South African company? On the broad view we support this measure and do not want to take up the time of the House any longer.

I just want to make a final point. I do not think the I.D.C. should become a holding company or an investment company. It should be there to develop sound industries; when those industries are established the I.D.C. should sell out to the public, get their money back and start new industries. The I.D.C.’s capital should be turned over as quickly as possible and not tie it up in long-term investments.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) has again had the opportunity this evening of participating in a debate, which, as far as he is concerned, has become virtually a “hardy annual”. He mentioned the case here of Fine Wool which he said tried to develop a competitive industry in the Federation. We all know the history of this organization. The fact is that because of the policy of the Federal Government of building up their own industries, a tariff wall was built up and Fine Wool, as in the case of other exporters of textile goods, came up against strong competition and was virtually compelled, if it wished to retain its trade with the Federation, to establish itself there. The fact of the matter is that Fine Wool was one of the first organizations to enter this field; other organizations from the Republic followed its example at a later stage. If Fine Wool had not established itself in the Federation, it would have meant that they would have lost a very large proportion of their market. They would not have been able to expand there; their production would have been curtailed although they had the production capacity of a larger unit. This would have affected them adversely. For economic reasons, and in order to maintain a sound business basis, they were compelled to consider developing the industry there. The hon. member discussed this matter in this House as far back as 1960, and he has now asked for the assurance that as far as South West is concerned we will not allow an industry to be started there with the assistance of the I.D.C. to compete with industries in the Republic.

No, “any other foreign country”.

But the hon. Member wanted an assurance in regard to South West. He brought up this matter in relation to Clause 12, to which he referred, and Clause 12 deals with the registration of the corporation outside of the Republic. The reason why the clause provides for “any country” is that for registration purposes South West does not form part of the Republic. South West has its own Companies Act and its own registration requirements and that is why it is necessary to have this provision, even though South West is regarded as being part of the Republic for the purposes of the Act.

Reference was made here to the so-called take-over bid of Cuthberts Shoe Industry. In the report that was mentioned here the Chairman of the I.D.C., Dr. van Eck, made it quite clear why that bid was made. He said that the shoe industry was in an extremely critical position at that time and the only reason why that bid was made by the I.D.C. at the time was that they hoped by means of such a take-over to bring about more rationalization in the shoe industry and to place the shoe industry, which is an important industry employing many workers, on a sound and economic basis once again. That was the intention underlying that bid. It has also been advocated here that once the I.D.C. has helped an industry to get on to its feet, it should then transfer the shares. Less than two years ago an organization called Industrial Collections was brought into being and a large number of the I.D.C.’s shares were transferred to Industrial Collections. These shares were quoted on the Stock Market and the ordinary shareholder was able to buy them. A start has already been made therefore with the policy of transferring more and more shares and that will most probably also be the policy in the future. The complaint has once again been made that Parliament has not been supplied with a report on all these activities. We discussed a private motion earlier this Session in which these same arguments were advanced. I pointed out then that when the Opposition were in power they were not prepared to accept that principle either. But now they advocate exactly the opposite, just as the Nationalists did when they were in Opposition. Here we have a large and very important business institution. Very strong arguments can be advanced as to why its activities should not be made public and as to why a Parliamentary Committee should not have access to all this information. Since all these arguments were dealt with at the time I do not think it is necessary to repeat them on this occasion.

Do I understand correctly that the hon. the Minister refuses to accept responsibility for any investment by the I.D.C. in businesses outside South Africa?

This Bill deals with investments in South West Africa. The hon. member for Kensington has said that South West Africa is in South Africa, and now the hon. member over there comes along with that question! I really do not know what those hon. members want!

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

In connection with the amendment proposed to Section 12 (3), read in conjunction with the amendment proposed to Section 16 (3), I want to explain that these amendments are being brought about in an effort to strengthen the position of the Corporation as far as exemption from tax liability abroad is concerned. Similar organizations, for example, in the U.S.A. and Canada are regarded abroad as agents of their respective Governments and they are specifically exempted from tax. During 1947 a convention was entered into, amongst others, between South Africa and the United States of America, in terms of which income earned in another country by, amongst others, a scientific organization which was regarded as an agent of the Government in question, was entitled to exemption from tax on a reciprocal basis, provided such an organization was also exempt from taxation in its own country. An example of this is “Canadian Patents and Developments, Ltd.” of Canada. A somewhat similar convention was entered into during 1962 by various countries, including South Africa and the United Kingdom, in which it was laid down that royalties earned in one country by an inhabitant of another country and subject to tax in the recipient’s country, would also be taxable in the first-mentioned country. But it was also laid down that such tax would in no case exceed five per cent of the amount of those royalties. Because of the high cost of research work in connection with the development of inventions it is not expected that the inventions Development Corporation will pay any income tax locally.

A further problem appears to be that as the Act reads at present universities which have inventions available for development will be indirectly prevented from making use of the specialized services of the Corporation because universities are exempt as far as tax liability on inventor’s fees is concerned. This will mean, amongst other things, that the Corporation will probably have to pay tax abroad, where inventions at universities will also have to be licensed, while the universities concerned will not have to do so.

In order, therefore, to emphasize, further the idea that the Corporation is a body which concentrates upon the development of inventions, scientific and otherwise, we are proposing to amend Section 12 (3) of the principal Act as suggested.

We trust that the request of the local Corporation to be exempt from income tax abroad will be considerably strengthened by these two amendments.

I do not intend to say much about this Bill, but from what happened just now, you will forgive me if I say that my mind is still filled with a little bit of suspicion, and so I must regard this Bill a little more closely than I intended to. We accept the position that the freeing of these sums from taxes is a very sound proposition, which should have existed before. But what we cannot understand, and here is where the suspicion comes in, why on earth under these conditions there should be retrospective legislation. Clause 3 says: “This Act shall be called the Inventions Development Amendment Act, 1964, and shall be deemed to have come into operation on the 29th day of March, 1962.” I would like the Minister to tell us what dire and dark secrets are covered by this particular clause, and I hope he can do it with more open-heartedness and honesty than he applied to the recent debate.

Order!

I withdraw those last few words.

I stated the reasons clearly. The object is to make certain that this institution will be exempted from taxation. That is why it is made retrospective.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Order of the Day No. XII to stand over.

I move—

This Bill deals with the admission of attorneys, notaries and conveyancers; it is a measure on which complete unanimity has been reached between myself and the various law societies. We had quite a number of discussions with regard to this matter and we devoted a great deal of attention particularly to certain clauses of the Bill. I want to make use of this opportunity to express my deep gratitude and appreciation not only to the presidents of the various law societies but also to the law societies themselves in the various provinces for the very fine co-operation which has existed in the past between them and the Department of Justice and myself as Minister in this connection. I have great pleasure in submitting to the House this Bill, which in the first place is really the Law Society’s own Bill, and in asking both sides of the House to give it their full support.

It is a remarkable fact. Sir, that there are two professions in particular—and here I am thinking of the medical profession on the one hand and the attorneys’ profession on the other —which have to contend with the problem that there are many laymen who are totally unqualified but who believe that they can do the work of the medical practitioner on the one hand or the work of the attorney on the other just as well as the qualified medical practitioner or the qualified attorney. I do not believe that there is any other profession in which there are as many quacks as there are in these two professions. At the same time it is difficult to conceive of any other profession at which more stones are thrown by the uninitiated than the medical profession on the one hand and the attorneys’ profession on the other. Sir, I do not want this House to labour under any illusions with regard to my attitude in respect of this matter. The law societies, with very good reason, are perturbed—and I wholeheartedly share their concern—about the fact that so many unqualified people have encroached upon the sphere of the attorneys’ profession. Sir, I make no apology for the fact that as far as I am concerned I have always sided very strongly in the past—as I do in this Rill and as I shall do in the future—with the attorneys’ profession where they have attempted to put a stop to the inroads made into their profession by unqualified people. I have said in the past and I should like to repeat here that if we allow a state of affairs to develop where attorneys— and I am thinking here of the rural areas in particular—find that they are being squeezed out, that it is impossible for them to practise their profession in such a way that they can make a decent living out of it, our administration of justice will inevitably suffer irreparable harm, and if we really value our administration of justice—and I do not think there is anybody in this House or outside who does not have a high regard for our administration of justice—then we must protect the attorneys’ profession, not in the sense of pampering it or nurturing it like a pot-plant, but we must protect it against inroads by unqualified persons. Hon. members may ask me why this is not done by the Law Society itself. The answer, of course, is obvious and that is that the profession has always prided itself on the fact that its code provides that no member of the profession may advertise himself. On the contrary, the attorneys hold such strong views on this matter that an attorney who advertises himself will not only be reprimanded very strongly by the Law Society, but such conduct may even lead to his suspension from the roll of attorneys. Sir, I have said on a previous occasion but I consider it necessary to repeat it on this occasion that I know of many professions which assiduously try to combat evils in their own ranks, but of all the professions there is only one profession, the attorneys’ profession, which not only combats evils in its own ranks but which goes so far— and I want hon. members who are not attorneys to appreciate and to understand this clearly—as to indemnify members of the public, out of their own pockets, against losses that they incur as a result of the actions of the black sheep in their ranks. I refer here to the Fidelity Guarantee Fund to which the attorneys make a contribution—and this contribution has risen over the years to R60 per annum per attorney—in order to compensate members of the public for losses incurred as a result of the actions of attorneys who embezzle trust moneys. In that connection I also want to point out that there are many people who are fond of throwing stones at attorneys who transgress—and one cannot, of course, find adequate words to express one’s disapproval of such conduct—but I want to point out in passing that when one need only look at the reports of court cases to realize that the cases in which directors of companies are charged with having embezzled moneys belonging to companies outnumber the cases in which attorneys transgress from time to time. Moreover, in comparison with the huge amounts involved in those cases where directors of companies embezzle moneys belonging to companies, the amount embezzled by attorneys is a trifling sum. And in the case of companies the interested parties, the shareholders or investors, are not protected whereas in the case of attorneys they are protected, and they are not protected by a contribution made by the State or by anybody else; the important point here is that the client is protected by means of the personal contribution which every attorney makes to the Fidelity Guarantee Fund every year. This Bill has become necessary partly because of our withdrawal from the Commonwealth.

Before I deal with the Bill itself, let us look in broad outline at the principles of this Bill. There are three main principles involved here. The first concerns our withdrawal from the Commonwealth and the provisions which have to be incorporated in the Act as a result of the changed circumstances arising from the fact that South Africa became a Republic. In the second place this Bill with the question of trust moneys, to which I have already referred, and the third principle which is at stake here is the question of the inroads made into the attorneys’ profession by unqualified persons. As far as the first aspect is concerned I refer hon. members to Clause 2 of the Bill. Hon. members are aware that the original Section 4 of the principal Act, which is being amended here, laid down which persons could be admitted as attorneys, and hon. members will find in the relevant section that apart from the fact that such persons had to be South African citizens, they could also be citizens of a Commonwealth country or citizens of the Republic of Ireland. As I have already said, this naturally falls away because we have now become a Republic. Hon. members will see in the clause in question that a person may now be admitted if he is a South African citizen or if he is a person who has been lawfully admitted to the Republic for permanent residence in the Republic and who ordinarily resides in the Republic. We are dealing here with two classes of persons the efore—in the first place our own citizens, and, secondly, we would also like to make provision for immigrants who wish to come and settle permanently in South Africa. We are now giving them an opportunity under this Bill to be admitted as attorneys.

Then we come to Clause 4 which deals with the position of advocates who ask for the removal of their names from the roll of advocates and who then come on to the attor-neys’ roll, or the position of attorneys who have the necessary qualifications and who wish to have their names transferred from the roll of attorneys to the roll of advocates. In the past the law provided that if a person who was practising as an attorney had the necessary qualifications and he wanted his name removed from the attorneys’ roll in order to practise as an advocate, his name first had to be removed from the roll for a period of six months before it could be transferred to the roll of advocates, and the law laid down that during that period he must have had no connection at all with an attorneys’ office.

The cleansing period.

Yes, a period in which to rid himself of what clings to the attorneys’ profession, according to the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell). It so happens that I was both an attorney and an advocate, and it is true that something does cling to one when one switches from the attorneys’ roll to the advocates’ roll, and I think also vice versa. I felt, and the law societies and the Bar associations agreed, that the time had come when both parties should be treated alike, and it will now be necessary for both advocates and attorneys, if they wish to have their names transferred from one roll to the other, to have their names removed from the one roll for a period of six months before they can get on to the other roll. The object of this, of course, is to eliminate undue influences as much as possible. Then we come to Clause 5 which deals with certain persons as far as service under articles is concerned and the exemption that they can get from such service. Here again the Bill provides that if a person has practised in an approved country he need not enter into articles again. In that connection I would refer hon. members to Section 30 which prescribes the powers to frame regulations which may be issued in consultation with the Chief Justice and the chairmen of the law societies.

Clause 6 of the Bill deals with attorneys from friendly countries who wish to practise in the Republic. There too hon. members will observe that the old provision referred to certain British territories and the protectorates. Now that we have become a Republic, that falls away, but nevertheless we want to maintain the relationship which existed in the past, and in terms of this clause certain territories will be designated from time to time and attorneys from those territories, will have the same right which they had previously to practise in South Africa.

Clause 7 of the Bill deals with the principle of bilingualism. The law societies feel and I may say that this is the unanimous view of the attorneys—that one cannot do one’s work properly, that one cannot serve the administration of justice properly, unless one is bilingual. As far as South Africans are concerned—I leave out those who come from abroad and for whom provision is being made here—the attorneys are convinced, not only as far as the attorneys’ profession is concerned but also as far as the advocates’ profession is concerned, that one cannot serve the legal profession properly unless one is sufficiently bilingual. I want to express my thanks to the law societies for the fact that there was the greatest unanimity amongst them and that they felt that bilingualism should be laid down as a requirement, as we are in fact doing in this Bill. I know that there are people who argue that this is not really necessary; that it depends, after all, on one’s client, but it nevertheless remains a fact—and everyone of us who has practised in the Supreme Court or in the magistrate’s court will know that that is so—that one cannot do justice to one’s client when it comes to understanding the evidence which is being adduced, when it comes to cross-examining a person who is giving evidence in the other language unless one is properly bilingual. I want to express my appreciation of the fact that although we have had many problems in this connection in the past, we are now able to come to this House with the greatest measure of unanimity as far as this Bill is concerned and that we are able to tell hon. members that all parties are agreed that bilingualism should be laid down as a compulsory requirement.

Clause 8 of the Bill provides for a concession to immigrants until such time as they are able to comply with the necessary requirements. Hon. members will observe that according to this Bill a person, even if he is not a South African citizen, may enter into articles, but in that case he has to become a naturalized subject within six years after having entered into articles and after taking up permanent residence in South Africa. The reason for that, of course, is obvious. Every country throughout the world regards the legal profession as a profession to be jealously guarded and preserved for its own citizens; it is not a profession that one wants to hand over to foreigners who owe no loyalty to one’s country. It is regarded as a profession which is or ought to be the preserve of one’s own citizens. Then I come to Clause 10, which deals with the question of broken articles of clerkship. The law societies felt that this matter should be rectified. If, for example, a person enters into articles just after having matriculated and he then decides after two years that he would rather go to university to qualify there by acquiring the B.A. and Ll.B. degrees, and he thereafter wishes to practise as an attorney, then under the existing law the two years which he served under articles were not credited to him, or if the period which he had to serve under articles was interrupted for some reason or another, then any period which he served under articles was entirely wasted. This Bill now makes it possible for such a person, in terms of the discretionary power which the court has in this connection, to be credited with the period served by him. It will no longer be a wasted period therefore as it is under the present setup.

Clause 11 again deals with the advocates’ and attorneys’ rolls with which I have dealt already.

Clause 14 for the first time makes provision for the way in which practical examinations can be conducted by the bodies established for that purpose under the Act.

Clause 15 deals with the removal of attorneys from the roll. Hon. members will observe, firstly, that in terms of this Bill a person’s name may be removed from the roll if he ceases to be a South African citizen. It is obvious why this provision is necessary. The second case is that of a person who is not a naturalized subject and who does not become a naturalized subject within six years after his admission. Paragraph (b) contains the provision in connection with the examinations which are prescribed in Afrikaans and in English and which such a person has failed to pass. Paragraph (c) deals with the case of the person whose name may be removed from the roll if the court is convinced that he is not a fit and proper person to continue to practise as an attorney. Hon. members know how this is done in practise. If an attorney transgresses, the law society of the province concerned applies to the relevant Division of the Supreme Court to have his name removed from the roll.

Business interrupted.