I move—

Mr. Speaker, having examined the Bill, I find the moneys appropriated by it are to be applied for the purposes specified in the Second Estimates of Additional Expenditure which were approved yesterday. We examined all these items meticulously, as is our duty, and it is unnecessary to traverse the same ground again. Therefore we will give a very easy and quick passage to this Bill.

But before I sit down, may I stretch the rules of debate to say a few words about the retiring General Manager of Railways, Mr. du Plessis. I do so because although this is not the last time he will be present in this House, it is probably the last time that we will have an opportunity on this side of the House of speaking to him. Let me say that we will miss him. We have had great fights and many differences in the past, but we have always appreciated his friendly courtesy and the dignity, loyalty and enthusiasm with which he has managed an often difficult and responsible job. I personally have known him well outside the realm of politics. At all the Congresses with which I was associated when I was in the Chamber of Commerce movement, we were happy that he was often there, and although he often failed to agree with our contentions and arguments we found him courteous in the manner in which he carried out his duties. We wish him very many happy years of retirement. They say that the best reward for having worked well is to be asked to do more. It is possible that he will not be allowed to rest, but will be called to a more active participation in many other activities in which I know he takes serious interest. I am sure that he will continue to render public service for many years to come; we wish him well.

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member who has just sat down, we shall not oppose this Bill. We have made our comments on it in the initial stages and we have nothing further to add. However, I want to join my colleague in expressing my appreciation of the fact that Mr. du Plessis, the General Manager of Railways, is here on this occasion, attending the House, I believe, for the last time in his official capacity. Like the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell), I and other hon. members of this party have never pulled our punches in Railway debates. We have said many hard things and have made many suggestions to him which he may have taken as a reflection on the policy he was administering, but I think it is only right that we should on this occasion pay a tribute to him for the work he has done. I recollect, in the early days when I represented commerce, the attitude of almost amused tolerance with which Mr. du Plessis used to greet the somewhat amateurish criticism that we offered to him, but I think he very soon realized that the constructive criticism we voiced was put up in the best interests of the country as a whole. Moreover I must pay a tribute to him personally for the regular discussions he initiated, first of all with organized commerce and later with the Transport Consultative Committee, as the result of which many of the views of commerce were accepted by him and many difficulties were eliminated. I also would like to pay a tribute to him for the fact that our discussions over the last seven years, rendered them conflict years of co-operation rather than of conflict. We were always treated by him wih he utmost courtesy and consideration, and he always approached our views with an open mind. I would not try to portray the General Manager as a paragon of virtue. Indeed I should also make it quite clear that we have had and I still have important differences of opinion with him on major matters of policy, but Mr. du Plessis has played a major part in bringing the transport system of the country to the stage it has reached to-day. Speaking as a Natalian, I would also like to pay tribute to him for the part he has played in bringing the transport system in Natal and the whole of the development work in the port of Durban to the stage it has reached to-day. With that, I should like to join my colleague in wishing Mr. du Plessis a long and happy retirement in which he will enjoy the fruits of his labours. I can assure him that the same attentive and constructive assistance that we have given to him will be extended in like manner to his successor.

There are few occasions when we on this side are able to associate ourselves with what hon. members opposite say, but we can do so on this occasion where they paid tribute to Mr. du Plessis, who is retiring shortly. Mr. du Plessis stood at the head of this huge organization during difficult years, and in extending our good wishes to him we also want to pay tribute to him for the manner in which he performed this difficult task. I think that the fruits of the work of the past few years, these splendid results which are now being achieved by the Railways, are a nice parting gift to him for his years of faithful service to the Railways. I want to tell him that he should forget the unfair criticism and the attacks which he often had to endure; from the very nature of the matter one must expect that. We wish him many years of prosperity and a pleasant retirement.

On behalf of Mr. du Plessis I want to thank hon. members for their generous and well-deserved tributes. I am sure he thoroughly appreciates them. I will have the opportunity of paying tribute to Mr. du Plessis when I make my Budget speech on Wednesday next, so I shall not do so at this stage. I just want to thank hon. members on his behalf.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

I second.

I take the rather unusual step of rising on the motion for the adoption of this Report of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours (on Unauthorized Expenditure). Sir, it is unusual because it has become rather a conventional matter to adopt the Report, but it will be my submission that there are some unusual features connected with the Report this year, features to which I feel attention should be drawn. Naturally there is a distinct limitation on the extent to which one can discuss this particular Report, which asks this House to approve of an expenditure of £153,404 Is. 7d. at this particular juncture. Sir, I am limited in what I can say because the evidence that was taken before the Select Committee is not before the House.

Why did you not ask th Committee to report the evidence?

Sir, I feel very restricted because if I have to answer the query of the hon. member I will have to disclose what took place in that Committee. But when the amendmend was moved by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) the other day it was stated that there was a very clear and distinct division of opinon in respect of certain amounts which form part of the total amount. The Auditor-General in his report makes reference to this total of unauthorized expenditure which was considered by the Select Committee, and he makes certain observations in respect of particular items that we are called upon to vote here and which are reflected at £4,130 under Revenue Services and £149,273 under Capital and Betterment Services. Let me say immediately that as far as the bulk of this expenditure is concerned there can be no objection at all but there are certain principles arising out of the adoption of this Report which affect the question of parliamentary control. In respect of the first item, Revenue Services, the Auditor-General’s report reflects this item as an ex gratia payment not covered by appropriate authority. It was a payment made to a shipping company as the result of negligence on the part of one of the Administration’s officials which resulted in damage to a ship in the Durban harbour. The Auditor-General makes reference to this matter on page 235 of this report. It is stated there that this particular official was reprimanded after a disciplinary inquiry. The Auditor-General goes on to say that the damage that was paid to the shipping company to the extent of £4,130 was paid as an ex gratia payment. The Auditor-General points out further that this ex gratia payment of £4,130 is not covered by appropriate authority, as neither the prior sanction of Parliament nor a Governor-General’s special warrant was obtained in terms of Resolution No. 1 of the Second Report of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours in 1938. Sir, what is this resolution that was adopted by the Select Committee in 1938? That Committee stated very clearly that the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours had recommended on no less than three occasions that the practice of submitting ex gratia payments by the Administration annually for the approval of Parliament in an Unauthorized Expenditure Bill be simplified by the adoption of certain principles. The principle which applies in respect of this case was this that when a new and important principle or a large sum of money, that is to say £500 or more, is involved, the prior sanction of Parliament should be obtained by specifying the items in the estimates of expenditure. The resolution then went on to say this—

But, Sir, the Committee did not concur with that view because it went on to say—

From all the evidence that I can obtain, it is clear that this resolution was accepted, but it was not only accepted by this House, it was also accepted by the Railway Administration. Now we are called upon here to approve of unauthorized expenditure of £4,130, which is included in the globular sum of £153,000-odd in direct conflict with the resolution which was passed on four occasions by a Select Committee and approved of by the House and accepted by the Administration. Sir, the Minister in his reply may maintain that that was all very well but that there have been previous examples. There have been previous examples where the Select Committee has concurred in ex gratia payments which have been made in spite of this resolution of 1938, but as far as I can ascertain there were only two occasions on which that was done. Reference is made in last year’s report by the Auditor-General to two minor amounts of £500 and £434 which were paid out as ex gratia payments to the widows of certain railway officials. The amount involved was certainly nothing like the amount involved in this particular case.

Sir, this is not the only case to which I want to refer. Included in the sum of £149,000 for Capital and Betterment Services, there is a further item of £2,932, in respect of which the Auditor-General again observes that “such payments were paid contrary to the resolution adopted by the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours”. It is very pertinent to note that the Select Committee in 1949 was most specific in its recommendation in regard to the payment of moneys for unforeseen works under Capital and Betterment Services, where there had been no prior approval by this House or a Governor-General’s special warrant. It stated—

Here we have, amongst others, this particular example in respect of Head No. 2, Sanction No. 1/3158 in regard to which the Auditor-General makes these very pertinent observations.

Sir, I have stated the case as factually as I can without making any reference to the evidence that was taken before the Railways Select Committee. I am not permitted to refer to that. That evidence will only come to light when the report is eventually tabled in this House at the end of the Session. But the principle to which I wish to draw attention is this: Parliament sets up a Select Committee which fulfils an important function in controlling the public purse, and if one Department of State puts itself above this House in a matter of principle of this nature, then what is the use of any Select Committee or what is the use of this House passing any resolution in respect of these matters? If the Committee draws attention to the fact that other Departments of State fall in line with the wishes of this House, then I want to know this: Why cannot the Railway Administration similarly fall into line when it comes to expending public moneys? I draw attention to this, Sir, because it typifies a high-handed attitude in direct conflict with resolutions adopted in this House, not on one occasion, but on no less than five different occassions, by committees charged with the responsible function of controlling the public purse on behalf of this House. This is a flagrant case of flouting the decision of this House, because the specific resolutions to which I have referred were not only referred to the Railway Administration but they were referred to this House for approval and this House gave its approval to those resolutions. We are placed in this difficult position that we cannot vote for the removal of these items. To do so would prejudice certain railway officials, but when the evidence becomes available it will show what the true position is in respect of these matters to which I cannot now refer. Sir, I have risen to draw attention to this matter because I think this House should protect the Select Committee and demand from all Departments of State that they should observe the wishes of this House and of the Select Committees when it comes to controlling the public purse and looking after the interests of the taxpayers of this country.

Listening to the hon. member one gets the impression that there is something seriously wrong.

But there is.

There is nothing wrong. One would think that a sum of about £2,000,000 was involved, and that the Select Committee was not placed in a position to obtain the necessary evidence, to inquire into the matter and to report to Parliament. The hon. member wants to know what is the use of a Select Committee. While he was speaking I was also wondering what is the use of a Select Committee when we have this type of debate after the Select Committee has had the opportunity of inquiring into the matter, hearing evidence and reporting to Parliament.

Where is the evidence?

The evidence will be printed in due course. It is entirely a matter for the Committee to decide whether or not the evidence should be printed together with the Report. The Public Accounts Committee prints the evidence even with their first report.

Why don’t you?

Because I am not a member of the Select Committee; I leave that to the Select Committee. The hon. member should know that having been in Parliament all these years.

When the report comes out it will show why evidence is not here.

I will give the House all the information it requires —not the evidence of the Select Committee. Sir, what is really involved in this diatribe on the part of the hon. member in which he creates the impression that there is something seriously wrong?

The item to which the hon. member refers was an ex gratia payment of £4,130 3s. 8d. paid to certain claimants. On 28 November 1958, the motor vessel Thorshope, after leaving the graving dock at Durban harbour, collided with one of the assisting tugs (Sir David Hunter) while manoeuvring in the turning basin and suffered extensive damage to the port side of her hull. Investigations disclosed that the accident arose from the negligent action of the Administration’s pilot who was piloting the ship in that his order to the tug, Sir David Hunter, which was towing the Thorshope stern first, to let go the tow, was given at a time when the vessel had too much sternway which resulted in the tug being overrun. A departmental charge of disciplinary infringement was preferred against the pilot who pleaded guilty to negligence in that he committed an error of judgment in under-estimating the speed of the Thorshope. The sentence imposed was a recorded reprimand.

A claim for the costs of repairing the damage to the vessel was received from the owners, and as the damage was the direct result of negligence on the part of the pilot it was decided to accept liability. After negotiations with the shipowners and careful inquiry into the circumstances, the sum of £4,130 3s. 8d. was paid to the claimants as a charge to the Marine Section of the General Insurance Fund (subsequently adjusted and debited to Head No. 25, Miscellaneous Expenditure Net Revenue, Harbours). There was no legal liability on the Administration to pay this claim but the Administration regarded it as equitable in view of the circumstances, to pay the shipowners the amount claimed. As the hon. member has correctly stated, there is a resolution of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours which was accepted by the Administration, that any ex gratia payment exceeding £500 must either be voted by Parliament or a Governor-General’s special warrant must be obtained. What actually happened in this case is the following. A bona fide oversight had arisen as a result of the claim being dealt with in the first instance as one against the Administration’s General Insurance Fund. It was only when attention was drawn to the payment by the Controller and Auditor-General’s inspector as one that was of an ex gratia nature on 3 March 1960—too late to permit of its being provided for in the Additional Estimates for 1959-60—that the accounting aspect was adjusted by debiting Net Revenue Account (Harbours) and crediting the Insurance Fund. This, however, entailed unauthorized expenditure being brought to account. That is what happened, Sir. The impression created by the hon. member is that there is something very wrong in regard to this whole matter; it was purely an oversight. It was first of all debited to the General Insurance Fund, quite bona fide, and when the Auditor-General brought this to the attention of the management it was immediately adjusted and debited to Net Revenue Account (Harbours), and the Insurance Fund was credited. The second item which the hon. member referred to was “Sanction 1/3158-C Kelso Junction-Umsinto: Rerail, etc., 44m. 5.45ch. to 50m. 53.37ch.: £2,930 12s. Id.” The facts of the case are as follows: When preparing the completion certificate in respect of this work towards the close of the 1959-60 financial year, it was found necessary to make certain accounting adjustments resulting in a debit to the Capital Betterment portion of the Sanction. It was too late to make the necessary financial provision in the Additional Estimates for that year and the System Manager, Durban, was authorized to effect the adjustments in the new financial year to obviate unauthorized expenditure being incurred. The Controller and Auditor-General per his minute JA. 11/1/4 dated 1 August 1960, requested however, that the adjustments be made during 1959-60 with the result that expenditure amounting to £2,930 12s. Id. was brought to account without prior parliamentary approval having been obtained. Whilst every endeavour is made to ensure that all items involving belated debits in excess of £1,000 are duly provided for, in this case by the time the whole of the recorded expenditure on the work had been reviewed (which is the usual procedure preparatory to the compilation of a completion certificate which reflects the full cost of the work, appropriately allocated) it was too late to obtain a vote to cover the unauthorized betterment expenditure which arose from adjustment of the expenditure allocations. In the case of a relaying work, particularly, betterment allocations are only made after the material has been inserted in the track, the cost of materials up to this stage being debited to the Renewals Fund. The omission to obtain a vote of Parliament to cover the expenditure was due to its not being anticipated that an adjustment exceeding £1,000 would be involved.

Sir, that is the position. The hon. member tried to create the impression that this was a mountain instead of a molehill. The hon. member must remember that the South African Railway Administration is not a twopenny ha’penny concern in some small rural town; it is a tremendously big organization involving an annual expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds, and if this is all that is wrong, I thing it is a compliment to the South African Railways.

The Minister has made out that the principle involved here is not an important one, because the amount is not large. We must remember that it is the principle that has to be dealt with, and the Controller and Auditor-General draws the attention of the Select Committee and this House to that fact. Whether the amount is £1 or £1,000,000 makes no difference; it is the principle that we are concerned with here and the question of overall parliamentary control. The Minister has referred to two of the items which are reflected in this report. I want to refer to another one. I refer to the Controller and Auditor-General’s report on page 17, and the item to which I refer is Sanction 23/11211, and the date, which is important, is 26 May 1959. This was a conversion of 19 Blue Train coaches; the amount sanctioned was £25,000 and the expenditure for 1959-60 was £22,578. It is quite clear that in this instance the position is quite different from the two cases referred to by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant).

This is quite a different case; it has no relation to the two matters he raised.

It has this in common, that it is also unauthorized expenditure, and the report that we are dealing with now concerns unauthorized expenditure. In this case it is revealed that on 26 May 1959 a sanction order was approved for an expenditure of £25,000. This sanction was for the conversion of 19 Blue Train coaches, and during the financial year ending 31 March 1960 R45,156 was spent, and of this amount £25,000 was debited to the Unforeseen Works provision. Unfortunately, insufficient provision was made to cover this amount in the Vote Unforeseen Works, with the result that this amount has now been voted as unauthorized expenditure. What emerges from this unfortunate affair? Firstly, that the work was sanctioned on 26 May 1959, and the estimated costs at that time, the amount sanctioned, was £25,000. Secondly, from May to March of the following year, R45,156 was actually spent; that is to say, in the financial year ending 31 March 1960. Of this amount £25,000 was debited to the Unforeseen Works Account for the year ending 31 March 1960. This Vote was over-spent, and this amount of £25,000 could not be met. This is the important point: No action was taken by the Administration to provide for this amount on the Additional Estimates for 1959-60, which could easily have been done at the beginning of the 1960 session. There was ample opportunity for this amount to be included in the Additional Estimates at the time, but this was not done, with the result that the figures which are now revealed in the Additional Estimates which we dealt with yesterday indicate that the estimated total cost of this work is R50,000, of which R45,156 has been spent, and which has not yet been brought to account. Yesterday we were asked to vote an additional amount of R8,844. The resolution which deals with Unforeseen Works says: “Works authorized in the Unforeseen Works Vote, after the completion of the Estimates, and for which it is too late to make financial provision in the succeeding financial year.” The resolution stated quite clearly that this account is to be used when it is not possible to make provision in the Additional Estimates or in any other way during the financial year. But in this particular case there was from May 1959 to March 1960; in other words, ample opportunity for the necessary provision to be made and for the Vote to be included in the Additional Estimates for 1960. That was not done, however, and that was why the Controller and Auditor-General has again drawn attention to this resolution, that, where it is possible to make proper financial provision so that Parliament can vote the money, it should be done, and should not be left to an unauthorized vote being obtained in this way long after the work has been completed. That is the position that we are faced with to-day. I should imagine that this work has practically been completed by this time, and yesterday was the first opportunity we had of discussing the Vote itself. But, Sir, because of the ruling which you gave, we were only able to discuss the additional amount, not the item itself. So we were restricted in our discussions even yesterday.

Unfortunately, I cannot speak again now, but at the second reading I will reply to the hon. member and give him all the information.

There we can see what other difficulty we are placed in. The Minister has already spoken, otherwise we could get the information.

The second reading can be taken immediately if you like, and then I can give you information.

I will also have another opportunity of speaking on Monday. So we call it all square, and, as far as I am concerned, I am prepared to leave it till the hon. Minister gives some information on Monday. We are raising this matter because it is a matter of principle. An important principle is involved here. It is parliamentary control of money that is spent by the Administration. I will be the first to admit that one cannot expect a huge organization like the Railways not to have a slip-up here and there.

There was no slip-up here.

The facts revealed to us by the Controller and Auditor-General indicate that a sanction was signed in May 1959, and, during the first months of the session in 1960, ample opportunity occurred for that amount to be included in the Additional Estimates. It was not done, and that is why this position has developed, and that is why we have taken this unusual step of discussing this matter on this particular occasion. I do hope that it will have the desired effect, and that the Administration will take more care over this sort of thing, so that Parliament can fulfil its correct function.

It is not necessary to go very further into this matter. This short debate will have been a very useful one if it will result in the printing of these reports with the evidence, in time to appear concurrently with the unauthorized appropriations we are supposed to vote. Probably the hon. Minister agrees with me.

Yes.

As it is now, the only artificial method we have of getting the evidence printed is by moving in Select Committee for a Special Report. If that is agreed to, then report and evidence appears simultaneously. But, as matters now stand the evidence we should have available to decide on these matters as a House only appears later in the Session after the money has already been voted. It seems such a silly procedure. I think it should be changed.

I am informed that it will be done in future.

I am so glad to hear that.

Before I sit down, there is one thing I would like to make certain that the House fully understands. In relation to this ex gratia payment, we had no intention of re-examining the action of the pilot concerned in the accident. What we were really questioning is the method by which this ex gratia payment was brought to account. It is our bounden duty as members of the Select Committee to take note of what the Controller and Auditor-General reports to us and examine his comments carefully. We know ourselves that our pilots are some of the best in the world and we are proud of them. It is acknowledged that they are excellent and skilful. I know the pilot in this case was reprimanded. And there, as far as we are concerned, the matter rests. We are only interested in the fact that the payment may have been made in an irregular way.

I do think though that it is important for the Government and the Administration to realize that so-called “unforeseen works” often could have been foreseen. In the case which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana mentioned, it seems clear that there was a slip-up somewhere. The item I think was sanctioned in May 1959. One would have thought that it must have been sanctioned on the basis of an estimate. Knowing how careful the Railways are in regard to these matters, these bogies could not have been converted without an estimate having been obtained. Now it seems strange to us that an expenditure item could not have been brought up the following March in this House by way of Additional Estimates. I am glad the Minister has decided that in future the evidence will be printed …

It is not for me to decide. I am informed, however, that that will be done.

The hon. Minister knows very well that if he gives a hint, it will be carried out. An important member of our most important Select Committee here in Parliament, the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, said by way of interjection “Why did you not ask that it should be printed?” Two days ago I told him that we were voted down in the Select Committee by the hon. member’s side when we moved for a Special Report so that evidence would be printed. I hope this remark of the hon. member will be noted. We can end this debate on that note. Hon. members will be glad that this matter was brought to the attention of the House, and that in future we will have all the evidence before us before we make decisions. Nothing will be hidden. As the Minister says, if the Government side refuses to publish evidence, the immediate presumption is that there is something to hide, whereas in actual fact there may be nothing sinister. I think it is a bad system and I am glad that it is going to be corrected in future.

Certain hon. members, and particularly the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) tried to create the impression here that something extraordinary had happened in the Select Committee. He seemed to be implying that we were trying to hide something, and I want to deny that most emphatically. Unfortunately, we may not reveal here what took place in the Select Committee. If I were able to reveal the actions of the Opposition in the Select Committee, this House would realize that they are concerning themselves here with petty matters and a campaign of obstruction. There was no new principle at stake, just as there is no new principle at stake this afternoon. The matters concerned were mentioned last year and even before in the report of the Auditor-General. It is no new principle. The same sort of thing took place in the past, and what is more, this year the amount is much smaller than in the past. But seeing that the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) evidently wants to interrupt me, I just want to point out in passing that the hon. member said something to which I have to react, although I may not really discuss it now. The hon. member stated here that we out-voted them in the Committee and that that is the reason why the evidence is not available. Now I want to say that the Opposition did not move a motion that the evidence should be printed together with this report. It was quite a different motion they moved, about which I cannot expatiate now, but the wrong impression was created here. The same ex gratia payment to which objection is now raised was contained in last year’s report. The same reference to the decision of the Select Committee in 1938 was also contained in last year’s report, and the hon. the Minister gave information here this afternoon which covers a much wider field and which constitutes much more evidence than even the members of the Select Committee received. Then why all this fuss? I also want to say that surely no normal person would expect, with such a huge organization as the Railways, with a staff of more than 200,000 and with a budget amounting to a few hundred million pounds, a mistake not to slip in here and there, accountancy mistakes, bookkeeping mistakes. But this was not a deliberate contravention of the decision of the Select Committee. Hon. members know that. If that were the case, they would have had a basis on which to stand. But it was not a deliberate contravention of the decision of the Select Committee. It was simply a bookkeeping mistake, and the Railways had no extra expenditure as the result of that mistake. The expenditure would have been the same whether the bookkeeping was correct or not. There were no extra expenses.

Why did they not object last year?

As the hon. member says, there was no objection raised in the past in connection with the same procedure. We are not concerned here with sinister matters, but only with procedure. I do not want to expand on this further, but I must say that this course of action of the United Party creates the wrong impression.

I would like to remark …

Order! I cannot allow any further discussion.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

May I for the information of the House make the observation that whilst we have no objection to the adoption of this report and we raise no objection to the second reading of this Bill, I think the House should be aware that the contents of this report, coupled with the evidence that has been printed and laid before the House, is not necessarily the end of the matter, and that the Select Committee on Public Accounts still has under consideration the evidence which has been laid before it in this report, and it may well be that later on in the reports of the Public Accounts Select Committee there may be reommendations to the House arising out of some of the matters dealt with in this report.

I am glad the hon,. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) raised the matter, because I myself felt that if anyone read this evidence he would think: But why is only one recommendation made here, viz. the approval of certain items of expenditure, whilst quite a few matters were touched on in the evidence which require further attention? I want to emphasize what the hon. member has said, that the Select Committee will still go into this evidence thoroughly and will consider taking further decisions to submit to this House in regard to certain aspects of this evidence. Here I want to refer particularly to paragraphs 62 and 63 of this report of the evidence, which reveal that the Select Committee is becoming increasingly hesitant to approve unauthorized expenditure where it feels that it could partially or wholly have been avoided, and in which it is pointed out that if it is refused and Parliament approves of the standpoint adopted by the Select Committee, that money can be recovered from the officials concerned. I do not think it will do any harm if this is brought to the notice of officials handling public funds.

Here we have one of the clauses of this rather intricate Bill which I think calls for some explanation. This clause provides that the Minister shall pay compensation, subject to certain conditions which are set out here. In sub-section (b) there is a proviso. The Minister shall pay compensation in the case of an owner who is admitted under the terms of Section 4 of the 1909 Act, “provided that the Minister may pay compensation to the last-mentioned owner in respect of improvements which he effected to the said land before the fixed date if such improvements do not form part of the lot or holding granted to him”. The point in respect of which I ask for information here is: The owner in an area which has been the subject of a proclamation, in terms of this Bill, is entitled to compensation and is entitled to be regarded as a registered owner for the purpose of the 1909 Act, but can only get compensation in respect of improvements which he effected to the said land before the fixed date if such improvements do not form part of the lot or holding granted to him. In other words, when he gets part of the lot or holding granted to him but not all of what was his, is the position then this—I put it to the Minister—that a qualified person (because this is a qualified person, we are not dealing here with disqualified persons) may lose the holding which was his up to the moment of the proclamation, and that after the proclamation he will only be entitled to a certificate saying that he is a registered occupier on the piece of land which is allotted to him? It may not be the piece of land in respect of which he was the owner prior to the proclamation. He can be given another piece of land altogether. A re-survey takes place, and he may be given another piece of land altogether, although there is his home, there is the property which he occupied and owned at the moment of the proclamation, but which now he loses; he can be put somewhere else and given another piece of land and all he gets is a certificate showing that he is a registered occupier. The improvements which he effected on that land now becomes the property of somebody else, and it is in respect of those improvements that he can get compensation. I would like to ask whether it is possible under this clause for that to take place that a man shall lose his land, his home and his improvements on a piece of land and merely get a certificate of occupancy in respect of another piece of land altogether?

There is another question which arises here. In sub-section (1) of Clause 6, it says—

Now, Sir, sub-section (1) of Section 4 says that this land is to vest free of any restriction, restrictive condition or personal or real encumbrance … in the Minister. The crisp point is: What precisely are the rights which vest in the Minister in respect of which under sub-section (1) of Clause 6 compensation can be demanded of right by a registered occupier? The language here is mandatory. It says the Minister “shall” pay this compensation for these rights. What are those rights? We have still not yet reached rock bottom in regard to the question as to whether there are freehold rights, unrestricted freehold title, possibly for a qualified occupier of one of the lots in an area proclaimed under this Bill. I know the suggestion has been made that there are no such freehold rights in existence. I am sorry, but that is quite wrong. I have had an opportunity to check up since the speech of the hon. Deputy Minister recently, of which I was furnished with a copy so that I was able to follow precisely what he said, and the assumption apparently is that there are no Coloured people with freehold rights. I do not think we must try and argue about what are “freehold rights”. Freehold rights means a clear unrestricted title, where the dominion of the soil vests in the owner. That is freehold title. The assumption is that Coloured people do not have that right. That may well be so in the Cape, but this Bill does not only apply to the Cape, it applies to all provinces, and Coloured people are not only Coloured people known as “Cape Coloured people Coloured people are Coloured people of many racial derivations and they have freehold rights, and we are concerned under this clause to know what are their rights under Section 4, both in sub-section (1) and in the proviso (iii) to (b) of Clause 2. What are the rights in respect of which “a qualified person is entitled of right to get compensation”? Is it not that one of the rights is his right to be deprived of his freehold title? I hope the Deputy Minister is going to make it clear whether a qualified person in an area proclaimed under this Bill can be deprived of freehold title if he has got it? If there is a person with freehold title, unencumbered title, a title which gives him the dominion of the soil in that piece of land, can that right be taken away from him? Does he lose it in terms of Section 4 and is he therefore only entitled to come and ask for compensation in terms of Clause 6 because he is going to get a quit-rent title, circumscribed title—it is true he does not pay quit-rent, but nevertheless the proposal is that he shall get a quit-rent title, with limitations as to his power to bond or to dispose of that land without approval of the Minister, or the Governor-General? I hope we are going to get the whole issue cleared up now. What rights has a registered owner, what compensation can he demand? And in respect of (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1), I want to know whether a man who has owned land and has had his home there and made improvements on the land, can now be dispossessed, even although he is a registered owner or a registered occupier for the purposes of this clause, and be given another piece of land altogether and have to come back now and ask for compensation for his home and the improvements that he has himself constructed on that piece of land.

I agree entirely with the views put forward by the hon. member for Natal South Coast (Mr. Mitchell), but there is another type of occupier that concerns me somewhat and that is the occupier who is a qualified person, who has settled on a piece of land and for the purposes of earning his livelihood and living, possibly requires an area of two acres of land. But when this area is proclaimed a survey is made and the area is divided up into lots. Should he be allocated a lot of say half an acre, or a quarter of an acre which is inadequate for his requirements, I do not quite know what his position is going to be. I expect that the Minister will compensate him perhaps for a garage building in which he ran a business without the necessity perhaps of any stringent licensing regulations being observed; he might have run a dairy to supply the people in the immediate area, or anything of that nature, and under this survey he is allocated a plot and he is compensated for the building, the business whereby he earned his livelihood. For his purpose two acres were required, and he is now allocated a plot of a quarter to half an acre! I think his position will be a very hard one, especially if he owned the two acres on which he was previously situated, as in the case which was dealt with by the hon. member for South Coast. What is his position going to be? I would like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister exactly what provision is going to be made under this Bill for people in that position. One could go on thinking of many different types of people who might be dairying, who might be running a garage business, who might be breaking down second-hand vehicles but who are living on the same property; or people who for some reason have acquired a piece of land to which they have obtained freehold title. They will now be allocated a plot which might be inadequate for their businesses or for their means of livelihood; people who might have farmed on a very small scale or something of that nature. What is going to happen to those people?

The other type of person does not quite fall under this clause but I would like to put this question at this stage as we missed the opportunity under Clause 4. That is the type of disqualified person that the Minister indicated he was not necessarily going to chase out of an area if he were trading in that area. He will be allowed to continue trading but he will have to live outside of that area. In other words, he could not live there but he could make his livelihood there. I do not quite know exactly what is going to apply to that man. If, for example, he is allowed to continue trading in that area but, under this clause, he is allocated a site which is not his original trading site, I take it that in that case he will be compensated for both his land and his buildings. But he might not necessarily be re-allocated that site in this proclaimed area. Therefore there does seem to me to be a possibility—just as the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated that he had a case at Saron where a European was in competition with a Coloured person and he indicated that he was going to get rid of the European competition, which is in conflict with the statement he made in reference to a previous Bill. In view of that it is possible that that trader could be allocated a new site which would be so detrimental to his business that he would be virtually pushed out of the area because it does not pay him to continue to trade there, in relation to some other person who would be granted a more favourable site in terms of this Bill. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to clear those two points up because I think that although they relate, partly, to Clause 4 as well, they do properly fall under these two clauses together.

I discussed the point that was raised by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) with my Department and with the law advisers. They have informed me that a qualified person who is a registered owner of property retains his property as if that property had been granted under sub-section 1 of Section 8 of the Act of 1909. Secondly, that section provides for quit-rent ground free of quit-rent. Thirdly, this provision will not militate against the registered right of a qualified person, because, as far as could be ascertained, all areas in the Cape Province which may be affected by this Bill, were originally granted under quit-rent tenure. As far as properties in other provinces are concerned, no individual tenure exists. That is what I am told. These properties or areas are held under diverse conditions on a communal basis. That is my information, and I cannot take it any further. I must accept the information supplied to me.

*That person will probably be compensated by making another site available to him, and then he will only be compensated in respect of the improvements he made to the first site, because he is compensated by the exchange of sites. There is no question of not negotiating and not giving such a person a suitable site when allocations of this kind are made. There are the cases of unqualified persons, but it seems to me that hon. members’ difficulty now is why such an arrangement is made in respect of a qualified person. A situation may arise which makes it necessary. As hon. members know, most of these areas are unplanned. The commonage was there, and the township was established, but that township was not planned at all. Now we want to plan it in terms of the 1909 Act. One, for example, wants to improve the streets and provide the necessary health services. Then sites of this nature may be affected as the result of that. Then one will have to compensate the owner of that site by giving him another site. What is being proposed here is that in such cases he should be compensated by granting him another site, and that he should then be compensated only in respect of the improvements made by him to the first site, but not for the site itself also. That is the whole underlying point. I can only foresee that this type of site will be affected when we are doing planning which affects certain sites, when we want to lay out the township better and provide services. I may tell hon. members that I visited many of these places. One finds that many of these houses were built facing in all directions. The sites were inefficiently surveyed. In fact, in many cases they were perhaps not even surveyed at all. They were just pegged out. If one then wants to make proper streets and lay out the township properly, this type of site may be affected, and that is why we include this provision.

I am afraid that while we thought this Bill was an intricate Bill, it now appears even more intricate than we thought it was. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that in respect of registered occupiers of land who were living in an area when a proclamation was issued and who are now registered occupiers of land, and therefore qualified persons, he is informed by his law advisers that they will retain their property. Those were his words. He said: “That man will retain his property”, in the area now proclaimed in terms of this Bill.

If that is so, why does this Bill make provision for that man to be paid compensation for improvements which do not form part of the plot or holding granted to him?

I explained a few minutes ago that in the case where you are planning a new township that applies.

Yes, but this Bill does not say anything about planning a new township. To begin with, we are dealing with a rural area in any case. I do not know how big a piece of land may belong to a man in a rural area. And when that is sub-divided hereafter and sub-divisions are being allotted so that the various folk will get each his piece of land in terms of the sub-division which has taken place, it is quite clear that at that time it must be anticipated that there will be someone who owns a home and property and who has made improvements to the land which will not be allotted to him. They are the people to get the compensation. Surely that is the position. And to say that that man will retain his property is to make nonsense of what has been put in this Bill. Why make provision for him to be paid out for improvements to property which is not allotted to him if, in the next breath, the Deputy Minister says that all those properties will be allotted to the owners? The Minister says it will be allotted to the owners, that they will retain their property. This compensation is to be paid to them if they do not retain their property. Provision is made for a man to receive compensation if he does not retain his property. Then, why does the Minister say he will retain his property? There is no need for this provision if he is going to retain his property.

Then I want to go on to another point. The hon. the Deputy Minister shakes his head sadly and says that he is informed that in provinces other than the Cape there are no Coloured people who have freehold title. I am sorry, I cannot help what the Minister’s advice is, but it is quite clear that the definition of a Coloured person for the purposes of this Bill is not the definition of a person usually known as a Cape Coloured. Whatever that may be in terms of racial dissent, there is a legal definition. I want to read that definition to this Committee. I am now quoting from Act 12 of 1949—

So that a Coloured person shall include Cape Malays, it shall include Griquas, but it shall not include Turks or Asians. I repeat, there are in the other provinces, people who are not Cape Coloured people as that term is commonly understood in the Western Province, but they are Coloured people. They are known in the Transvaal as Coloured people, and they are known as Coloured people in Natal. They have no ethnical relationship with the Cape Coloured folk down here in the Cape Province. They own freehold title. When I was the Administrator of Natal I issued certificates whereby the people in my province obtained freehold title, and they include Coloured people. The hon. the Deputy Minister has one of them serving on his own board in Natal at the present time, and who has land in Natal. There are people there who are commonly called Mauritians, but they are classed as Coloured people. There is nothing to prevent them owning land in freehold, and they do own land in freehold. Big sugar estates in Natal are held in freehold by those people.

Mr. Chairman, if we are going to pass a law here which refuses to take cognizance of those people, it may be because the Minister has, in effect, already made up his mind that nowhere where those people are concerned is he proposing to issue a proclamation in terms of the Bill before us. It may be that the hon. the Deputy Minister is saying: “I am not going to deal with places where people of that class are concerned, that is not in my mind.” But if that is so, and if he is really only concerning himself with people in the Cape, With the one exception in the Free State, and he is dealing with people who are commonly known as Cape Coloureds, then why is the Bill so worded that it is applicable to the other provinces? When a law is made applicable to the other provinces and it brings within its ambit people of the Coloured races in the other provinces and their rights are involved, then we have to raise these matters in this House. It is no good us being given assurances, it is the printed word, it is the law that has to be the determining factor hereafter. It is not what the Deputy Minister’s intentions are to-day. The hon. the Deputy Minister is here to-day and gone to-morrow. His officials are here to-day and gone to-morrow—and the sooner to-morrow comes the better it will be. Whoever they may be, for this purpose they are transitory, but the law remains until such time as it is repealed. We have to take cognizance of the scope of the law and the four quarters to which it reaches. And if the four corners of the law are going to reach to people who have freehold rights, then we must stand up and say so.

I am very sorry, but the assurances of the hon. the Deputy Minister in this regard will be of no value to us at all. We want to be sure that the law is going to make provision for those people, and I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will bring in, somewhere or other and at a suitable moment, a provision to deal with the case of a person who may have freehold title. Freehold title is the dominion of the soil, in the same way as we speak of freehold title in my province as meaning a clear title, unencumbered and in respect of which you have the right to determine for yourself, without asking leave of the Governor-General or anybody else to bond the farm if you wish, or to sell it if you wish.

The hon. member has now, in repeating what he said on a former occasion, made a great point of the so-called definition. When I made the statement previously that this definition was contained in the 1909 Act, hon. members opposite seemed to think I was misleading the House and blamed me for it. I proved to them that as the result of amendments it became part of that Act. Now this hon. member again pretends that this definition has simply been taken out of the air. What are the true facts? This definition is in line with legislation introduced by that side of the House when they were in power. I want to read it, from the Coloured Persons Settlement Act, No. 7 of 1946. The hon. members opposite were responsible for that Act, and this definition is based on that one, against which the hon. member has made such a fuss and wanted to create the impression that we have ulterior motives as far as this definition is concerned. I am now going to read it to him. In Section 1 of that Act which was passed by his party we find this definition—

That is precisely the same concept as is contained in this definition. In other words, if we sinned, then we did so by following the example set by the hon. member’s party when they were in power.

I have no objection to the definition.

If the hon. member has no objection to it, why then does he raise the matter? Because he bases his whole argument on this question of the definition. The other evening hon. members actually laughed when I advanced the argument that this definition formed part of the existing Act which we now seek to apply to these areas. I therefore cannot see the hon. member’s point.

Then I come to the second point. He asks why do we not say that we want to plan townships and that for that reason such sites will be affected? We are laying down a general principle here because we are dealing with these rural areas. Anybody who knows anything about Coloured affairs will have a clear idea of what areas we have in mind. We do not intend including farms on which individuals are carrying on farming operations. There are numbers of individual owners of farms belonging to Coloureds. We are not concerned with that here. What we are concerned with here is the same type of areas as those which already fall under the 1909 Act. They are areas which have the same character and which do not consist of farms. There is just a small group of them. I also mentioned the total, that they consist of approximately 200,000 morgen. These places can be named. I told the hon. member that I was only giving an example, that in planning the township the position might be that such a site is affected. There are also other development schemes as the result of which such a site may be affected, and it is to provide for this that we say that there can be compensation by giving the man another site and compensating him for his improvements. I am sorry, but I cannot assist the hon. member further.

After listening to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s explanation I find that there is still one point that he has not answered as far as I am concerned. Let me try and put it in another way: If a person is a registered owner of a plot of land of, say, two acres when this proclamation comes into force, the Minister has accepted that this land will be re-surveyed and divided into plots. That person is a qualified person and as such he is allowed to stay in the proclaimed areas. He is allocated a new plot for the simple reason that for health purposes the area has to be laid out afresh so as to provide for streets and various other services to the community. In the re-allocation of a plot to that man, will he get back his old plot? Incidentally, he has lost all the rights to that plot, the ownership now vests in the Minister. He is re-allocated a plot because he is a qualified person. Should he be allocated a plot of only one acre, I can find nothing here under which the hon. the Minister is obliged to make compensation to him for the loss of one acre of his land. He can be compensated for the loss of the building and for the improvements which he might have made in the way of boreholes and things of that nature. But I am unable to see where that man is compensated for the loss of part of his land. That is the point I am trying to make with the hon. the Deputy Minister.

In terms of Clause 4 that man loses his right of title to that land, as an owner of that land. Clause 4 makes that very clear because title now vests in the Minister. The clause says—

And that land becomes the property of the Minister. The original owner then has no further right in it. But if that plot is subdivided into two and he only gets half of it, then I can find nothing in Clause 6 which says that the Minister must compensate him for loss of half of the land which he previously owned. He had right and title to it and could sell it otherwise, but this proclamation has caught up with him before he could dispose of it, and I can see nothing in this Bill which says that he can be compensated for the loss of that land. He can be compensated for his buildings and improvements but what happens to his land? He has lost one acre of land which he previously owned. The hon. the Deputy Minister has not explained to me that that is not, in fact, the case under this clause, combined with Clause 4. That is what is going to happen to these unfortunate people who might through hard work have acquired that land, who might have lived there for many, many years, who might have had the land passed down from father to son. And I can see nothing here which will compensate them for the land which they might lose in the replanning of these areas.

I want to deal with this question of freehold again. The hon. the Deputy Minister seems to try to make it hang on the definition of a Coloured person. It does not hang on the definition of a Coloured person. I merely used that definition in order to show that a Coloured person, for the purpose of this Bill, is not a person commonly referred to in the Cape Province as a Cape Coloured person. There are Coloured persons who come within this definition, in the other provinces of the Union but who are not of the class commonly referred to as Cape Coloured people. The point is that amongst those people who are not Cape Coloured people there are people who have freehold title to their land. It is a fact.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says that the information he has is that there are no such people. Now what are we faced with? We are faced with this, that it is one of two things: either the hon. the Deputy Minister is misinformed and there are people who have such freehold title, or the Deputy Minister means that in areas in respect of which he anticipates issuing a proclamation, there are no such people.

Yes, that is what I mean,

I am glad that the hon. the Deputy Minister now brings this question down to a crisp point. He does not deny that there are Coloured people who have freehold title.

I have just said that I was not referring to any individual holder of freehold title, such as farmers for instance, I am not referring to them.

The hon. the Deputy Minister now makes it clear that he agrees that there are Coloured people who have freehold title. That is the first point. The second point to which he agreed just now was that he does not intend that this Bill shall be authority for the issue of a proclamation to cover any of the land of Coloured people who have freehold title. Now this Bill is not dealing with urban areas. The Minister has pointed out that there are areas such as the old Mission Reserves and so forth which have rather an urban character. They are dealt with in terms of the existing law. This Bill deals with rural areas. The Deputy Minister says “I am only going to apply the proclamation in the case where a community has evolved which, in its character, is an urban character, rather like the character of those communities which have grown up in the Mission Reserves”. If I understand him correctly that is what he has said, that he is not going to use this Bill for the issue of a proclamation in areas where the people are living under conditions which are virtually rural in character, such as farms and so forth.

Mr. Chairman, I think that is extremely dangerous because this Bill does not say that. That may be the Deputy Minister’s intention. That may be the intention of his officials at the present time, and of his Department. But that is not the point. The point is, what does this Bill say? The Bill makes no such distinction. The Bill talks about rural areas, and it is perfectly clear on that point. The Bill says that the Governor-General, on the advice of the Minister may—

and so forth. It is a rural area which is being set aside, and there is no reason whatever, as I see it, why there should not be in that rural area a piece of land in respect of which there is freehold title, which the Deputy Minister is now prepared to admit Coloured people outside of the Cape do possess. They do possess freehold title. In my opinion, in this Bill, provision should be made against the possibility of a Coloured man losing his freehold title by reason of the fact that his property is brought within the area of the proclamation to be issued hereafter by the Minister, and all he will get in return, having lost his fre-hold title, is this quit-rent title. That is a material loss. Unless, indeed, the first part of Clause 6 provides for the compensation of the loss of just those rights. But provision should specifically be made for it, because those rights are still not defined.

I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he will reconsider this matter. Never mind about his anticipation or his expectation or his beliefs as to what the future holds, I ask him whether he will not make provision for the cases of people with freehold title who may be prejudiced in their title by getting something less than freehold, in other words, a quit-rent title; a restricted title, upon the proclamation being issued by the Minister.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to give us certain explanations on this clause. The Bill states that instead of paying compensation to a disqualified person, the Minister may compensate that disqualified person in other ways. One is, that if his right was a piece of surveyed land, he may re-transfer that land or another piece of land in the said area. Alternatively, if his right was an undivided share in land, he may cause a portion to be surveyed and transferred to the disqualified person. Mr. Chairman, this seems to me to be a peculiar contradiction. The Minister makes provision in the Bill, under Clause 4, to dispose of the assets of a disqualified person but, in fact, what he is doing is introducing into this Bill the whole principle of the Group Areas Act. Then he retains to himself a discretion as to what he should do with regard to the compensation of disqualified persons. Instead of doing as one would expect following Clause 4, namely, to take the land away from the disqualified person and compensate him in an adequate manner, he leaves him in the air and retains the discretion as to whether he should perhaps re-transfer that piece of land or another piece of land to him.

I think that we should have an explanation on this point. I want to understand the purpose of this peculiar form of authority which the Minister wishes to retain.

The thing that worries me mostly is that this type of legislation follows the type we have in the Group Areas Act, something vague, something undefined and something no one really understands. Unless the hon. the Deputy Minister is prepared to give us more information, one cannot appreciate what the purpose of this peculiar type of legislation is.

I explained this point very clearly in the second reading debate.

I apologize. I was not here.

I said that there were areas the names of which I would not like to mention, and I gave reasons for not wanting to do so, because it would be unwise to do so before we have negotiated with these people. I said that there was one area where this solution would perhaps be essential. I now want to tell the hon. member that if he knows these areas as the Coloured Representatives know them he will realize that in most of them the people live in a community, in a so-called township which is surrounded by the commonage. Now in one or two or more of these places disqualified persons came in during the course of the years, and they now live amongst these qualified persons. The qualified persons, the Coloureds, desire to have full control over these areas in terms of the 1909 Act. It is also the desire of the unqualified persons to leave in a way which will suit them. Now there is one such place, the name of which I would rather not mention, where the people have already negotiated with us and said: Give us other sites on the commonage, and then we will vacate these sites, because the commonage is large; give us a piece of land there where we can build our houses and then do not incorporate it in these areas, because then these sites on which we live now will become available for the proper development of the Coloured community. That is the only intention here, to be able to compensate a disqualified person by giving him a site elsewhere. That is why we take the power to exclude part of. the incorporated area for that purpose. It is in the interest of both groups to do so.

In relation to what the hon. the Minister has just dealt with, I want to ask him this. Is the giving of alternative land in terms of Section 7 subject to the agreement of the person who is to be moved? I can understand the position if the owner of land is prepared to accept alternative land as compensation, but where he is not prepared to accept the particular land offered, does the matter go to arbitration? Is it subject to Clause 11?

Whilst I appreciate some of the remarks of the hon. the Deputy Minister, and whilst I appreciate that these views can only be directed to Clause 7 (1) (b), I still think he should explain what his purpose is in taking powers first of all to have a particular piece of land of a disqualified person transferred away from him, and then to re-transfer that land to him. It says that the Minister may re-transfer that land for another piece of land in the said area to the disqualified person. What is the point of that? One wants an explanation, because this type of legislation where you deal with disqualified persons, where you in fact legislate that individuals shall become disqualified in regard to the ownership of land, and where you take away the land and use it for another purpose—one has become accustomed to find that that type of legislation is usually vague and gives powers which no one really follows, and so you have constant amendments even after the consolidation of laws. I think the Minister should explain to us in detail. I can appreciate his point, although I do not see the purpose of the legislation, in regard to Clause 7 (1) (b) where there is an undefined piece of land which he surveys and then gives the disqualified person a piece of that land. But where he takes a surveyed piece of land away and then retransfers the very same land to him—that is what it says, “may re-transfer that land”— why does the Minister want to re-transfer that land? Why does he do it? What does he achieve by disqualifying the person and taking his land away and re-transferring it back to him?

Mr. Chairman, I remember that during the second reading debate the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) was concerned about the possibility of these areas being expanded with a view to establishing the Colouredstans he had in mind. He did not want the areas to be increased in size. But what happens here is this. As soon as a certain area is incorporated under this Act, the Minister cannot immediately exclude bits of that area with a view to exchanging it for other sites held by disqualified persons in the area, because he does not know yet whether these persons who became disqualified in the area will be satisfied to accept a particular bit of land. The result is that he incorporates the whole area and then starts negotiations to give the disqualified persons alternative land. But, in the first place, with the incorporation under the 1909 Act, all the land in the area is incorporated and transferred to the Minister as the trustee. Then that land is out of the hands of the disqualified persons. Transfer is passed in the name of the trustee, the Minister. The Minister is the trustee for the qualified persons. Now he gives certain sites on the edge of the area in exchange to the disqualified persons. How can he exclude it again, because the whole area has been incorporated? Then he retransfers the sites he exchanges to the disqualified persons, and then he can take them out of the area. But he must first know whether those sites are acceptable to the disqualified persons. He cannot say that he wants to incorporate a certain area and he suspects that there are five or six people who will have to be compensated, and for that purpose he is holding out a few morgen of land. I think that is elementary, and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Miller), with his knowledge of this type of transaction, ought to be able to understand it.

I appreciate the effort of the previous speaker to assist the Committee, but I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to Clause 4 (1), which provides that land in an incorporated area shall vest in the Minister in trust. Then it goes on to say in Clause 4 (2) that if land has been surveyed in the incorporated area the ownership of any disqualified person shall, unless he sells it within the proclaimed period, vest in the Minister. In other words, if a person owns a piece of land which has been surveyed and has the deed of transfer and diagram in his possession, then that piece of land must be disposed of within the period fixed in the Gazette, and if it is not disposed of it vests in the Minister. I appreciate the argument of the last speaker that it is transferred into the name of the Minister as trustee, but I would like to know why that particular piece of land should be re-transferred. I am not talking about a piece of commonage; there is reference to a piece of surveyed land. Then the Minister may retransfer that particular piece of land which has been surveyed and has a diagram and not a portion of the commonage, because that is provided for in the next sub-section. What is his purpose in taking the power to allow a specific piece of land to vest in him and thereafter, in substitution for monetary compensation, to retransfer that very piece of land? I think the Minister must give us the details and I appeal to him not to expect this House to accept legislation which leaves everyone completely vague, and the only one who knows in which direction he is going is the Minister, and he does not make it clear to the House. That is the only point. I am not criticizing any motives he may have, but I just want him to explain why he follows that particular procedure.

I would like to ask the Minister for an explanation of what appears to me to be a contradiction. If the Minister reads Clause 6, it says that the Minister shall pay compensation to a disqualified person, and in Clause 7 it says that he may give him any piece of land as compensation. Now if he shall pay compensation, which is peremptory, and the Minister takes some other power and says: I will not pay you compensation; I would rather give you another piece of land, that sounds contradictory.

I have explained that we are dealing here with a whole series of, different areas where different conditions obtain. What we are providing for here is that in any case compensation will be paid. If the Minister and the person concerned cannot come to an agreement, the matter goes to arbitration. But we are dealing with certain areas—and I think the hon. member can guess what I am referring to, but I do not want to mention the names—where the people have already made representations and said that the compensation they want is simply to be given land in exchange; instead of being given notice to vacate the place and receiving compensation, they prefer to go and live on sites elsewhere. That is what is intended here. There will be compensation, but there is also this means by which people can be compensated if that is their wish. That is why it says that the Minister may do so.

The Minister said he would use this method of compensation provided in Clause 7 only in cases where the persons concerned consented, and he said in reply to the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) that their taking this alternative land was subject to their consent. I would like to put it to the Minister that on my reading of this clause, that is not the case. Clause 6 makes it quite clear that the agreement referred to in respect of compensation, where it says that the compensation payable in terms of this section shall in the absence of agreement between the Minister and the owner be fixed by arbitration, is excluded in respect of compensation in terms of Clause 7, in terms of the proviso in the opening words of Clause 6, which says that the Minister shall, subject to the provisions of Section 7 (1) do certain things. Therefore I would like to ask the Minister to agree to an amendment which I think will make the position perfectly clear—

The clause will then read that instead of paying compensation to a disqualified person in terms of Clause 6, the Minister may in his discretion compensate such a disqualified person who consents thereto as follows. That would make it perfectly clear that the necessity for agreement which is provided for in Clause 6 would also apply in respect of Clause 7, because the Minister does this only in his discretion and only in the case of a person who consents to it.

I will accept it.

Just one final question. I want to ask the Minister whether he accepts the fact that instead of paying compensation he has the right to retransfer the very same bit of land that the disqualified person owned before. He accepts it but is not prepared to say why.

The hon. member for Parow (Mr. Kotzé) has just stated the matter very clearly and I cannot improve on it. The trouble of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is that he has no knowledge of the particular conditions obtaining in these areas, and it is difficult to understand what our intentions are unless one has that knowledge. The hon. member must simply take my word for it.

I accept it.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

I move the amendment standing in my name, but in view of the fact that my amendment to Clause 4 was not approved of by the Committee, I shall omit certain words and move it as follows—

I submit that the penalty of R100 or twelve months’ imprisonment for failure to produce title deeds or to submit claims for compensation within a specified period, or to furnish particulars of unregistered rights in terms of Clauses 4, 9 and 10 are out of all proportion to the nature of the offence, particularly when we are dealing with people who belong to the poorer classes of our population. A maximum of R10 or fourteen days would, I submit, suffice. In any event, the omission to submit a claim for compensation in terms of Clause 9 should not be punishable as a criminal offence. It could be met by other means. Clause 9 says this—

Here a man is committing a criminal offence if he does not submit a claim for compensation and he is subjected to a heavy penalty. I submit that this is absurd. If the man does not submit his claim in a reasonable time, that is a matter for him, but surely he should not be punished for failing to submit a claim for compensation. I also submit that the period of 30 days is too short, but I think another hon. member will move an amendment in that regard. We are dealing with people who have no legal training. It may be argued that the penalty is the maximum that the magistrate may impose and that he need not necessarily impose it, but where the Legislature fixes a substantial penalty as in this case it serves as a guide to the judicial officer dealing with the case, and a very substantial penalty may be imposed on such an accused. I think that is quite wrong, and I submit that the Minister should reduce the penalty.

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name—

I believe this is a very harsh clause. It is indicative to me of the sort of indecent haste that has crept into the dealings with disqualified persons in terms of any of the colour Bills that have come before the House, and I feel the Minister should do something to relieve the position of these people. Here we are dealing largely with uneducated people who do not understand the normal processes of the law, and all of a sudden they have to furnish proof in writing in regard to the property they own within thirty days. In the last part of Clause 8 I think the Minister envisaged that he would encounter some difficulty in getting hold of these people. I do not think it will be easy to serve notices on these people. Where they will have to be contacted by advertising, I think they should be given a period of three months at least, for the Minister or their friends to try to find them. I accept that in the case of the holder of a mortgage bond it is not so essential because they are probably more educated people, who might even be Europeans, but they also might be overseas and not available and I believe that this period of 30 days is far too short. I appeal to the Minister to give them at least three months, which is short enough, but it will relieve the position considerably.

I do not want to create the impression that I am being stubborn and that I am not prepared to listen to representations which are based on well-founded arguments. I just want to say to the hon. member for East London (City) that this penalty of R100 or six months is still much lighter than that laid down in the 1946 Coloured Settlements Act where the penalty was twice as heavy. There is no particular reason why we chose this amount and this period, but hon. members will realize that there must be a maximum penalty to make people realize that they have to cooperate. That is the practice in virtually all legislation. But I should like to meet the hon. member and, if he will be satisfied with R50 or three months, then I think we shall be very fair and then the penalty will still be far below the maximum penalty laid down in the 1946 Act. As far as the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. H. Lewis) is concerned, I can well understand that it may be difficult sometimes, but on the other hand we must not create the impression that we want any dawdling with this matter, and I am prepared therefore to alter it to two months. I accordingly move—

With leave of the Committee the amendments proposed by Dr. D. L. Smit and Mr. H. Lewis were withdrawn.

I want to get clarity because I think the insertion of these words “or such further information asked for” also means that if the Department asks for information and does not obtain it, the man can also be fined. Surely it depends on the type of information asked for. As the clause reads now, any person who fails to comply with the provisions of sub-section (1) or to furnish any information asked for, shall be guilty of an offence. I do not see the necessity for that. All that is intended in this clause is to permit the Minister to obtain the details in regard to mortgage bonds and leases. What is the further information asked for? And it is an offence for which he can be fined R50 or go to prison for three months if he does not furnish the further information asked for. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider scrapping those words, because, as I said earlier, if the man does not comply it may involve him in a penalty. An official may ask quite unreasonable questions. It may be beyond the capability of the man to give that particular information required, and yet, under this clause, he will be committing a criminal offence. I hope the Minister will give us some explanation or consider withdrawing those words.

May I just say to the hon. member that, in drafting legislation of this kind, the law advisers naturally have to take precautions. One does not know what other information may be required for the proper implementation of the Act, and that is the intention here, and therefore I am certainly not going to delete a sentence of this kind without having given very careful consideration to it. I undertake to do so, but there is no intention here to drive people. The hon. member knows that, in dealing with people of this kind, people who are ignorant and whose co-operation one seeks, the Department goes out of its way to give them guidance. We will get nowhere by treating these people in a hard-handed way because then we will not get their co-operation at all. The object in inserting these words therefore was not to adopt a harsh attitude.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has now given the undertaking that he will go into the necessity or otherwise of retaining these words, and I hope he will let us know later on what he has decided.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 12,

Perhaps I can curtail the discussion on this clause. In the course of the second-reading debate, hon. members drew my attention to the rules which have to be taken into account in determining compensation. I have again discussed the matter with the law advisers and with the Department, and I should like to move the following amendment—

1. (a) was the fair market value on the fixed date of the land and improvements thereon or of the right; plus
2. (b) fair compensation for any inconvenience and loss actually caused by the vesting in the Minister of the land or the right.;

May I just explain that, by putting it this way, we shall be bringing it in line with the provisions of the Natives Trust and Land Act. The law advisers have gone into the matter and they assure me that this is in accordance with the provisions of that Act.

I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to allow this clause to stand over. This side will advance certain arguments in connection with Clause 14, and we should first like to have an opportunity to study the proposed amendments. I therefore move—

Agreed to.

On Clause 14,

This clause is one which was dealt with fully during the second-reading stage, and the strongest possible exception was taken to it by this side of the House. It entitles the Governor-General by proclamation to repeal in whole or in part any law or provision thereof which applies to an incorporated area which, in the opinion of the Governor-General, is in conflict with the provisions of this Act. Sir, my information is that it is utterly unsound to legislate in this way. There is a provision here dealing with these Coloured areas; this is one of some five amendments of the original Act which has been passed during the years. It is clear law that, if a later statute has a provision which is in conflict with an earlier statute, then that earlier provision is repealed pro tanto, and it must be read subject to the provisions of the later statute. I do submit that it is Parliament and Parliament alone which should formally repeal the provisions or portions of the provisions of any law. If this method, which is proposed here, were followed it could only lead to chaos. The statutes are published and there has been no repealing law. In no time our statute law, of which I think we can be proud because it has been kept on a sound foundation throughout, can Only be damaged if this method were to be followed. I do hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree to this clause standing over. If the Minister cannot agree to that, we will be forced to vote against the clause, and I say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that that is so even if he should agree to the amendment which I understand the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) will move in terms of the notice he has given. To accept that amendment would be an improvement to the clause, but it does not do away with the basic objection that here Parliament is giving the Governor-General the power, by proclamation to over-ride the provisions of a parliamentary statute. Here I would like to refer the Deputy Minister to something he said in his reply to the second-reading debate. I raised the question of the Dunn family in Natal. They are on land which was given to them by a special Act of this Parliament. The Deputy Minister said that there was a great deal of sorting out to be done, and that the provisions of this Act could certainly hot be applied to them at the present time until that matter had been fully investigated. I accept that, but under this provision of Clause 14, special rights which have been vested in a family by an Act of Parliament could be made subject to different provisions at the stroke of the pen and Parliament, which saw fit to pass special legislation to protect their rights, would not be consulted in the matter at all. I do suggest to the Deputy Minister that it would be far better to withdraw this clause and not to proceed with it. If further amendments are necessary, he will be able to make them. He has indicated—and I am glad that he did—that the time has been reached when a consolidating measure must be passed as early as possible; so the hon. the Deputy Minister is contemplating further legislation, and in those circumstances I suggest that, for any cases which he may wish to deal with in terms of this legislation, he has the necessary powers, because, if there is other legislation which is in conflict in certain respects, it may be repealed. But in any case, I hope that the example that I have given the Deputy Minister convinces him that he should not stand by this clause. I hope that we will not pass it, because I believe that the putting of such a piece of legislation on the Statute Book might possibly be regarded as a precedent for legislating in this way, and it is a method of legislating which I submit would be most undesirable.

I support the views expressed by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker) and I support his proposal that the clause should be withdrawn. I agree with him that it is both a dangerous clause and a dangerous precedent to establish in legislation. Sir, the procedure of the House is such that I cannot wait until the clause itself is put to the vote, and therefore I have to move my amendment at this stage. I therefore move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper—

1. (2) The Minister shall cause a copy of every proclamation issued under subsection (1) to be laid upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament within 14 days after the publication thereof if Parliament is then in ordinary session, or if Parliament is not then in ordinary session, within 14 days after the commencement of its next ensuing ordinary session.
2. (3) Every such proclamation shall cease to have the force of law 30 days after it has been laid upon the Table of both Houses of Parliament unless before that date it has been approved by Act of Parliament.

Here we are concerned with a form of delegation of powers by Parliament, which to say the least is extraordinary. The marginal note to the clause reads “Repeal of certain laws by proclamation” and then the clause itself says—

As I have said, to say the least of it, this is an extraordinary power. If powers of delegation have ever been granted in this House in this form before, then I can only say that fortunately it must have been sparingly done. I personally am not aware of any other instance where powers have been delegated to the Governor-General as head of the Executive to repeal outright any law of Parliament by the simple process of issuing a proclamation. But whether examples can be quoted or not is beside the point, for surely there is no one who will attempt to deny that a delegation of power to repeal a law of Parliament, with no more formality than the issue of a proclamation by the Governor-General, has in it inherent dangers which this House cannot afford to disregard. In my opinion this form of delegation contains dangers against which this House must, in the public interest, provide safeguards. I am aware of only one instance in which a delegation of powers to the Governor-General has been granted to suspend a law and that, of course, is a very different thing from repealing a law. In that case, however, Parliament correctly had second thoughts about the matter and provided safeguards on which my amendment is modelled. I refer to the Currency and Exchange Act, No. 9 of 1933, in which provision is made in Section 9 that the Governor-General may suspend a law. Of course, that legislation was passed under very different circumstances than are present here. The country was at that time in the throes of an economic depression which had followed upon a world-wide depression, and extraordinary powers had to be taken. But as I have said Parliament had second thoughts about the matter, and in the Finance Act No. 27 of 1940, safeguards were then introduced on which my present amendment is modelled. Sir, merely to state the danger of such delegation without safeguards is to prove it, because what the House is really being asked to do here is to legislate blindly. If the hon. the Deputy Minister knows what laws are likely to be repealed, then at least those laws should have been specified in detail in the provision itself. Usually powers of delegation to the Governor-General take the form that enable him to do some positive act; for instance, to exercise legislative powers or to make regulations within the ambit of the enabling provision. In other words, in those cases the delegation is to add to the provisions of the law and not to subtract from them. But here, of course, we are dealing with the opposite position. Here powers are being given to the Governor-General to undo or to negative what already exists, that is to repeal in whole or in part laws which have been placed on the Statute Book by Parliament. The granting of powers to do a positive act is subject to recognized controls and supervision at present. It is for example possible in the case of delegated legislation to test that legislation in the courts, and Parliament itself has provided a safeguard of laying regulations on the Table, with or with out the requirement of approval or rejection by Parliament. But there is still a further factor. Under those powers, if something. Is done and it is done incorrectly it can be rectified again. Mistakes can be rectified by a subsequent exercise of power. But in the case that we are dealing with here where a negative act is done, not one of those safeguards can prevail. Once the power has been exercised, once the law has been repealed, then the Governor-General has completed his task, and in legal terms he becomes functus officio, and if he has made a mistake he has made a mistake. Nothing can be done about it unless Parliament itself re-enacts the provision to which he, in good faith, but mistakenly has referred. Whatever he has done stands whether he has done it rightly or wrongly. If it is wrong it stands unless Parliament re-enacts it.

I believe that in all these matters the guiding principle is that Parliament should be jealous of its prerogative and that it should surrender no more powers by delegation than it can itself control. A very eminent authority on the subject, Sir Cecil Carr, who, I believe is still counsel to the Speaker of the House of Commons, once put it in more or less the following words: “Wherever a delegation of powers contains the germ of arbitrary action, then safeguards must be devised.” What I am endeavouring to do in this case is precisely that. I am endeavouring to provide safeguards, in the event of the Minister not taking what I believe is the correct course, and that is to withdraw the clause altogether. The safeguard I am suggesting at any rate has this additional virtue that it allows administration to go on, but the repeal of the law will stand only for so long as the amendment suggests and will stand no longer than would give sufficient time for Parliament to determine what should happen and, if it wishes to exercise its powers of repeal to do so. I therefore suggest very earnestly that the hon. the Deputy Minister should consider the points made by the hon. member for Springs and withdraw this clause, but if he finds that he cannot do so, then to agree to the insertion of the amendment moved by me.

Unfortunately I cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker). It is perfectly clear that Parliament has already passed legislation in terms of which these areas will be governed, namely the Act of 1909. Parliament is not groping in the dark therefore as to what legislation is going to be applied to these areas. In discussing this measure I asked the Department what legislation we have in mind, and the Department was unable to give me examples, but amongst the host of old laws which are still on the Statute Book there may be provisions that will stand in our way in enforcing this legislation so that the provisions of the 1909 Act can be carried out, and it was for that reason only that this clause was inserted. I agree with the hon. member that Parliament ought to retain a measure of control. I agree with him in principle that in the last resort this Parliament must have the right to exercise control and to be able to ascertain whether the right thing has been done and I am prepared therefore to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman).

Amendment proposed by Mr. Plewman put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The remaining clause having been agreed to,

The Committee reverted to Clauses 1 and 12 standing over.

Clause 1 put and agreed to.

On Clause 12,

The hon. the Deputy Minister has kindly favoured us with a copy of his amendments and I just want to clear up one point, and that is the position of goodwill in relation to a trading business which may be in an area which is the subject of a proclamation under this Act. The Deputy Minister’s amendment provides for compensation to be paid which “(a) was the fair market value on the fixed date of the land and improvements thereon or of the right ”. The right presumably is the right referred to in Clause 4 (2) (b) (iii), which is a registered real right. Is that the right?

Yes.

Sir, goodwill in relation to a trading concern is not a registered real right. Clause 12, as printed, said in sub-section (2) (b), which is now being withdrawn by the Minister—

1. (b) in determining the value of any trading right the value of the goodwill shall not be taken into consideration.

Paragraph (b) now falls away, but the Deputy Minister’s amendment, as I see it, does not expressly include what now may be considered a trading right, but the crisp point I put to the Minister is this: As it is not a real right in terms of his amendment, is it open for argument between the owner of the trading premises and the umpires or arbitrators, as the case may be, to discuss the fair market value?

Nothing prohibits them from discussing it.

That is my point. Although that right is not expressly included to be taken into account, it is not now expressly excluded so that it becomes a matter which can be discussed what the fair market value was on a fixed date. If the Deputy Minister agrees that that is the correct interpretation of his amendment, we are very pleased that the Deputy Minister has seen fit to come forward with this amendment which we accept for the purposes of Clause 12.

May I just indicate that we are pleased that the hon. the Deputy Minister has made this amendment which does meet the point which we too raised at the second reading. I reiterate that we are still totally opposed to any person being removed on the ground of race alone, but if it is necessary or if the Deputy Minister decides that he shall be moved, then at least we naturally desire that he shall be paid adequate compensation. In this respect I think the proposal of the Deputy Minister does meet the case and we approve of it.

I move—

This is a short Bill, morbid on the one hand but very necessary on the other. This Bill really has two objects. The first is to make available more adequate clinical material to the schools of anatomy of our various universities, and secondly to facilitate the administration, the purely formal aspects of this legislation.

Hon. members will recall that some years ago we had only two schools of anatomy in South Africa. A third was established at the beginning of the ’fifties, that is to say, in Natal; thereafter a school of anatomy was established at the Pretoria University and subsequently the one attached to Stellenbosch, which is situated at Bellville. As hon. members are aware we now have five schools of anatomy instead of two, and to a very large extent we are struggling to-day with the same problems which are being experienced by all schools of anatomy throughout the world, namely a shortage of study material. It is necessary therefore to do everything in our power to find adequate anatomical material, and in making available this further material, we must do so in such a way that we do not offend people’s religious feelings. Hon. members, particularly those who are medical practitioners, will be aware of the fact that under the old set-up, under the old Anatomy Act, certain corpses could be made available to schools of anatomy; I refer to the corpses of paupers who were supported by the State or the Provincial Administrations, and who were entirely dependent upon the State for their support. I want to make it perfectly clear, because I do not want any misunderstanding in this regard, that the position to-day is that it is not every pauper whose corpse can be given to a school of anatomy. Under no circumstances do I want to create the impression that it is the practice to-day to hand over the corpses of indigent or poor people to schools of anatomy; it is only done in the case of paupers who have no kith or kin who can claim their corpses and bury them. Under the old Act the corpses of such paupers who were supported in an institution, whether by the State or by a Province, could be given to a school of anatomy. We are now obliged to go further and to provide that the corpse of any person who was known to be a pauper may be given to a medical school, always with the proviso that if any relative—and we do not even confine it to relatives—or any friend of such a person turns up, the corpse must be handed over to that person for burial and in that case the corpse cannot go to a school of anatomy.

Hon. members will also be aware of the fact that in the first place, in terms of the old Act, the anatomy inspector has to wait 24 hours to see whether anybody turns up to claim the corpse before he can hand it over to a school of anatomy. If nobody turns up to claim the corpse then it goes to a school of anatomy, but a period of a fortnight must elapse before that corpse can be dissected, just in case a relative or even a friend should turn up to claim the corpse in order to give it a proper burial. We are not acting recklessly therefore; we are not hurting anyone; we are not offending people’s religious feelings. I trust therefore that hon. members will agree with me that it is necessary to bring about this amendment.

Hon. members will also be aware of the fac. that it is perfectly legal, of course, for any person to bequeath his body to a school of anatomy by testamentary disposition. This Bill now contains a new provision, again in an attempt—I repeat that—to see whether we cannot make available more material, which is absolutely necessary for the training of our students, a provision to the effect that if anybody in the presence of two adult witnesses, expresses the desire to do so, then his corpse may be given to a school of anatomy for analytical purposes. In the Other Place, where this Bill has already been passed, certain misgivings were expressed, and in this House too there are certain hon. members who have indicated to me that they have certain misgivings—amongst others, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet), who cannot be here to-day unfortunately—and I shall be very glad if hon. members will give their attention to that problem. We are providing here that a person may, in the presence of two witnesses, either at his home or in hospital, express the desire that when he dies his body should go to a school of anatomy. If he expresses such a desire to-day, it cannot be done because the Act does not permit it. We are now introducing this amendment, but the misgiving has been expressed that if a person expresses such a desire, not in the presence of his relatives, and his corpse is then taken to a medical school, it is going to come as a shock to the relatives who are anxious to give him a proper burial and are not prepared to allow his corpse to be made available for this purpose. The person concerned can do so by testamentary disposition; he has the fullest right to do so. But the argument is that when a person has bequeathed his body in his will, his wife will be aware of it. After all, hon. members in this House do not do anything without their wives being aware of it. Where a person bequeaths his body in his will it is assumed that he settled and discussed the matter with his wife and that she agreed, because otherwise he would not include that provision in his will. I can well understand that argument and I should like to hear the views of hon. members in this connection. I understand that in the Committee Stage the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark is going to move an amendment to which I shall give careful attention and which I shall also be prepared to consider on its merits.

In the second place, this Bill provides that a surviving spouse may of his or her own free will, if he or she chooses to do so, give the corpse of his or her spouse to a medical school. In the past this has not been possible. We are now making that possible for people who want to follow this course. We are also making it possible for the parents of a deceased or stillborn child to hand over the corpse to a medical school. This provision speaks for itself and I do not think it is necessary for me to explain it at greater length.

We trust that once we have passed this measure we shall have sufficient clinical material available for our schools of anatomy.

It is clear also from the old Act that bodies which are made available to schools of anatomy can only be used, according to the strict provisions of the Act for dissection purposes, but there is nothing in the Act to say that they can be used for scientific purposes. That is now being amended. I must say that as a layman I find it very difficult to understand how it has been possible in practice to distinguish between the two hitherto. Up to what point does one confine oneself purely to dissection purposes and up to what point does one confine oneself to scientific purposes? I take it that in practice corpses have also been used for scientific purposes. But to put the matter beyond any doubt, we now want to make it possible for such corpses to be used for both dissection and scientific purposes. Hon. members will no doubt agree with me that that is necessary.

It will be observed that in terms of the old Act the provisions of the Act had to be carried out by the Governor-General; that was practicable while we only had two medical schools, but now that the number of medical schools has been increased it is no longer practicable and we are therefore substituting “Minister” for “Governor-General” in this connection. Another amendment that we want to introduce is this: In terms of the old Act a body could only be used for 18 months. It has now been proved to our satisfaction by the authorities of the schools of anatomy that it is not necessary to keep a corpse for 18 months only; that it can in fact be used for two years, particularly as a result of improved methods of treatment and preservation. This amendment makes it possible to keep a corpse for two years.

Hon. members will also be aware of the fact that under the old Act the anatomy inspector had to investigate and report every six months. When we had two medical schools this was quite feasible, but with five medical schools this is no longer practicable. We have been convinced by the authorities that it will meet the position if the inspector investigates and reports in this connection once every 12 months. Moreover, under the provisions of the old Act the burial of that body at the end of this period had to be attended to by the anatomy inspector personally. It is quite impossible and impracticable, of course, for him to do this work personally, and we are now introducing an amendment to enable him to have it done. He still remains the responsible official, but he will now be able to have it done by other persons.

Those, briefly, are the provisions of this Bill which I trust will receive the support of hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, right in the beginning I want to say that this side of the House, certain of our medical men and other hon. members having expressed certain doubts, will support the Bill. I want to thank the Minister for having given us such a thorough and clear explanation of the object of these amendments which are being made to the 1959 Act.

This problem of the bodies of deceased persons has been a problem to our medical schools for centuries already, and we who read something about the subject know how throughout the centuries there was a trade in bodies because the universities or medical schools so badly required this clinical material, as the Minister called it, for medical research.

Together with the hon. the Minister we want to try, particularly in view of the fact that the number of universities with medical faculties are increasing in number, to make it possible and even easier for these medical faculties to obtain this clinical material. Of course we also recognize the delicacy of the matter. We realize, just as he does, that apart from religion there is nothing which can hurt people’s feelings so easily as the body of a deceased person, but I think the hon. the Minister has stated his case so clearly and has explained the amendments so thoroughly that very little objection can be raised to this. There will be little opportunity for the surviving relatives to object. However, I wonder whether these amendments will result in sufficient material being made available during the next ten or 20 years to supply our universities or medical schools. I think the time will arrive when we will have to make further amendments. But at this stage I want to say nothing more. I will leave it to the medical men on this side of the House to discuss the various clauses further and to express their doubts, and if necessary we can devote more time to the various clauses during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, you will allow me just in passing to refer to Clause 4 (d) (a)bis. I will just read it out because I am not quite sure what it actually means—

Surely that is contradictory!

He perhaps provided in his will that the body should be dealt with in a certain way, and then his wife wants to do something different.

Yes, but it still says in the beginning “the surviving spouse”. If she has agreed. But then later it says “unless that person or his surviving spouse … has expressed a wish to the contrary”. In my opinion, this sentence is either clumsy or unclear or contradictory, and at this stage already I want to draw the Minister’s notice to it so that when we come to the Committee Stage he can perhaps give us a better explanation of what he means. Having said these few words, I want to give the Minister the assurance that we welcome the measure and will support it.

It should immediately be clear to the hon. the Deputy Minister from the speech of the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) that this side of the House fully agrees that we should do everything in our power to provide the schools of anatomy with the necessary material for scientific purposes as far as dissection and the like are concerned. I think the hon. member for Hillbrow has made it quite clear that we are anxious to give that assistance to the hon. the Minister’s Department and to the schools of anatomy. I must say at once that this is a morbid subject to discuss. I think that because of the inherent respect we in South Africa have for death and for the dead, this is not a pleasant subject to discuss. But we realize at the same time that we have a duty to perform towards science and also realize what has been achieved in the past by making these corpses available in promoting medical science in the world and also in South Africa. For that reason we on this side of the House support this Bill.

Having read the Bill, however, and having studied the old Act of 1950, one wonders, Sir, whether what we are contemplating under this Bill will serve the desired purpose. I think the hon. member for Hillbrow has also expressed his doubts about it. I myself am not a medical man, but there have been times in medical history when scientists were so anxious to obtain corpses that they even paid people to desecrate graves. I read an article about that only recently. Of course, we no longer have that sort of thing to-day. As the hon. the Minister has said we would like to supply the material without hurting anybody’s feelings. After I have read Clause 4, however, I gravely doubt whether what we are doing here will serve the purpose. I think it is right that when a person is kept in a State institution at the expense of a Governmental or provincial institution, and he dies, the Government should have a certain claim to his body. Nobody else had looked after him; no member of his family or friends had shown any interest in him; it was the Government which had cared for him. If such a man was regarded as a pauper and was an inmate of a Government institution and kept by the State, the provisions of this Bill are quite correct.

Not only that, but the position should also be that no relative or friend claims the body.

Yes, but this Bill provides for a change and it reads—

“on reasonable grounds suspected to have been a pauper at the time of his death Who is to determine that? Who will determine that that man can on reasonable grounds be suspected of having been a pauper at the time of his death” Naturally, I see the hon. Minister’s difficulty. Of course, more clinical material should be made available. Consequently, the legislation should be made slightly more flexible. But at the same time if the public gets the impression that we are now attaching a slightly wider interpretation to the word “pauper”, one wonders whether the public will appreciate our real object and whether this Bill really serves the purpose which the hon. the Deputy Minister has in mind. To some extent I think it is shocking that the net should be cast wider. I have no solution to offer to the hon. the Minister, but I do believe that if we educate the public and if we can convince the public that there is nothing wrong in making a body available for scientific purposes., even if it is the body of a relative, we shall achieve greater success. I must admit that I have doubts in regard to Clause 4 (c) which deals with the presence of two adult witnesses. As far as (d) (a) bis is concerned, I think this is an excellent improvement on the existing Act. It is left to a relative, the nearest available relative of such a deceased person, if such a person had not provided for it in his will, to decide whether such a body should be made available. But in terms of Section (c) of Clause 4 two adult witnesses have to express the desire that such a body should be made available to a school of anatomy. It can be anybody. I do not wish to cast any reflection on anybody but as it reads at the moment, it can be any person, and I am afraid that instead of attaining our objective, we may rouse suspicion in the minds of many people who do not regard this matter in the same light as we do and who also do not regard it from a humanitarian or scientific point of view. Sub-section (2) of Clause 6 says, “Any portion of the body may, if the superintendent deems it necessary for dissection purposes, be removed and kept and preserved separately If you look at Section 6 of the original Act, Sir, you will find that it reads” the body shall be handed over to the authorized school of anatomy mentioned in the order and it may thereafter be used for purposes of dissection It is true that Section 9 of the original Act provides that such a body should remain there for at least 14 days, unviolated. But in terms of the original Section 6 it is specifically provided, if I read it correctly, that it can thereafter be used for purposes of dissection. And now in terms of this amendment any part of the body may be removed and kept for dissecting purposes. I am afraid that will not be welcomed by certain religious groups or sects or by people who, for different reasons, may regard that as improper and in conflict with their religious concepts. There can be no argument about it if that part of the body is removed with the approval of the relatives. If it is some malignant growth or other that is removed, very well. I understand that the hon. the Minister said in the Other Place that this was mainly concerned with the removal of the brain, because if you wish to preserve that properly it has to be removed within a certain period. But according to this amendment it may be any portion of the body and I am convinced that many people will object to that. For example, according to this amendment it can quite easily happen in the case of a man who is poorly dressed and who falls dead in the street, to be regarded as a pauper. It may be more than 14 days before his family turns up and in the meantime, according to the power which we are now plasing in the hands of the superintendent of the school of anatomy, certain portions of his body may be removed and kept. I repeat that I think that the approval of the family or bona fide friends of such a person should first be obtained. I find myself in a difficult position as far as this matter is concerned. It is the earnest desire of us on this side of the House to do everything in our power to assist medical science, seeing that so much progress has already been made and seeing that the new medical faculties have been established. I personally and all of us want to do everything possible to assist those schools. At the same time I cannot but feel that we should take the religious feelings of the public into proper consideration. For that reason I shall be pleased if certain amendments could be effected in the Committee Stage that will allay my fears and overcome my objections

Mr. Speaker, some time last year I had an opportunity of telling this hon. House that it was my opinion that there were far too few doctors being produced in our country to-day. One of the reasons for this falling off in the turn-out of doctors was because of the lack of material to be found in the medical schools in the early years of the course of medicine. I found from investigation then that those students who had to enter university for their second year of study found it almost impossible to get into anatomy classes because of the shortage of material. It therefore became necessary to limit the number of students who were going to university to study medicine. The only way in which one could take in more students was, obviously, to find more material for study. Not only was this so in established universities where there are medical courses, but I am sure that other universities were hindered in their efforts to establish medical schools because of this shortage of material. And when I speak of material I do not mean only that subject which we are discussing, but material of all kinds. Right at the beginning of the course when one starts learning anatomy, you find that there you have the largest number of students trying to proceed in their course and that the better type of student has already been sorted out in the first year of study. The better student goes into his second year of study but finds himself hindered because of the shortages of bodies for anatomy and physiology.

This Bill, in some ways, attempts to provide something to fill that shortage. I do not think it is complete. I do not think by the introduction of this Bill you are going to get very many more bodies than you have had in the past. It is my experience that the number of bodies that are being used for dissection purposes are, in the main, not those of White people. They are Bantu bodies. The White people’s bodies that are being used in the anatomy classes are those which come from the pauper type, from the uncared for, and the unclaimed. I cannot see any great rush of people, because of this Bill, to will their bodies to medical schools. I do not think that is going to happen. I do not think it is going to make it easier for people to give their bodies, and I do not think the desire is there for many people to give their bodies for dissection purposes. But if it is going to help to fill a want then I, for one, do not want to stand in the way of the Minister. I do not want to stand in the way of education. I do not want to stand in the way of the claims of medical schools. But I do not think that this Bill is going to help very much.

It is easy to criticize parts of this Bill. There is a lot in this Bill with which I do not see eye to eye. But I do think that we should have thought of other ways and means to implement the shortage of material. I still want to hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister at some time or other why he thinks that this Bill will bring more bodies to the medical schools. I would like to know from him how many people have been prevented by law from willing their bodies to medicine?

Surely you do not expect me to know that?

No, but I say that when we look at this factually there is not going to be a sudden rush of bodies to the dissecting table I think that what we have to look at is the question that arises in regard to the Bantu. We are told in the Bill that the body must be claimed within 14 days, otherwise it can be used for the purposes of dissection. Well you know, Mr. Speaker, in the way in which we live in this country to-day it is not easy for people living in, say, Pondoland, to learn of the death of a relative that has taken place in Johannesburg. That is something that takes time and I would like to see this period extended to at least 30 days. That would give the relatives of the Bantu an opportunity to learn, firstly, that the death has taken place in an urban area and, secondly, it would give them a chance to come up and make the necessary representations to claim the bodies. All sorts of complications take place in the life of the Bantu. Communications between the urban areas and the Bantu homelands take time. Then there is the getting together of a few pounds to travel up to the urban areas in order to identify the body. That is not something that can be done by correspondence. These people have to leave their homelands and go to the urban areas to identify the body.

It takes money and it takes time, and you must give these people time to get the money together and time to travel. You must give them time to find out that one of the family has been found dead. As I say, I am not very happy about this period of 14 days and I think that in the interests of humanity it should be extended.

It has always been 14 days.

I know that, but I do not think it is a good thing. I have not liked this from the beginning and I should like to see it amended to 30 days. However that is a point we can deal with later, and I am sure that if it is found that 30 days is a more reasonable period for a claim, particularly in the case of the Bantu, the Minister will give this his favourable consideration. It is not going to make any difference to the number of bodies you are going to get. At least I do not think so. I think that those persons who are found dead, uncared for, paupers, criminal types and so forth are still going to be left in the hands of the State.

As far as White people are concerned I feel that the religious bodies on the whole, will look after their dead. I think they already do that. It is a reason why there are so few White bodies to be found in the medical schools. But there are one or two clauses here which I do not like at all. That clause which allows a person who is ill to will his body to a medical school for scientific purposes I particularly dislike. Because he happens to say, in front of two competent witnesses, that he wants his body so disposed of, should not be accepted as the final say in the matter. Just look at the picture. Look at what happens in hospital where you have a man who is going to die. Just think of his state of mind at that time …

You need not labour that point.

Is he compos mentis? Is he able to judge what should be done or what should not be done? I think that the only time that he should be allowed to will his body in front of two witness is if those witnesses are members of his own family. But when you have an ill man away from his home, with his family nowhere near him and you have two junior nurses who are allowed to say “Well, in our presence, he said he wanted to will his body to be cut up” is not right. Then that body can be taken away and dissected. I do not think that that is right. And I do not see anywhere in this Bill where provision is made for the next-of-kin to make an appeal against that decision. If that should happen, if two probationers say “So-and-so said this to us”, it is going to take an awful lot of investigation to get that dead man to deny that he said it.

He will not worry about it.

No, he will not worry about it but where does it say that his next-of-kin can argue the case for him? I think that before we go on with this we should make provision for the next-of-kin to appeal against the statement of the two witnesses. The Bill does not even say competent witnesses, it says reliable witnesses. Well, Sir, I cannot allow that to pass without some sort of reassurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister at the appropriate time.

I have already told you that an amendment will be forthcoming.

Will the amendment include the right of appeal?

Yes.

I am hoping that when the hon. the Deputy Minister replies he will include in his amendment some form of appeal to be granted to the next-of-kin in these cases.

I now want to say a word or two on the question of the mutilation of bodies. I am not at all happy that parts of a body should be taken and the rest of it be buried. I say that what we should do is to see that any part of a body that is going to be removed should have some form of identification on it. And all parts of the body should be buried as a body and not as pieces of bodies, as might quite easily happen in this case. Not only that, but if we are not careful we might find that at some distant date, at excavation time, bodies will be found with three arms and five legs. We must avoid that sort of thing. We do not want to find a box filled up with parts and thrown into a hole, and that is virtually what is going to happen if we do not have proper supervision, as this clause allows for the removal of parts of bodies. I am fully aware of the necessity to preserve parts of the body as soon as possible, and I have nothing to say against that. But even if a part of a body is preserved rapidly, that does not give us the right to use that body unless it falls under the terms of this Bill in that it is an unclaimed body. We must not find a situation in which persons are being buried without a brain because the brain has been preserved 12 hours after death. Those things should not happen. They did happen in the days of Mr. Burke and Mr. Hare but they must not happen in these days.

Where will you get the brain material from?

Well, that is a problem. In the same way the hon. the Deputy Minister may say to me “Where are we going to get the legs from and where are we going to get the eyes from?” I say that we must make the best of the material we have got. We must not waste one single part of the material we have. We must also use as much synthetic material as we can get hold of. It is amazing what can be done to-day with plastics. The models that are made with plastics to-day are almost as good as the real thing. I have seen skeletons made of plastic material that are almost as good as the ordinary normal skeletons you see hanging in a dissecting room, and it is sometimes difficult to tell the difference. They have all the markings on them; but they do not have the wear and tear of usage.

Is it also difficult to tell the difference between synthetic brains and ordinary brains?

Well, I think I have the answer to that.

I now want to come back again to this very important question of the exclusion of medical students from medical schools of a shortage of material. At this stage I think it is quite appropriate for me to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he must do everything in his power to get the medical schools to open their doors as wide as possible to as many students as possible, so that we can start producing more doctors than we have at the moment.

But I do not understand you. First you blow hot then you blow cold.

The position is this, Sir, I am not obstructing you in getting bodies for the second year students for dissection purposes or for scientific purposes. But, at the same time, I do not want you to do that without giving the relatives of the people concerned a fair chance to claim the bodies. It must not be a smash and grab raid.

There is nothing of that sort.

No, but there might possibly be, especially when we have clauses to the effect that two witnesses can decide whether a man did say that he is going to give his body to a medical school. It is not very pleasant to see that sort of thing in a Bill, and I do not know whose bright thought that was. But, as I say, we must make full use of what we have. I did say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he must get synthetic parts if we have not got the real material. But he must also remember that with the increase of our population and with The increased demand at the medical schools you have an increased number of bodies available. What did we do in the days gone by? We got bodies, they came in. They come in slowly and even if it means that more than six students must work on a body, it is worth while doing it. But you must not exclude students from the universities because there is a shortage of bodies.

I should like to see a further investigation into mental hospitals where bodies remain unclaimed for a long time. Those people have been a burden on the State for many, many years, some of them for all their lives. I think that the State should have a claim on those bodies. I say that the prisons situation should be examined. I think that where a man has been an habitual criminal and has been a burden on the State over a large number of years, his body should be claimed by the State. Persons who are hanged should be claimed by the State.

What about claims by their relatives?

Even against the will of the relatives. I think that if a criminal has been a burden on the State for a large number of years, for ten or 15 years like some of these habitual criminals and the next-of-kin have not had any contact with that person over a large number of years, have never cared to rehabilitate that person, or have found it impossible to rehabilitate him, or have never visited that person because they could not care less what happened to him in his living days, they should not be allowed to come along and claim his body. Remember that he is going to be buried at the right time. And he will probably have as good a burial as his next-of-kin would have given him. But I do think that we have the right, in those circumstances to claim that body. If you have claimed it during his lifetime I think you can claim it at the time of his death. It is a very delicate matter to have to deal with. Agreed it is not a pretty picture to have to look at, but there it is. Where people have been a burden on the State for all these years I think that we have the right to claim their bodies.

The remainder of this Bill contains clauses which are improvements on the Act. I cannot find fault with them and I do not want the hon. the Deputy Minister to think that I am merely being obstructive in what I have said. That was not my intention at all. My whole object in bringing these points to the notice of the hon. the Minister is purely for the purpose of giving the next-of-kin, in certain cases, an opportunity to claim the body. And I have also suggested to him other methods of obtaining bodies which the State virtually possesses at the present time.

I think I am even more surprised than most hon. members in this House at the remarks that have come from my colleague the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher). However I do agree with the hon. member from Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) that this is a sombre subject and should be dealt with with gravity.

I want, first of all, to state that when it comes to anatomy I speak with a great deal of authority. At the present moment I am the inspector of examinations in anatomy for the South African Medical Council, and within the last two years I have submitted written reports on all the medical schools of the country as regards their anatomy examinations. This means that I have personally visited, within the last two years, every medical school in the country, and for more than one day each; sometimes for two days and sometimes for as many as five days. Therefore I know exactly what happens in these universities and medical schools. I think that my hon. colleague next to me unfortunately created a wrong impression when he implied that bodies were not kept together and that you might find buried, say, a body with three arms and only one leg. I had not intended describing the sombre details of an anatomy room, but in an anatomy room the students work in teams. They have one table with one body per team. The teams work on that body throughout the whole session. Those people keep together because they must always work on that body as it is the only opportunity they are going to get, and they jealously guard the parts which are at their disposal because there are many of them to study those parts. There may be as many as ten students to one body, depending upon the availability of bodies. These are carefully guarded, and there is no other place for these students to work but that particular table. So that the body is kept together. The only reason why, now, the universities want the time extended to two years is that on account of better methods of care, better preparation and better preservation, it is possible to retain these parts suitably preserved during that period. But I should hate any hon. member to have the impression that these parts are thrown about the room, that they are not kept identified, that they are mixed up and that they are tumbled together in a sack later and thrown into a hole. This is very far from the case. The professors and lecturers in anatomy are responsible people. They are responsible to the State and they carry out their duties very carefully.

I would also say that I cannot agree that if a man has said, in the presence of two adults reliable witnesses, that he wishes his body to be handed over for educational or scientific purposes, that that should be disputed by someone. This is not such a terrible thing. It happens in the street every day that people are damaged and injured, and nothing particular is done about that. These people fulfil a definite purpose, and it is important to realize that if a man wishes to help science or medicine—or even art—after he is dead, that he should be allowed to do so and not interfered with. After all, if he makes a will —as the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, his wishes are carried out. If he makes a wish then that wish should be carried out as well. But, in general, people on their death beds are not thinking about that sort of thing. They do not, in their last moments, when they are non compos mentis and not sure what is happening to them, suddenly wake up and say “I think I would like to be dissected”. That is not what happens at all. They do not think they are going to die, they just quietly drop off to sleep.

We cannot exaggerate the importance of the study of anatomy in medicine. It is the foundation of medicine. It is the foundation on which the whole of medicine is built, because if you do not know the structure of the body how can you possibly know what is likely to go wrong with it? The two basic sciences of medicine are anatomy—the structure of the body—and physiology, the function of the body in health. Both of these depend upon an intimate knowledge of the structure of the human body. No amount of plastics or synthetics can possibly replace the actual body itself. As time marches on. after all these years of anatomical dissection and study there are still portions of the body in which we find structures which have been overlooked, the importance of which has not been realized. We find, even in the short span of my own life, that as a surgeon I have found structures of the body which, when I started in medicine, were, so to speak, mentioned in passing, or not even mentioned in passing, but which have now assumed an importance out of all proportion to others which we, in our day, spent hours studying. How can you reproduce in synthetics these delicate structures, some of them finer than a hair? Bones can be manufactured, but no other structures. There can be a use for these models but they are relatively, for highly scientific work, unimportant. They are quite useful for teaching artists, but not for much more than that. It would be a mistake to think that the teaching of anatomy is confined to medical students. If you go into the Anatomy Department of any of these universities you will find dentists, masseurs, occupational therapists, all studying anatomy, and needing to study it to the same extent as the doctors. They perhaps do not pass examinations of such high standard as the medical men, but it is important to these people to have an intimate knowledge of the human body. It might be said that we could use animals. It is true that in some respects animals are used to give a basic knowledge, in the same way that they are used in zoology. There are portions of animals which for scientific purposes demonstrate certain structures which are minute in a human but large in them, and they are used, but to a very limited extent. We cannot do the microscopic anatomy which is necessary from anything but the human being. These portions of the body are absolutely necessary. I hope I have convinced the House that the need for bodies in the study of medicine is absolutely necessary, and I hope I have also convinced him that the bodies are cared for.

I come now to the point whether the bodies should be kept for a fortnight. It is most unusual for a body to be kept for even such a short time as a fortnight. You must picture to yourself that students enter the university on the same day. The general entry into most of the medical schools in the second year is about 100, although some of them are behind that at the moment. That, together with the other students, the therapists and dentists, etc., means that they require 50 to 60 bodies on the same day, so that the bodies are not rushed at in a fortnight. They are preserved and kept sometimes for as long as six months. That is one of the reasons why the schools wish the time to be extended to two years, because if it is limited to 18 months they may actually only have 12 months.

Secondly, as regards the removal of a portion of the body before that fortnight, there are portions of the body which are difficult to preserve intact. They tend to liquefy and to become almost unrecognizable. It is important, as the Minister said, to have brains. Now the brain, unfortunately, is a single structure. You have two arms and two legs and there are two sides to the head, but only one brain. That means that there is double the number of students detailed to learn from that brain. Therefore, if there is any loss of brain it is a very serious matter to the medical school. I would like to correct what is perhaps an impression which has been given to the House that the body would be delivered without brain. I am sorry to have to go into these details, but no person could dissect a brain under a fortnight. It would take at least that time to harden, to make it fit to handle, if not longer. If the brain has been removed, it will be replaced, and what is more, unless the relative or friend who has claimed the body makes a very close inspection he will not see that it has been removed. That is not an uncommon thing. If a magistrate, during the course of an inquest, orders a post-mortem to be carried out, it is the duty of the pathologist to examine the brain and when that body is returned to the relatives they must look very closely indeed before they will see any evidence that the brain has been removed. I would hate the House to have the impression that these things are done callously and not with reasonable care and thought for the feelings of the relatives. Medical schools are serious institutions. The supply of bodies is limited to the pauper who cannot afford to pay for his own funeral and to the man who wills his body, and it is even more limited when the cause of death is not known because it is of the utmost importance that non-infectious bodies only should be admitted to the medical school. Therefore, unless the cause of death can be stated with reasonable certainty, these bodies are not taken to the medical school. My friend from Port Elizabeth suggested that a man falls down in the street, and within 12 hours his body is delivered to the medical school. But the police do not do that sort of thing. They do not hand bodies over in a few hours. Unless they have identification, they do not hand these bodies over.

There is one clause which, contrary to the thoughts of everybody else, I would like the House to consider, but I will not press it, and that is the last sentence in Clause 4 (a)bis, that a bona fide friend must express a wish to the contrary. It must be very difficult for such people to have bona fide friends who will come along at that stage when they have not spoken before, and it seems to me difficult for the authorities to recognize who are these bona fide friends unless they comply with the section in the original Act and claim the body. If they are willing to claim the body, by all means let them do so. The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) suggested that this difficulty will become worse. I do not think so. The oldest medical schools in the world have solved this problem, and this is one of the ways discovered of solving it. Even in Britain where you have a welfare state where people are cared for from the cradle to the grave, although there is difficulty it has not been found to be insuperable, and the medical schools there, some 15 to 20 in number, are still getting bodies, some willed to them but mostly coming out of the state institutions. It is unlikely that our institutions which care for paupers will fall short of bodies, and I think we will be able to solve the problem, but I do wish the House would do all it can to help the Minister to obtain the specimens which are so sorely needed in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I think the whole House will agree with me if I say that I am very thankful that the hon. member who has just sat down has participated in the debate, and I personally would like to thank him for his contribution. I have listened with great attention to the hon. member, who is a distinguished authority on the subject. I somehow got the idea, Sir, that he would have liked the hon. member sitting next to him to be a student of his just at the moment, because I think he would have taken great pleasure in plugging him. I think I am speaking on behalf of all members when I say that the hon. member has put the whole case for this Bill very conclusively and that it is really not necessary for me to say anything further about it.

*I want to return briefly to certain of the arguments which have been advanced. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) asked who would determine whether or not a person was a pauper. There has been no difficulty about that in the past and the test, in any case, is obvious. I said that not all paupers landed in the school of anatomy. The body of a man does not go there merely because he was a pauper, but only if he was a pauper and no friend or family had claimed his body. That is the basic requirement of the law and the difficulty, as envisaged by the hon. member, cannot therefore arise.

As far as the other aspects raised by the hon. member are concerned, we can go further into those in the Committee Stage. The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) introduced a certain aspect into his argument, and I am sorry that he did so. He referred to the non-White areas, Pondoland, for example. I want to tell him that what we are doing is mainly in the interests of the non-Whites and that fact should be appreciated. But I want to go further and say that, as a former medical student, he will know that as the law operates at the moment and as it has operated for many years, no difficulties have cropped up so far and our communication system is improving daily. In the days when communication was very difficult, and when it was much more difficult to determine the identity of a person, there were no complaints and no trouble. Our communication system is much better to-day and it is much easier to identify a body by the submission of documents than years ago. So, instead of the position deteriorating it should be improving.

Then the hon. member asked to take the bodies of habitual criminals even against the wishes of their relatives. I am not prepared to do that at this stage. After all, if a man has gone to prison he has paid the penalty and I certainly see no reason why, in addition to having exacted this penalty from him, we must penalize his relatives after his death. No, the whole basis of this Act is not to take a body against the wishes of the relatives concerned and I am not prepared to do it in this Bill or until I am absolutely forced to do so I am not prepared to do it in future either. That is why I said that, even in the case where the man has expressed a wish in the presence of two witnesses that his body should go to a university, I do not feel very happy about it in this clause, and I foreshadowed that an amendment would be forthcoming to give the relatives a chance to have a say in the matter. It will not even be a question of an appeal, as the hon. member put it. As far as I am concerned, if the relatives say they do not want the body to go there, then it is out. I do not want the anatomy school to feel that they are holding bodies there against the wishes of the relatives, who want to give that body proper burial.

*Those, in brief, Sir, are the provisions of this Bill but I want to repeat and say clearly that the whole basis of this Bill is that it should be done on a voluntary basis. We do not want to acquire bodies against the will and wishes of people, because that would go against our religious concepts. If it cannot be avoided, I think it will only be in the distant future that we will take such steps as those. Hon. members have expressed their doubts whether we will obtain sufficient clinical material. I cannot say whether or not we will obtain it, but the experts who know say we will. The hon. member over there who is an expert says we will and we must accept that. The extension of the time limit from 18 months to two years also makes the position easier. I trust, therefore, and I accept it according to the advice given to me by experts, that we will indeed find that position to improve.

I move—

I think it is very fitting that this Bill which deals with the production and multiplication of foundation seed should be before this House at this stage. This year South Africa together with a great number of member states of the Agricultural and Nutrition Organization of the United Nations takes part in an international seed year. The main purpose of this seed year is to launch a propaganda campaign throughout the world, as widely as possible, to encourage the use of high quality seed of improved varieties, because not only has it been found, but it has also been proved, that the use of good quality seed is the most effective method of increasing production per unit. It has been calculated that if all the farmers throughout the word used a good quality seed there would be a 25 per cent increase in production. This year particularly the seed merchants and seed experts, in co-operation with the Department’s publicity service and our information services, will do everything in their power to make the farmers more conscious of the fact that it is absolutely essential that more attention should be paid and greater emphasis laid on the production and the use of a high quality seed than before, but it remains a truism, also in the literal sense, that what a man sows he will reap. Besides soil and water seed is the most important factor in agriculture. Good seed, therefore, is an extremely important factor in agriculture.

It does not follow necessarily, however, that good seed complies with all the requirements of all ecological industrial areas and it is necessary, therefore, that we concentrate on the production and the multiplication of new varieties suitable for the various agricultural areas in the country. We in South Africa are fortunate in having the climate and sunshine which we have because that stimulates the production of seed considerably. The germinating quality of our seed is in general higher than in most other countries in the world and it has also been found that our seed can be preserved for longer periods than in most other countries where their climatic conditions are not as favourable as ours. That is the reason why seed is sent to the Union by various countries so that it can be multiplied here and returned to those countries. What we need in agriculture particularly is seed with three dominant qualities. We want seed with the desired hereditary quality of withstanding the well-known plant diseases and the insects in the different areas, and also seed of which the plant will comply with certain mechanical requirements, because that plays an important role in the reaping of the crops and in the processing of those crops and consequently makes its cultivation an economic proposition. That is a subject which seed breeders and research workers of the Department and outside the Department are continually studying. A small quantity of breeder’s seed is being cultivated by research workers and breeders, but that small quantity has to be multiplied into what we call foundation seed, and the foundation seed in turn has to be multiplied and made available to the trade and the farmers, and that, Sir, takes up much time. It often takes years before you have enough seed which has been multiplied from breeder’s seed for the trade and the farmers. Not only does that take up much time, but it is also a very exacting process because it involves a great deal of time, labour and expense. In some cases it is the fruit of a life-time’s labour on the part of a research worker. If you wish to have the full benefit of the labour of that research worker and breeder, Sir, it is absolutely essential that the multiplication process into foundation seed and into quantities sufficient for commercial purposes, takes place in circumstances which will ensure that that foundation or breeder’s seed does not lose its hereditary qualities through hybridization. We find in this country that by the time many of the new varieties of breeder’s seeds which have been cultivated reach the farmers they have become hybridized because the necessary machinery has not been created to ensure that the multiplication of that seed is properly controlled and registered. In this way much of the good work that has been done is wasted and the farmers have experienced that when the good varieties reach them, the seed has already been hybridized to such an extent through cross pollination, etc., that the seed falls far short of the actual quality which the breeder claimed it to be. The object of this legislation, therefore, is to remedy those defects.

Hon. members may ask what the Department is doing and why it has not done it in the past. But the main function of the Department of Agriculture is research and the plant breeders in its employ devote all their time to this. Secondly, the Department does not have sufficient land at its disposal for the purpose of multiplying the seed, and it also lacks many of the other facilities which are essential if you want to do it properly. What the Department does have, however, is an inspection service which it will make available to the Board to be established. As the position is to-day, breeder’s seed must of necessity be handed to other people for multiplication purposes, people who often do not have the necessary equipment and who do not work as precisely as they should, with the result that hybridization or inter-breeding takes place easily. There is, therefore, a real need for a statutory body which will be representative of the various interests in the seed industry and which will have the necessary power to receive breeder’s seed from departmental as well as private breeders and arrange for its multiplication into foundation seed. That is the main object of this Bill.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, when business was suspended I was emphasizing the fact that there was a real need for the establishment of a statutory body which will be representative of the various interests in the seed industry and which will have the necessary power to receive breeders’ seed from both the Department and private breeders and arrange for its multiplication into foundation seed. As has already been mentioned, there are various stages in the production of seed. The first is the breeder’s seed stage, secondly the foundation seed stage and thirdly the commercial seed stage. My Department has long since felt that there was a very definite need for greater control over seed in general. For years farmers’ organizations throughout the country have been pressing for this. As a result I appointed a departmental committee which consisted of representatives of organized agriculture as well as representatives of the seed trade and representatives of the various control boards to make a comprehensive inquiry into the whole position. I want to avail myself of this opportunity of expressing my gratitude and appreciation to the representatives of those various bodies which I have just mentioned for the time and labour they have devoted to that investigation and also for having drafted this measure which is before us to-day.

May I say this, Sir, by way of explanation: This Bill deals with foundation seed, that means the production and the multiplication etc., of foundation seed, but the second Bill, the Seeds Bill deals with the marketing and distribution of commercial seed.

All seed?

Yes, the marketing and distribution of all commercial seed, declared as such under that Act. Hon. members may ask why we have a Foundation Seed Bill as well as a Seeds Bill—where does the father come in? By way of explanation I just want to say to the House that when I was comparatively young even before I got married, an old friend of mine said something to me which I think hon. members will agree is very true. He emphasized the general truism that in most cases three-quarters of a man’s success—but note well, also his failure— depended on his wife. For this reason I agreed with this committee and with my Department that it was not necessary to bring fathers into the picture in this particular respect.

Breeder’s seed is naturally very valuable material and the very object of this Bill is to promote its multiplication into foundation seed in circumstances that will ensure that cross pollination, hybridization or the deterioration of that valuable seed is eliminated completely, if possible, in the process of multiplying it. In the last stage, namely the stage where the seed is supplied to the farmers, we want seed of the highest quality and in the purest condition possible. You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that this Bill deliberately follows the pattern of a control board under the Marketing Act more or less in that it provides for the creation of a foundation seed scheme and the establishment of a stautory board on which all the interests concerned will be represented. It is really not necessary for me to explain the other provisions. I want to emphasize, however, that the main objective of this Bill is the promotion of seed production and not so much the marketing of seed. Because of that and from an administrative point of view, it could not be done under the Marketing Act because a special foundation seed board is necessary for that purpose and this Bill provides for that. Other possibilities that were considered, other than special legislation, to promote the production of foundation seed was firstly the establishment of a co-operative company and/or a utility company. But as a result of possible financial implications and after due consideration, this departmental committee of inquiry decided unanimously that such organizations would not serve the purpose and that a specific board should be established.

Under this legislation departmental seed breeders and private seed breeders will in future hand over their breeders seed to the foundation seed board for multiplication purposes. It will be optional, though, in the case of private breeders. In other words, there is no compulsion. Breeder’s seed will only be issued to registered producers of foundation seed only and will be multiplied under the control of the departmental seed inspection service. All breeders of foundation seed who want to join the scheme will have to be registered and they will multiply their seed under the control of the inspection services of the Department. In other words, inspection on a national scale will take place in order to make a careful study of the growing habits of plants, the occurrence of disease and other conditions relating to production. It is our aim to do away with the hybrid seed scheme of the Mealie Control Board and with the winter grain-seed scheme of the Wheat Board, but those two boards which have done very useful work up to date, work for which we ought to be and are very grateful, can themselves decide whether or not they wish their seed schemes to be incorporated under this foundation seed scheme. I just want to say this that in the case of the hybrid maize seed scheme, they have realized that they would not be able to perform that function, and because of that they have already asked the seed inspection service of the Department to supervise their breeding of hybrid maize seed. Talking about hybrid maize seed it may be interesting for the House to know, by way of interlude— because I understand we have any amount of time at our disposal—that up to to-day the. hybrid maize seed board has only been able to comply with 18 per cent of the requirements of the mealie producers. Statisticians and agricultural experts maintain that if we can increase our supply of hybrid maize seed so that it can comply with 50 per cent of the hybrid maize seed requirement, it will in terms of money mean no less than R16,000,000 to South Africa, because of the bigger crops that will be obtained from the same land which is being cultivated to-day. Then the question which farmers also pose immediately arises: What do we do with the surplus? I maintain that the use of quality seed whose inherent quality is to give a higher production per morgen, will immediately be one of the main solutions to high production costs and will place us in a better position to compete on the world markets, with less subsidization. The whole idea, therefore, is of much greater economic significance Sir than the contents of this little Bill would make you believe. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we are really laying the foundation of, and that we are opening the door to development in South Africa as a result of which we will be able to supply better seed to our people, the economic results of which, not only as far as the agricultural industry is concerned, but as far as the economy of the whole country is concerned, cannot be determined in figures at this stage.

The accounts of this foundation seed board will be audited by the Auditor-General and consequently it follows logically that there will be the closest co-operation between this foundation seed board and the Department and its seed inspection service in general. In moving the second reading of this Bill I want to express the hope that not only will it provide the farmer with seed and the consumer with bread, but that it will ensure better seed and better bread to everyone in this country.

There is a general feeling among the farmers of South Africa that it is time that the purity of seed is guaranteed and that the producers of that seed should be able to guarantee that the crops to be grown from the seed will be true to type. I think that the main principles of this Bill will be welcomed by most farmers. There are one or two minor matters which I wish to put to the Minister and in due course when we come to the Committee Stage, I will move an amendment for the deletion of Clause 10 (2). I will give my reason in due course why I intend to move the deletion of that sub-section. But I am in favour of the broad principles contained in this Bill.

We have in this country many new varieties, many new strains of seed which are purported by means of advertisements, to produce something extra special. The farmers buy this seed because of the attractive advertisements and the write-ups in propaganda to sell that seed. I can say from my own personal experience and the experiences of farmers in my own area that it has cost the farmers in this country many thousands of pounds in trying to prove the value of these so-called new strains and new varieties. It is time that we prevent all that money being wasted in this country by ensuring that the seed is what it is advertised to be.

This Foundation Seed Bill deals with the highly technical side of seed breeding. This is a very technical undertaking and should only be undertaken by specialists. We must keep that in mind, Mr. Speaker, when we deal with Clauses 9 and 10 because Clause 10 (2) has a bearing on Clause 9. Before I deal with those two clauses I want to touch on Clause 8. I do not like the provision in Clause 8 to the effect that the board can empower any official in its employ “to enter any place” to see if seed is stored there for sale or for distribution. Now what does “any place” mean? There is no definition in this Bill of “any place”. We have the same position here that we have had over the years in respect of control boards where minor officials in many instances are given power to enter premises without a search warrant. I think this provision is unnecessary and I think the ordinary course of common law could be followed. What is “any place”, Mr. Speaker? Will a minor official now be allowed to go on to either a farm or any premises where seed is stored—it may be a home—if he has reason to believe that seed is stored there in order to find out whether a levy has been paid on that seed? To give the power to a minor official to enter “any place” just to collect a levy—and after all in most instances this levy is going to be a very small sum of money—without defining “any place” is far-reaching. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider that particular aspect of this clause.

Getting down to Clauses 9 and 10 which go together I want to warn the Minister that in the Committee Stage I will move the deletion of Clause 10 (2) because the provisions there give the Minister the power to refuse the nominations submitted for the Board from the bodies who have the right to nominate. This particular Clause 10 (2) gives the Minister that right and you must remember, Sir, that that panel of names is submitted by organized agriculture in particular as set out in Clause 9 (a) and (b) particularly and to a lesser extent in the other sub-sections of Clause 9. Clause 9 (a) says “four persons to represent producers of plant seed, appointed from a panel of eight persons submitted by the South African Agricultural Union” Clause 9 (2) (b) reads—

I want to deal particularly with 9 (a), (b) and (c). In terms of 9 (c) the Minister may choose “one person to represent co-operative societies dealing in plant seed, appointed from a panel of two persons …” Now with these three provision there are double the number of names required that have to be submitted by organized agriculture, organized distributors and organized co-operatives. Now, Mr. Speaker, because this question of foundation seed in such a highly technical business there are not many people available in those categories. But in 10 (2) the Minister—and when I say “the Minister”, I naturally mean his Department—has the right to return that panel of names and ask for a fresh panel. Now he only needs four representatives from, say, the South African Agricultural Union. I should think it would be very difficult to obtain more than eight specialists in this particular specialized field in this country at this stage of development. This is the first occasion that a Bill of this sort has been introduced in this country and that a control board will be established to deal with the question of foundation seed. The Minister can send that panel back and ask for another eight names and if he does not like anybody on that subsequent panel he may appoint whoever he likes. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that is a vote of no confidence in organized agriculture. If he is given eight names from which to choose four I think that is sufficient and reasonable. I cannot see organized agriculture and organized co-operative societies nominating double the number of people who are to be appointed and submitting a panel to the Minister from which he cannot choose four suitable appointees. As I have pointed out this is a subject that is of a highly technical nature and there are not too many people available. I think it is wrong that any Minister should have the right to return the panel and to appoint whom he likes. I think that organized agriculture as such should be given the right to nominate their eight nominees and the Minister should appoint four of them. I think that is reasonable. When we come to the Committee Stage I will move the deletion of sub-section (2) of Clause 10.

The other members of the board are mainly to be appointed by the Minister and the Department. The Minister in this respect will appoint those whom he wants and he can change them at any time it suits him. So I hope the Minister will give this due consideration and that he will accept my amendment. I am not doing it in any way of being difficult but I do know that organized agriculture has felt in the past that certain of their nominees are not accepted because they fight for the interests of the people they represent, namely the producer. Perhaps they get up against an official in the Department, not only in the case of organized agriculture, but this happens wherever you have control boards, and the Department feels that they should keep that particular man out because he is making a nuisance of himself. But, Mr. Speaker, that man is doing his duty towards the producers if he thinks they are not getting a square deal and with the composition of the boards as they are, there can be no question that he is trying to sabotage the work of the board or even holding up the work of the board. So I think if the Minister looks at this question reasonably he will accept my amendment in the Committee Stage. I hope he will tell us when he replies to the second reading debate that he will be prepared to accept the amendment which I propose moving in the Committee Stage.

As I have said, we are in favour of the broad principles of this Bill. There is one other matter that I want to touch on and that is Clause 22 on page 12. In terms of Clause 22 the “Minister may delegate to any senior officer of his Department any of the powers conferred upon him by this Act other than the powers referred to in Section 5”. Here again, Sir, we have delegation of powers; not to the Secretary of Agriculture or to one very senior official but it is a delegation of power to a number of officials. I do not think that makes for good law and I think it is a mistake.

I have more than one very capable senior officer.

Yes. the Minister may have very capable officers to-day but will the Minister have the same capable officers next week or next year or the year after?

I hope we will have more as time goes on.

We hope so, but you get promotion on the ground of age sometimes and not on merit. I do think that for the Minister to have the power to delegate power to a number of officers is a mistake. I do not propose to move an amendment in that regard at this stage but I am just telling the Minister that I think it is wrong and I think it would be wise on his part to reconsider the wording and to make one senior official responsible for any delegated authority.

Clause 23 reads—

I won’t read the whole clause, Sir. I put it to the Minister that in the past we have found great difficulty on many of our control boards that the people they represent cannot be given any information as to what is happening where it will be of the greatest importance to them to know at an early stage. It is often kept secret too long. After all the man is on the board not representing himself, he represents the people who put him on that board, and I think he should be allowed to give certain information to the people he represents or the organized body he represents. They do not represent the public at large, they are all nominated representatives of an organized body. I think they should be allowed a certain amount of latitude in disclosing to the people they represent what is happening. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker. I feel misunderstanding often arises between the bodies concerned, their representatives and the boards. Much of the criticism of control boards on the part of the producers is often brought about by this insistence on secrecy which is quite unnecessary. There may be things which are essential to keep secret but I think what happens at board meetings should broadly be made available to the organized bodies which are represented. I would like the hon. the Minister to consider that. We support the general principles of the Bill. We feel that the time is ripe for such control to be exercised.

I want to avail myself of this opportunity of thanking the hon. the Minister and congratulating him on this piece of legislation which deals with a matter which has become very important. All agricultural societies as well as the farming community have long since felt a need for legislation of this nature. We are pleased, therefore, that the Minister has now decided to take action to place the control of seed in the hands of a board.

As the Minister has said, in view of the high production costs with which the producers are faced, it is essential that they use good seed. It is necessary therefore, in the first instance, that the farmer has confidence in the seed that he buys. It is not so easy to breed the specialized seed which the farmers have been using lately. It is a difficult, lengthy and costly process to breed the necessary foundation seed. I think few people realize what it costs to breed foundation seed but I can tell the House, Sir, that it takes time and a great deal of money to breed that seed. That is why I am sorry that the previous speaker said that he would try to have some of these essential clauses amended. When breeding that foundation seed it is essential that there is inspection and for that purpose the officials of the Department should have the right to inspect the lands. It is not merely a question of the levy which will be imposed and which will be collected but it is necessary that the lands where that seed is cultivated are controlled. It may happen that a breeder cultivates a seed of an inferior quality and that he somehow or other keeps that seed, and maintains at a later stage that the seed was cultivated on the same land, that it was of the same quality, except for some minor defect, and then sells it privately to the trade. For that reason it is necessary for the Minister to have accesss to those premises or buildings as well as to the lands in order to inspect them. If we want to have confidence in our seed in future, confidence which is necessary if we wish to develop, the Minister and his board should have that power. I am convinced that if the hon. member had some knowledge of what the position was, he would not move an amendment to that effect. I am sure that he regards it to be as much in the interests of the farmers as we do, that they should be supplied with good quality seed. The measures which the Minister is now introducing are absolutely essential for that purpose. I also think that it is necessary for the Minister to have complete control over the board. I think the Minister should have some play as far as the members to be appointed to that board are concerned. There are not many people with the necessary knowledge and information who can serve on those boards in order to perform this highly technical service. I do not wish to repeat, Mr. Speaker, but I want to thank the Minister once more, more especially where it seems to me that this development will soon take place. We are not dealing with foundation seed only. We also have the male seed which is necessary for the fertilization of the foundation seed. It is necessary that the strictest control be exercised over the production of that seed if we wish to produce seed of a high quality. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but it is also necessary, even after the seed has been cultivated, to carry out the necessary inspection in order to test the germinating properties of the seed, before it is sold for commercial purposes. What is more, seed loses its germinating ability at a certain stage, and the utmost care should be taken, when smoking or anything like that takes place. The closest co-operation should be maintained between the Minister and the board and the inspection staff as far as this matter is concerned. In future we want to have and we must have confidence in the seed of this country. That is absolutely essential. If a farmer has incurred those high costs connected with production and he subsequently finds that his seed was of poor quality, he is faced with a terrific lost that year. With the erratic rainfall that we have in this country the farmer often finds that he has a week less time within which to plant and he should not incur costs unnecessarily. I do not think we can ever go so far as to guarantee the quality of our seed, as the hon. member has pleaded. I do not think that is possible. But I do think that necessary steps can be taken to have seed certified, particularly as far as its germinating properties are concerned and, how it has been cultivated. If the Minister were to issue guarantees he will probably find himself involved in a great number of court cases. Once again I want to thank the Minister and congratulate him on the steps he is taking in this regard.

I need hardly tell the hon. the Minister how pleased I am that at last we have the introduction of this Bill. May I remind him that nearly 20 years ago, when he first came into this House, I reminded the House of the kind of seed that was distributed in this country.

Before I deal with the various clauses of this Bill, might I just refer to the two items the hon. the Minister referred to in his opening remarks. South Africa is very much behind other countries as far as seed and seed propagation is concerned, and I am glad to notice that we have at last seen the light, and that the hon. the Minister has introduced a Bill which will enable us to come onto the same plane as other countries. He told us this evening that there is a world organization developing foundation seed, that we are joining in with them with a view to propagating seed in South Africa on the same basis as they do. There is a world demand for seeds with a degree of purity, and I firmly believe, in view of what the hon. the Minister himself said, that in this land of sunshine of ours we are capable of producing seeds as good as, if not better than other parts of the world.

The Bill before us is going to fill a very long-felt want in South Africa. One can say that the impurity of seeds in South Africa has been such that there were complaints from every quarter of South Africa. From that point of view we welcome the Bill. I am pleased that our seeds are now being removed from the Farm Seeds and Fertilizers Act that was supposed to fill this gap.

This Bill can bring about purity of our seed to a very great extent. I am, however, perturbed about the scope of the Bill. May I briefly deal with Clause 3. Will, the hon. the Minister be prepared to extend the scope of the Bill to make provision for research and the breeding of seeds? That, would improve the whole structure of the Bill. Sir, it requires improvement and I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that at a later stage I want to move an amendment to Clause 3, inserting therein “and to foster the breeding of new types and varieties of seeds and plants better suited to the different climatic and soil conditions that exist in South Africa It will improve the scope of this Bill and make it possible for us in South Africa to produce seeds that will be the envy of countries outside South Africa. I commend that to the hon. the Minister for acceptance. In South Africa we have got these great variations, great differences in climatic conditions and soil. The conditions throughout the country vary considerably. There is an urgent necessity for the breeding of types of seed to conform with the various requirements of those climatic conditions, the various soil conditions, rainfall, droughts, and so on. We have got to breed seeds in South Africa that are capable of meeting the requirements of these varying conditions, and I sincerely hope that the hon. Minister will agree with something that I am going to put to him at a later stage. The hon. the Minister knows full well that we have many diseases in South Africa and that we are also capable of breeding under certain conditions types of seeds and types of plants capable to withstand these diseases and to overcome the varying existing conditions. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that there is no man in this country and no organization in this country better suited and better equipped to deal with this question of foundation seeds than the hon. the Minister is. He has got experimental farms, he has got agricultural colleges, he has got experimental plots situated right throughout the country on private farms where they can distribute this seed for the purpose of testing its suitability to meet the requirements of our country. I maintain that this matter should be left in the hands of the Minister to establish these foundation seeds on those experimental farms and those agricultural colleges and the research stations. On those farms he has got a highly qualified staff, your field staff, your observers, men who are highly trained in the propagation of seeds. Now the hon. Minister suggests that he will allow this to go out to people that he regards as suited for the breeding of seeds, but I still maintain that the control over the production of these seeds should be in the hands of the hon. the Minister through his various organizations that I have suggested.

Would you apply that to all seeds?

Yes, to all seeds.

I think you are wrong.

At a later stage they can be distributed to the various farmers’ organizations for the purpose of producing them for distribution. But I am concerned with the production of foundation seed. Now take the tiniest quantity of seed. Take the lupin seed that came out here. It was stolen seed when it came out here, and 26 seeds came out here. And from that seed has been produced for South Africa a plant that is doing a very great service in the rehabilitation of soil in South Africa. There are many other seeds that we can get, and that was done entirely by the hon. Minister’s Department. Why not look at the future and confine ourselves to that and employ the outside assistance that we can get from other seed producers if they wish to join in the work of production of Suitable foundation seed for propagation and distribution at a later stage?

I want to say a few words on this question of specialists dealing with these seeds. The hon. Minister has the only specialists that I know of in this country to cope with this problem; he has the only men capable of producing the seed; he has the only real observers that are capable of sorting out those seeds, determining their suitability for the particular climatic conditions, observing the cross-polination that takes place from time to time. I need hardly remind the hon. the Minister because he comes from a seed-growing area that only a practical man who knows his seed can walk into a field and pick out just one “korrel” that is thriving to a better extent than any other in that particular field. Those are the types of people that we want, and I want to suggest that the Minister should confine this work to those specialists before he distributes seed outside that sphere. Let them concentrate on the production of seed. It is important to the whole issue, because having had the experience that I have had with agricultural colleges, experimental farms and experimental plots and research stations, I still say that Department stands head and shoulders above anything that I have seen in this country and I have visited lots of seed-producing areas. Some of them I regard as a positive disgrace, but I will deal with that on the next Bill.

Now I want to deal briefly with this Board that the hon. Minister proposes to establish. I do not want to be critical, but now the hon. Minister wants to put four men from the South African Agricultural Union on the Board. Has the hon. Minister any assurance that those four men from the Agricultural Union that he is going to select are going to have any knowledge, any specialized knowledge of seed production? Of course he has not. I want men specialized in the production of seed on that Board. Can the hon. the Minister give me the assurance that he will get those men from the South African Agricultural Union. From my point of view I would say that if he took four men from the experimental stations I would be better pleased than getting them from the South African Agricultural Union. When I say that I am not saying anything derogatory about the South African Agricultural Union. Then we come to sub-section (a): Three persons shall represent the Department and one person shall represent the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. It does not designate those men with any particular qualifications for the job. I think the most important part of the whole of this Bill is to have men who are specialists, men with a specialized knowledge of the subject they have to tackle. Who these three persons will be from the Minister’s Department and the one from the Department of Agricultural Economics, I do not know. We have horticulturists who are keenly interested in the production of seeds, we have many other designations in the Minister’s Department capable of the same job. Will the hon. Minister not accept something from us so that we get specialists from this particular Department as members of this Board rather than just three persons representing the Department? This matter is so important that this side of the House is justified in making an appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider the constitution of this Board in the direction I have indicated. In conclusion I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I am very pleased that he has at last seen the light of day and that it will redound to his credit that an organization is to be established that will promote better seed for South Africa.

It is not necessary to thank the Minister again and to congratulate him on this Bill. The other side of this House as well as this side have already done so. I think to-day is a big day in the lives of the agricultural farmers of South Africa, because we intend placing this Act on the Statute Book and because this legislation will give stability to agriculture in future. I wish to point out that as far as the production of foundation seed is concerned, South Africa is lagging far behind the rest of the world. The hon. the Minister referred to mother seed (foundation seed) and father seed and was somewhat humorous, but it is true that until very recently, in the sheep-breeding industry, for instance, the farmers picked out the ewes which yielded the most milk and used the lambs of these ewes for breeding purposes.

That was a good idea.

Yes, that was the one method employed and in the case of seed too much progress can be made. In placing this Act on the Statute Book I think it is fitting that we also place on record the fact that those individuals who have already started with this work in South Africa have rendered the country a great service. I have in mind those farmers who have displayed initiative, the private breeders who have bred foundation seed, some of them may have done so with a view to material gain, but they have nevertheless rendered South Africa a great service. I think we should be grateful to those people. We must remember, Sir, that if you use seed in respect of which the germinating quality is only 50 per cent, it means that the production costs of that farmer is exactly doubled, and that at a time when over the whole world efforts are being made to keep production costs low and when the consumers are actually being subsidized in respect of the products they use. In view of the fact that production costs are rising on the one hand, it is of the utmost importance on the other hand that the germinating quality of the seed is as high as possible, 100 per cent if possible. I know of course, that you cannot guarantee seed, but the important point is that the farmer should use seed which will come up to expectation and that the seed will yield crops which will be in accordance with the claims made in that respect. We have this interesting fact, however, that whereas the Opposition congratulate the Minister, they differ amongst themselves as far as this Bill is concerned. I do not want to deal with Clause 3 at this stage, in respect of which the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) tried to drag in another matter. But I do think that the hon. member for King William’s Town advanced one constructive idea which may perhaps be developed at a later stage, but I have to point out, however, that in the first place the Department of Agriculture and its research stations are not the right people to undertake this work. I think this Bill makes it very clear that its purpose is to promote the cultivation of new and improved varieties of plant seed. The Minister and his Department cannot undertake that cultivation, as they themselves realize, although they can be of assistance as suggested by the hon. member for King William’s Town. As far as the composition of this Board is concerned, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) has objected to Clause 10 (2) which empowers the hon. the Minister to ask an organization to nominate other people if he is not satisfied that those who have been nominated are the right people. On the other hand, the hon. member for King William’s Town asked the Minister what guarantee he had that those people would be qualified; that the South African Agricultural Union would nominate eight people amongst whom he would find four who were qualified? You are immediately faced with this incongruity, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for King William’s Town does not want the South African Agricultural Union, which after all constitute the farmers of South Africa, they are the people after all who have to use this seed.

Be honest. I said that I did not want to say anything derogatory about the South African Agricultural Union but whether the hon. the Minister could guarantee that those gentlemen would be acquainted with this particular item.

I am coming to that. After all they are the people who are dependent on good seed. Those organizations are, in the long run, the mouthpiece of the producers of that seed and I think we must accept it, without any doubt, that when the South African Agricultural Union is asked to nominate a panel of eight persons, they will in the first place nominate people who have already proved that they know what is the best way and the best method of growing this seed and who have obtained the best results with the cultivation of new seed. In the second place they will nominate people to serve on that board whom they know will be best able to guard the interests of the producers who will use that foundation seed. There is one aspect in respect of the constitution of this board which pleases me. This board will consist of 12 members. The hon. member for King William’s Town now asks that the one member to be nominated by the Department of Agricultural Economy and the three members to be nominated from the staff of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services should be qualified people and that that should be laid down in the Act. I think we can all assume that when the Minister appoints representatives from the Department of Agricultural Technical Services on this board, he will obviously nominate people who are sufficiently qualified and capable to do the work. That is obvious to all of us. The hon. member says that the Minister is the best man in the whole of South Africa to undertake this task. He says the Minister’s Department has already proved that they know what they want to do but in the same breath he says that the Minister should lay down in the Act that he will appoint the best qualified people. How is that qualification to be defined?

He wants the clause to suit a possible future United Party Minister.

I think so too, but I wish to refer to the other aspect. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) is afraid that the Minister will try to victimize and remove from the board those people whom he does not want there. I can only think of one circumstance in which the Minister will be anxious to remove anybody from the board and that is if that person knows nothing about this whole subject, or when some organization or other has nominated the wrong person. Does the hon. member not realize that the Minister has been very lenient, he does not even force a chairman on to this board. Had the hon. member read Clause 13 he would have known that the Minister was leaving it to the board to choose its own chairman. He allows this board a free hand. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) objected to Clause 23, which provides for secrecy. I think this is a very important clause because that is essential. It really seems to me that the hon. member has not read the Bill because it clearly states there “disclose any information acquired by him in the exercise of any duty or function under this Act or the said scheme …” And listen to this, Sir, “… in relation to the business or affairs of any other person” I think it is essential that the breeders of foundation seed, as far as their own business and their own affairs are concerned, should be protected in this Bill. I cannot see how one can wish a member of the board to be able to broadcast and make such information public to the world outside with impunity. I do not think the hon. member should insist on that clause being amended. It is an essential clause.

I am pleased to say that the hon. member for King William’s Town has to-night given the Department of Agricultural Technical Services the best testimonial it has ever had, and I hope he will continue to do so in future. He has also given a testimonial to the officials in respect of the research work which they are doing to-day and which they have done in the past. Once again I want to express my gratitude to the Minister for introducing this Bill.

It has been quite amusing listening to the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) trying to criticize members on this side of the House and making a case out of nothing at all. All that the hon. member for King William’s Town wanted to indicate was that there should be an assurance from the Minister that specialists will be appointed on this Board. That is all that the hon. member for King William’s Town indicated. I am satisfied that in reply to this debate, the Minister will give us the assurance that the Board as provided in this Bill will have specialists as members, whose responsibility concerns the purity of parent and seed, not the marketing of seed. It is a specialized job and the hon. member for King William’s Town was expressing his hopes that specialists would be appointed to the Board. He made no attack on the South African Agricultural Union. The hon. member for Wakkerstroom tried to make much out of nothing. We all want the Minister to indicate that specialists will figure on this board in a material way. We welcome this Bill. It is long overdue. We in South Africa are the country of all weeds, all weeds have flourished in this country like in no other land in the world. A friend told me that he planted oats and he said Russian roll weed came up there as thick as the oats, and he says he has had Russian roll weed ever since, and that is 40 years ago. Russian roll weed is evidently as difficult to eradicate as jointed cactus. And we know that pricklypear seed was introduced into this country, and that also has cost this country millions of pounds. We suffer from lack of experience and that is why we want to have guaranteed parent seed, and we want to educate people in regard to the value of pure seed. We must not be like the 1820 settler who when given maize to plant planted the whole cob, or like another settler when given a piece of biltong planted it and was disappointed that he did not obtain a biltong root crop. I myself think that the provisions of this Bill are not strict enough to assure purity of seed. That is my opinion and I have here certain statutes of England, and here are several Acts which provide for the purity of seed. I notice here in Section I provisions as to tests and it says: “A test of seed for the purpose of the preceding sections shall in the case of seeds other than garden seeds be made at one of the official seed-testing stations established under this Act.” And these testing-stations are licensed by the Minister. [Quorum.] I am surprised that the business of the House has been delayed on account of there not being a quorum, especially as the appeal for a quorum has come from the Government side, where only seven members were present on the Government benches. And then this Government claims to be a farmers’ Government. We are dealing here with one of the most important Bills to come before this House. I was saying that I do not think that the provisions of this Bill are strict enough to asure the purity of parent seed, and I do not see in this Bill provision made for compulsory testing at testing-stations licensed by the Government. Then there is another provision in the British Act I referred to just now and that is in regard to the germination of seed. Mr. Speaker, in this country we suffer to a great extent as a result of seed not germinating. In Great Britain there is a very serious penalty for people who sell seed when the germination has been killed and in their Act provision is made that, at least every year, seed is tested by a Government Department and no seed is sold that has not been tested within a year as regards its germination.

I like this Bill, Sir, but I think we must protect the users of our seed. We must see that adequate provision is made to ensure that if parent seed is pure, it is also seed that germinates efficiently. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give us some assurance that included in the latitude given him in this Bill there will be provision for the special, official testing of established seed at licensed testing stations. As the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) said, we also feel that we would like the hon. the Minister to assure us that he will ensure that specialists are included on this Board.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill, and, in fact, all Bills that concern our farming community are tainted with the Marketing Act. Some of the clauses of this Bill are identical with certain provisions of the Marketing Act. But this is not a marketing Bill; it has nothing to do with the marketing of seed; it is only to ensure the production of pure seed. In Great Britain I was informed by a farmer who was a seed producer that he had to give a guarantee that there were no weeds growing on his farm. If his truck went to the near-by village, his horses’ hooves had to be disinfected and cleaned at the entrance to his farm. The result was that he had absolutely no weeds. I imagine that we in this country will have to endeavour to have seed production stations where there are no weeds at all. That would be the only way to guarantee absolute purity.

Now that the hon. the Minister has introduced this Bill I would appeal to him to see to it that the old haphazard methods of production of specialized seeds are discontinued. Even our lucerne seed production—which falls under a different Act—should be subject to guarantees of purity. There are lucerne fields, in succession one after the other, in which there should not be a single weed, but in lucerne seed we find dagga and all kinds of weeds germinating. I warn the hon. the Minister that he will have to be strict; he will have to think of something more than votes and offending the susceptibilities of certain people. We must follow the example of what has been done in other countries which are able to guarantee the purity of their seed.

I have never yet come across any person with a greater knack to pull a fast one than the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker). When he discusses agricultural matters he makes a wide detour and covers the subject of jointed cactus as well. Had the known member known anything about the breeding of foundation seed he would have realized that what he said was absolutely redundant. If you grow foundation seed, one of the most important rules, in the first place, is that the bed or land on which you wish to grow that seed, should be clean. In the case of maize, for instance, if there are any plants within a distance of 400 yards from that maize land, plants which may possibly influence the foundation seed, those plants should be uprooted and the land cleared. If you breed any kind of seed which can possibly be influenced by some weed or other, one of the rules is to destroy those weeds. I am not sure, however, whether jointed cactus will influence either detrimentally or beneficially the foundation seed of all plants.

Mr. Speaker, I should actually not have spoken but I am doing so at the invitation of the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services, who said that we had any amount of time at our disposal and that he thought we farmers would have a pleasant chat this evening.

We must go home.

No, you cannot go and sleep. Mr. Speaker says we may only go home at half-past ten. I as a breeder of foundation seed, as a practical farmer and as a person who have been growing foundation seed for many years, probably realize more than the ordinary farmer the importance of this legislation which is before us this-evening. For example, if we consider the price of breeder’s seed to produce double-hybrid maize seed, we realize that the maximum use must be made of that breeder’s seed, seed which cost between £60 and £70 per bag. I think breeder’s seed will still be cultivated by the Department of Agriculture—I think I am right, the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—and by the Department alone. It is such a highly specialized seed that no control board can afford to employ officials to cultivate breeder’s seed. In other words, breeder’s seed will continue to be cultivated at the research stations and at the agricultural colleges. The Minister can correct me, but I think if this legislation envisages that such a board should employ those experts and establish farms where breeder’s seed can be cultivated, the position will become untenable. In that case I as a foundation seed breeder will have to pay such a high levy that I will not be able to make a living. That is a task which the Department of Agricultural Technical Services must undertake. That is how I see the position. So the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) need not worry. It should be left in the hands of the Department. The multiplication of the breeder’s seed can then be left in the hands of this board which will then, be means of breeder societies, multiply the expensive, almost priceless, breeder’s seed, so that the seed will ultimately reach the producer from whom the farmer can obtain it for the purpose of cultivating the product for the market.

The manner in which double-hybrid maize seed is cultivated is very interesting. I want to tell the House—I think the hon. the Minister knows this—that when it cultivates double-hybrid maize seed the Department of Agriculture uses four pure varieties of maize, and by means of in-breeding they inter-breed each variety with itself with the result that those four varieties become four pure-bred varieties. Each variety becomes practically a pedigree variety. The effect of that is that the plant gets smaller and smaller and its production lower and lower with the result that the seed becomes extremely expensive. Two single varieties are then crossed—that is single hybridization. The two single-hybrid lots of seed are then issued as breeder’s seed to the Seed-growers’ Society which to-day falls under the control of the Maize Board in co-operation with the Department of Agriculture. The farmer then plants those two single varieties. He plants one row of single-hybrid seed which he uses as the male species. That is where the male seed comes from. He then plants three rows of single-hybrid seed which is called the female variety. When the panicles appear the breeder has to remove all of them in the case of the female variety, which is used as the mother before those panicles produce pollen. The single-hybrid male seed— the male variety—then pollinates the three rows of single-hybrid seed which is used as the female variety. You can imagine, Mr. Speaker, that if one panicle is left the pollen of that panicle can be blown for a distance of 400 yards. You will see, therefore, Sir, how important it is that the breeding of double-hybrid seed is properly supervised.

I personally welcome the fact that in future that will not be left in the hands of the Maize Board in conjunction with the Department. It is not as though they have not done good work, but I have long since realized that in future it will become a task which the Maize Board will be unable to perform. However, I want to congratulate the Maize Board on the wonderful progress it has already made, because last year they managed to get the farmers to produce between 60,000 and 70,000 bags of this double-hybrid maize seed; which has had a very beneficial effect on the maize crop during the past years.

Then we have another seed; I have in mind, for example, wheat seed. Excellent work is being done at the research station at Bethlehem, where a very capable official has bred a variety of wheat seed for use in the eastern Free State, a seed which is absolutely rust proof. We know that the eastern Free State and north-eastern Free State and the surrounding areas are subject to rust. A limited quantity of that variety of wheat seed is cultivated at that research station and it is necessary that that wheat seed, the production of which has taken years of research and crossbreeding, should not be lost to the producer and that the seed should be kept as pure as possible. I think it can be kept pure.

What seed is that?

The wheat is called Bethana. It means “the house of bread”. In future that wheat will be controlled by the Foundation Seed Board which will then distribute it to the breeder societies who will in turn multiply it and keep it pure. That will be of tremendous benefit to those parts of our country where the farmers have to cope with the rust problem.

That, however, Mr. Speaker, applies in the case of all seed. I take it that that will apply in the case of seed potatoes, which is today under the control of the Seed Breeders’ Union. The breeding of seed potatoes if certified double-seed potatoes are bred, is a particularly highly specialized industry. I now want to reply to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood). I just want to tell him that the Minister will have no difficulty in finding four farmers to appoint on the Foundation Seed Board. Over the years the farmers of South Africa have, under the guidance of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, gained wonderful experience and you need therefore have no fear in that regard, Mr. Speaker, because you will find more than a sufficient number of farmers who will be capable of serving on that board. They are people who have practical experience as well and they will be able to play their part on that board when problems arise which the officials and the traders are unable to solve. In such a case the practical farmer will play his part in solving the problem which the other members of the board cannot solve.

I want to conclude but before doing so I just want to give the hon. the Minister the assurance that the farmers of South Africa are very grateful to him for having introduced this legislation to-day and for the fact that it will eventually be placed on the Statute Book.

I think the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) has given us a most interesting lecture on the breeding of double-hybrid maize seed. I just want to say this that what I know of him and his farming methods, he is capable of doing so. But I cannot agreed with him where he says that in future the Department and the hon. the Minister should be the body or the organization to concentrate on the production of breeder’s seed. If the Department of Agricultural Technical Services were to be solely responsible for that, apart from the respect which I have for the Department and for the knowledge of its experts, apart from my gratitude to the previous Department of Agriculture for having accepted the recommendations of the Maize Board in 1947 to the effect that a start should be made with the breeding of hybrid maize seed, I cannot agree with the hon. member for Bethlehem. We know that on the recommendation of the Maize Board, the Department of Agriculture sent Dr. Saunders over to America at that time, to investigate the hybrid seed scheme in America. I do not want to belittle the excellent work which was done but I just want to say this: If in future the Department of Agricultural Technical Services were to be the only body to render these services, we will never reach what should be our ultimate aim, namely, that 90 per cent or 95 per cent of the maize seed used in the country is hybrid seed. I can see no reason why private initiative should not also play its part in the production of breeder’s seed and foundation seed.

I had the privilege two months ago at Des Moines in the United States of America, in the State of Iowa, the biggest maize producing state in the world, of visiting the stations of the Pioneer Hybred Seed Corn Company, one of the biggest producers of hybrid seed in the world. I had the privilege of being the guest of the world-famous plant geneticist who is at the head of the Pioneer Hybred Seed Corn Company at Des Moines. I made some inquiries about their system of producing hybrid seed and seed in the U.S.A. There is wonderful and cordial co-operation between the Department of Agriculture of the U.S.A. and the big private companies which concentrate on producing hybrid maize seed on a large scale. The University of Iowa in the little town Ames, six miles outside Des Moines was the first agricultural university in the world to breed hybrid maize seed. The cooperation between the Department of Agriculture and the big private companies which breed hybrid seed in the U.S.A. is so wonderful that during the past season 95 per cent of the maize seed planted in the U.S.A. was. hybrid seed. I wonder whether 10 per cent of the maize seed which is to-day being sown in South Africa is hybrid maize seed. I doubt whether it is 10 per cent—perhaps the hon. member for Bethlehem will know. Less than 10 per cent of the maize seed which is sown here to-day, is hybrid maize seed. That is why I think that when it comes to the question of breeding seed there should not be too much control. There should be control as far as purity is concerned, as far as breeding is concerned; perhaps there should be control as far as germination is concerned, but the control should not be anything like the control exercised by a control board under the Marketing Act for instance. Those control boards are in complete control with the result that private initiative is completely eliminated. If we wish to reach the stage in South Africa, which we will have to reach if we wish to increase our maize production per morgen, if we wish to come anywhere near the production which they already have in the U.S.A.,. it is essential that big companies be established on private initiative, or big agricultural cooperative societies, or breeders’ co-operative societies, that will work in co-operation with the Maize Board under their scheme and under the supervision of the Department of Agriculture, towards this end. If we wish to reach the stage which they have already reached in America, namely that 95 per cent of the seed they use is hybrid maize seed, we shall have to do that. I want to tell this House that they have a gigantic organization in America. Whereas our maize production in South Africa is between 36,000,000 and 40,000,000 bags per annum, America expects a maize crop of 1,100,000,000 bags this year. I asked Dr. Wood of the Pioneer Hybred Seed Company to what he attributed the fact that there has been such a terrific increase in production and he told me that the one factor which was responsible was that ever since the University of Iowa started to breed hybrid maize seed, they had made such progress in co-operation with private initiative that America had reached the stage where 95 per cent of the seed used was hybrid seed. I mention that in passing in reply to the hon. member for Bethlehem.

I want to say a few words to the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel). I think he misunderstood the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood). The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) does not propose moving an amendment in the Committee Stage in respect of the inspection. What he does intend doing is to move an amendment in respect of the Minister’s power as far as the appointment of representatives to the Foundation Seed Control Board is concerned. I just want to put that right.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that when I studied these two Bills—the Bill with which we are dealing at the moment, the Foundation Seed Bill, and the Seeds Bill with which we still have to deal but which has already been made available to us—it was not quite clear to me why these two Bills were not consolidated in one. It is not clear to me why they cannot be condensed into one Bill. Nor did the hon. the Minister advance a convincing argument in his introductory speech during the second reading why that was not possible. The Foundation Seed Bill provides for the control over the production of foundation seed.

The one deals with control and the other one with supervision!

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I tried to read the Bills as intelligently as I presume the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) did. I want to say this in all honesty: I should like the hon. the Minister when he replies, to advance a more convicing argument than he has advanced why it is necessary to have two Bills. I think the same purpose would have been served with one consolidated Bill. In the one instance these two Bills provide for control over the production of foundation seed. We should not be led astray by this word “foundation seed”. It is not quite clear to me what is meant by foundation seed. Seed is seed and it should be the aim of every farmer in South Africa to breed foundation seed—the best seed he can, except, of course, in the case of hybridization, hybrid seed, as in the case of maize where you have breeder’s seed, single-hybridization on the one hand where in-breeding takes place on such a large scale that there is hardly any production. Then you bring the two together and you get a single variety; you then combine the two single-varieties and you get the hybrid seed, as the hon. member for Bethlehem has explained. Apart from that the ideal position to be aimed at by the Government in particular is where every farmer in this country will use foundation seed. No difference should be made in legislation between seed and foundation seed. I think that is wrong. I notice in this Foundation Seed Bill that Clause 5 provides for a foundation seed certification scheme and Clause 14 of the other Bill provides for a seed certification scheme—the one provides for the certification of seed. These are two matters which are very, very closely linked together. As far as I am concerned I should like to know whether there are sufficient reasons to have two Bills. However, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to criticize this Bill on that account. I do not want to oppose this Bill for that reason. I think the time has arrived, that it is long overdue, that control is exercised over the production, the cleaning and selling of seed. But I do not want control to be taken too far, control which will kill initiative in so far as the production of foundation seed is concerned. I think the time is long overdue in South Africa, Mr. Speaker, that something be done in order to control production, cleaning and the selling of seed. I was a member of the Maize Board and other boards for years. On many occasions I had the opportunity of going through the maize belt and to realize what rubbish was being sold to the farmers as seed. There was no control. There was no control over it and for that reason I think that any farmer who is worth his salt will welcome this Bill.

I do not want to go into detail. I personally think that as it becomes necessary to adapt them to practical experience we will very soon have to introduce amending legislation in respect of certain clauses which are now being passed in this Bill. That will happen. This is a new scheme. It does not come under the Marketing Act. We cannot place it under the Marketing Act. From the nature of things it does not lend itself to that because this is not a big commercial undertaking. The ultimate buyer will be one type of person only, the man who sows the seed, namely, the farmer. Consequently the market is limited. That is why I do not wish to deal with the clauses in the Foundation Seed Bill one by one and criticize them. I do not think it is so much a question of the principle of control. I think the word “control” is wrong. It is a question of the Government and a body to be established by the Government, supervising the production of seed. There is nothing wrong with that. If there is one thing which causes the farmers to suffer great losses—I have personal experience of this and I think most farmers have—it is when the farmer buys seed and he has no guarantee as to the quality of that seed. Well, it is impossible to guarantee seed. You have no idea, Sir, of how it will germinate. You have no idea in the case of maize or wheat, of the amount of foreign seed amongst it. That also applies in the case of other seed. You have no guarantee as to its purity. You merely have to take the word of the person in Johannesburg who was responsible for cleaning it, and take what you can get. Generally my experience as far as the specialized seed cleaners in Johannesburg, are concerned, people with whom I have had dealings, is that they do their work properly. They do their best but the old method of cleaning seed is such that if the cleaner is not an expert, he is unable to distinguish between Boesman-maize seed and Cincinatti seed, if they are mixed in one bag. They are very similar. If the poor farmer sows that seed he is the victim. For example he sows the pale Boesman seed at a certain time but if there is any Cincinatti seed amongst it that should have been sown earlier. The result is that he loses half his crop at the beginning of April because of frost and his crop is reduced by 25 per cent. It is interesting to see in the U.S.A. to what trouble seed growers and seed sellers go in order to be able to guarantee the germinating quality of the seed which they produce and sell. I do not think we in South Africa are faced with the same problems in regard to germination as the people in the United States of America. They have cold areas there where the temperature is below freezing point in winter and that is the main cause of poor germination. It is, however, necessary in South Africa that great attention is paid to germination because there are many factors which influence that. The officials of the Minister’s Department are experts in that respect; they know the subject A to Z and for that reason it is most essential that they control the various breeders in so far as the germinating aspect is concerned. Nothing is more frustrating to the farmer than having done everything in his power to prepare his land, only 60 per cent of the seed germinates. The maize or wheat comes up, it stands there but it should be twice as thick. As the hon. member for Wakkerstroom said at the outset, as a result of poor germination the farmer’s production costs are increased by 100 per cent.

There is something in connection with the Bill which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister. According to Clause 5 the Minister is to introduce a foundation seed certification scheme and in terms of this Bill he gives all the other power to the Foundation Seed Board. Clause 2 provides for the establishment of a body corporate to be known as the Foundation Seed Board. Clause 3 lays down the objects of this board and Clause 4 says what this board can do to attain those objects. According to Clause 5 the Minister may call into being a foundation seed certification scheme. It is not clear to me whereas this board is given all the powers set out in Clauses 3 and 4 and in Clauses 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, it is deprived of those powers in Clause 5 and that it cannot establish a foundation seed certification scheme itself but that the Minister has to do so. Perhaps there is a good reason for it, but then I want to know what it is because I think that will give rise to some difficulty. The Minister acts on the advice of his officials who are capable. The Foundation Seed Board will act on the advice of its members who may possibly also be capable, but apart from the fact that they both have capable officials, they will sometimes come into conflict and there will be duplication of work. That is why I cannot see why the Minister gives all this power to the board, that he has drafted the Bill in such a way that it provides for the establishment of a foundation seed board with all these powers and authority and that he then introduces a clause in terms of which he takes certain of those powers of the board into his own hands. If it were necessary to do so I would have no objection to it but to me this seems to be a contradiction in the Bill; the board is vested with all the power that it requires, it is vested with so much power that it can impose a levy and establish a seedling organization which can buy and sell foundation seed, but in the same Bill the Minister deprives the board of one very important function, namely, the creation of a foundation seed certification scheme and vests it in himself and his Department. I should be pleased if the Minister would explain that.

I want to say something in respect of Clause 10 (2). I agree with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood). I think the Minister is vested with sufficient power under Clause 9 as far as the constitution of the board is concerned, perhaps too much in my opinion, but we will not quarrel about that. Clauses 9 vests him with sufficient power in that a panel has to be submitted to him which contains the names of double the number of people he has to appoint, he has a choice. If he is not satisfied with the names on the panel, as in the case of (2) where he has to appoint four from a panel of eight, if he is not satisfied with any of the eight he can ask for a further eight names to be submitted. He may eventually have 16 names before him from whom he has to choose four. Whereas the Minister asks the South African Agricultural Union, the cooperative societies and the seed merchants to submit a panel of names, and whereas these organizations may already have submitted two panels to him with double the number required, the Minister ought to have sufficient confidence in the names submitted not to take the additional powers under Clause 10 (2), namely that if he is not satisfied with them he can follow his own way and appoint his own people. [Interjection.] I am surprised at the hon. member for Christiana for objecting to this.

But that is the basic principle.

The hon. member has been a member of the Maize Board for a long time and he ought to know what happens in the case of a member of a control board who pleads for the interests of the producers and ultimately comes into conflict with the officials of the Department. That hon. member will be the first person to object if the co-operative societies on the Maize Board or Wheat Board for example, were forced to submit a panel consisting of more names than the actual number required.

Is that not the same principle which is followed in the Marketing Act?

In this case we have a scheme to control foundation seed and a board is appointed consisting of interested persons. In the case of the Maize Board it is a scheme which controls a product and that board consists of people interested in that industry. The principle is the same. In this case the Minister has greater power then he has in connection with the constitution of the Maize Board and I think Clause 10 (2) is an insult to those people who are interested in the breeding, handling and selling of seed, in that the Minister may reject their recommendations and follow his own way. I repeat that apart from these few points which worry me, we all welcome this legislation. In the course of the next few years this legislation will right itself. There will be amendments. It is expecting too much that a Bill of this nature should be 100 per cent right from the start. We will learn in the course of time and the board will from time to time come to the Minister and point out defects which will have to be rectified.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the welcome extended to this measure by hon. members opposite is much greater than the little criticism they voiced. They all feel that the time is ripe for such a Bill and that, together with us, they must congratulate the Minister on it. I welcome this Bill whereby the cultivation of foundation seed will be controlled, and also commercial seed when it is distributed. Seed control has been necessary in our country for a long time. As farmers we know how much damage was suffered as the result of the fact that we did not obtain suitable seed, seed which was suitable for particular climatic conditions and types of soil, seed which did not germinate well and resulted in poor crops. As the result of that farmers have suffered irreparable loss. This Bill will now prevent bad seed being cultivated in future and being distributed amongst the farmers. Particularly do I welcome the promise inherent in this Bill in respect of research to cultivate new varieties of more suitable, hardy and fertile types of seed. I am sure that a very wide field still lies open for study and research. We know that wonderful results have already been achieved and that the production of the crop farmers has been tremendously increased by it, particularly the hybrid seeds which are able to resist the drought conditions in the Western Transvaal, and which have given very good results. But I want to welcome this Bill particularly because it makes it possible to do research in connection with the cultivation of foundation seed from our large variety of indigenous types of grass. I know that much has already been done in this regard, but I believe that there is still a wide and interesting field lying open for investigation and research, in order to obtain foundation seed from hardy, valuable and nutritious grasses. The greater part of our country is covered by grass. I am not talking about the Karoo areas now, but particularly of the Free State, Transvaal and Natal, where the grazing is mostly covered by grass. These grasses have been of inestimable value to our cattle-breeding industry in general and to the dairy industry and the meat industry in particular. For extensive cattle farming good grass is a sine qua non for success. The only way to make a success of cattle farming is to have good, hardy and nutritious grass which can be used in winter as well as in summer. The cattle farmer’s entire living depends on the grass coverage on his farm. My point is that we can never over-emphasize the importance of careful study and research into our grasses with a view to cultivating foundation seed of the best type. In the Marico area we sometimes find up to 20 types of grass on 30 square yards of land. I ask myself whether enough research is being done to investigate the hardy qualities of grass which is perhaps bitter or sour but which is very drought-resistant, as for example what we call in the Bushveld the “stinkgraspol”, which still stays alive when sweet grasses like the luxurious buffalo grass have already been killed by drought. For example, in the Free State and in the harder parts of the Transvaal we find the well-known “rooi klossiegras” which is very drought-resistant. If that “rooi klossiegras”, which is a sweet grass, can be crossed with the “stinkgras” I mentioned a moment ago, and foundation seed can be obtain which will make the “stinkgras” more palatable, and it can be spread in those parts of the Bushveld where it grows but where the red grass will not grow, and vice versa, what good results may perhaps be obtained? I am thinking, e.g., of the ordinary thatch-grass which is a sweet grass, which is used by the Natives to thatch their huts, but which has been proved to be one of the best types of grass in our part of the country in so far as its drought-resistant qualities are concerned. When it begins to get dry, the animals eat it like oat hay. It is a grass which easily grows from seed. Those qualities can be bred into other grasses and perhaps a variety can be cultivated which is drought-resistant and which can be of great benefit to the farmers. It is a tough, perennial grass, a luxuriant grower and very hardy. When I travel through the country I often get out of my car just to look at a nice farm which is well covered with grass and to admire it. There is no greater inspiration to a farmer than to see such a farm. A farmer who is not inspired by such a sight still does not have the right appreciation of grass. I just want to mention the example of one farmer, the late Mr. Neethling in the Northern Transvaal. He had the habit, whenever riding on horseback to look at his cattle, to take a little axe and a small pick with him, and to fill his pockets with grass seed which he had obtained from the research station at Rietondale or had plucked elsewhere on his farm, and whenever he found a bare spot he got off his horse and spread this seed, loosened the soil and put a thorn-bush over it. The result was that very soon he had one of the most wonderfully grassed farms which could carry more cattle per morgen than most other farms. That is why I feel that it is so absolutely essential that more research should be done in connection with improving our hardy indigenous grasses for our own benefit. The other day I visited Bien Donne and whilst talking to the lecturers there I remarked that it was a pity that more research was not being done in regard to the cultivation of indigenous shrubs and plants. One of them replied: “The fact is that research workers overseas have already recognized the good qualities of some of our plants, and they took plants and seed overseas and improved them to such an extent that they now make it available to us at a very high price We have a rich source of indigenous plants. I am sure this country is richer in types of grass than any other country, and the time has arrived when more research should be done so that better use may be made of it. That is why I as a farmer welcome this Bill, because research in this direction is one of the things which in future will be benefited by it. Foundation seed derived from our grasses and made available to the farmers will be of great benefit to the country.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has already said that we on this side welcome the Bill, and that we feel that the time has come for it to be introduced. Of course, one requires good seed if one wants good crops, and we must try to produce more and more good seed so that we can produce food for all our people. Certain types of seed are also required for certain areas. The one type which one can use in one area, cannot be used in another area at all, and these seeds must be developed in the areas concerned. The use of good seed results in good crops without the costs of production being increased and that is of course most advantageous. The Minister has said that surpluses may result, but that must not happen; we must not have surpluses. As the crops become bigger, we must plan to find a market for our products either locally or abroad. If we do that, we shall have a product which costs us far less to produce and we shall be able to sell it abroad more easily because the costs of production are lower. The Department of Agriculture with its research has been of incalculable value to us, but the private undertakings have also played an important role, and it is right that they should continue with the cultivation of foundation seed. It is of course quite right that they should be represented on the board. To me the board seems a little big, and I think that the costs involved may be very high. I do not know exactly how we can reduce it, but if it is possible to do so, the costs will be reduced.

As regards Clause 10 (2), I also want to associate myself with what hon. members on this side have said. I do not want to imply for one moment that the Minister will not act responsibly in appointing the members of the board, but nor do I believe for one moment that the body which makes the recommendation and submits the panels will act irresponsibly. I believe that they will appoint the right people to these panels, and I think that the first panel which they submit should be sufficient to enable the Minister to select his members. I hope the Minister will delete Clause 10 (2). I do not think it is necessary and I think it is no more than right, and that the Minister will find sufficient people in the list submitted to him.

Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether from the point of view of the broad economy of South Africa we have had a more important measure in recent years than the Bill now before us. The potential value to South Africa of a measure like this cannot be calculated, because the right steps now will continue to benefit the economy of South Africa from now to eternity. This is a measure which, if it is administered with imagination, and with the full weight of the Minister’s Department behind him, can do very much for South Africa and can produce so much untold wealth which is of a far more permanent nature than the wasting assets of our base minerals and our gold and diamonds. All those things are wasting assets, but here we have something which will continue to increase and to improve the economy of South Africa from year to year.

I want to deal for a moment with one or two general points before coming down to matters in more detail. Firstly, I want to say that I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren). I hope the Minister will be prepared to accept it. The Bill in some respects is still a little bit ragged. The hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler) dealt with the question of grasses a few moments ago. Well, that comes under the Bill, and I do not know whether it is the intention of the Minister, but in the language used it is well within the four corners of the Bill. The Minister says yes and I am very pleased. I was hoping that no unexpected interjections would be made while the hon. member for Marico was speaking to indicate that he was going beyond the scope of the Bill, because I want to go even a little further. I want to refer again to the amendment of the hon. member for King William’s Town, because we have not yet got the four corners of the work which can be done by the Minister or by the Board. The hon. member for Florida (Mr. H. G. Swart) has pointed out not an overlap but what appeared to be unnecessary differentiation of powers between the Minister and the Board. There is a great deal in what he said and I think it is an argument well worth considering. In that respect, while there may be a differentiation in those powers, I do not think it is quite clear to us yet precisely what the scope of the measure is and precisely what the Minister is aiming at in the ultimate. You see, Sir, if it is possible for foundation seed to be produced in terms of this Bill for annual crops, the various food grains and also grasses, then we can go a step further in terms of the language here and we can deal, for example, with crops like trees and timber. Pedigree seed is being grown today by private enterprise in this country, and that can be brought within the scope of this Bill. How far the thing can go is shown by the sugar industry, where because of the production of seed, and not the normal method of propagation of cane by means of the cane itself, and obtaining improved strains of that seed, the whole of the sugar industry in South Africa has been revolutionized over the last 25 years, merely by means of the industry itself. The yield per acre has been doubled and possibly trebled, so that the same number of acres are producing more than double the amount of sugar they did before. The fertility of the soil has also been built up and the type of cane grown can be milled at a relatively small cost per ton, as the result of developing these seeds. Here we have an industry which itself set to work to produce special seed, and the sugar crop is worth millions of pounds to South Africa to-day. I think it is about £38,000,000, and that has come about very largely as the result of the scientific application of modern principles to the breeding of seed. That is merely an example.

But I want to touch on another point, and I am only touching on it because I am not sure that this Bill goes far enough, but my hon. friend’s amendment goes far enough. I want to deal with our fruit. Deciduous fruit does not grow from seed. It is true that the seed may be planted to get a stock on which you may bud or graft your tree, but the method of propagation used is budding or grafting. Here the selection of buds is of immense importance to South Africa, even if you leave out the question of grafting for the moment and deal only in the simplest terms with budwood. In terms of the amendment, that would be clearly seen as one of the objects to be aimed at in terms of the Bill itself.

At 10.25 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned until 3 March.