I move—

Now that we have arrived at the third reading of this Bill, I think it is advisable that we review what has happened since this Bill was read a first time. The second reading indicated that there was a substantial measure of support and a considerable degree of agreement on the main provisions of the Bill. In the Committee Stage we could not find agreement on the one point, that was the hours of work. In this regard I think the Minister has a further opportunity to consider this aspect of the Bill before he takes it to the Other Place. We put up as strong a case as we could for the reduction of the hours from 46 to 44. I believe now that had we made representations for the reduction of the hours from 46 to 45, the Minister would have found it almost impossible to argue that we did not have an unanswerable case. Be that as it may, I am still hopeful that the Minister will consider the position of the existing Wage Act agreements in respect of the distributive workers and see his way clear to reduce the figure to 45 before the Bill emerges from the Other Place. I may be an optimist, but I believe it is better to be an optimist than a pessimist in matters of this kind. I think the case for the reduction to 45 hours per week is very, very strong indeed.

The other amendments which were accepted in Committee were, I think, very necessary and that they strengthened the Bill quite considerably. I believe the Bill would have been further strengthened had the Minister accepted the other amendment moved by this side of the House, i.e. the one which the Chairman disallowed on the technical reason that it would entail additional expenditure not contemplated at the second reading. I refer to the provision for a higher wage ceiling which would have had the effect of bringing a greater number of workers under the umbrella of this very important Act. In that connection the Minister has the power to increase the income ceiling by way of regulation through the State President. The Minister has also made it quite clear that he does not intend the provisions of this Bill to become operative before 1 January 1965. So there is still an opportunity for the Minister to reconsider the ceilings laid down in this Bill and to have regulations framed that, if agreed to by the State President, will have the effect of bringing a larger number of workers under the umbrella of this measure when it becomes operative next January. We hope again the Minister will do this in the interests of the employees concerned and also in the light of the representations we have made and in the light of the evidence submitted to the select committee by the only union which gave evidence namely the National Union of Distributive Workers. We know that provision exists in the Bill and we hope the Minister is going to make use of it before this Act becomes operative on the 1st of next January.

I think the most important provision of this Bill is found in Clause (2) sub-section (3) which introduces a new principle into this Bill, the provision to negotiate and to regulate hours of work, conditions of service in industry and commerce, by collective bargaining. I want to spend a little time on this new principle because I believe the Minister is going to find that this new principle is one which is going to be welcomed by all who have the genuine interests of workers generally at heart. This new section makes it possible for collective bargaining to take place between employees and employers even where trade unions and employer associations, as we understand them, do not exist. This is something quite new as far as the Republic is concerned. We have had what has been referred to as gentlemen’s agreements, and gentlemen’s agreements have arisen where wage determinations that had been agreed to have expired by effluxion of time and the employers and the employees concerned have agreed to continue those agreements until such time as new determinations were agreed to. This new provision is going to make it possible for agreements to be entered into, and I think that we must bear in mind that the agreements are not actually limited by the Bill itself, the provisions of the Bill itself, because we find that the new sub-section (3) of Clause 2, will allow agreements to deal with the ordinary hours of work, overtime payment, Sundays and public holidays, sick leave, contracts of employment and termination thereof and certificates of service. All these matters can be part of an agreement which will be submitted to the Minister if more than half of the employees or a class of employees in an industry or undertaking reach agreement with their respective employers. That means in fact that the agreements so entered into can deal with all the matters that I have referred to but can also deal with matters in addition to those which I have referred to. As I understand the meaning of this new principle, it would be possible to negotiate an agreement under these conditions with that considerable body of workers that are not represented by trade unions at all at this stage, and that it will overcome one of the difficulties that employers have for instance in improving wages, particularly of Bantu workers, where the agreement would depend on all employers engaged in that type of work being bound by such an agreement. At the present time employers who are willing and prepared to improve the wages of their Bantu workers find that because of the competitive factor involved, they cannot improve the wages of their Bantu employees because they cannot get similar employers in similar industries or similar undertakings to pay the higher wages that they are prepared to pay, with the result that they cannot get what some employers want because other employers are not prepared to co-operate. As I understand this clause it will be possible for the majority or a class of employees in an undertaking to negotiate an agreement which can be binding on others. That is the purpose of it. Provided it is a majority who are involved in the negotiations.

I think it is important that the Minister should indicate that the interpretation that I am now putting on it is correct. I believe that it is. I want to take an illustration as an indication of how I can see this provision being used in practice. In the distributive trade—I am going to deal with the Bantu in this instance so that we will have a true example—there are a considerable number of Bantu employed as delivery boys and as messengers, and it is quite conceivable that in terms of sub-section (3) of Clause 2 a majority of such employees together with the employers are able to negotiate an agreement which deals with all the factors that are mentioned in this Bill and also could include an agreement on rates of pay. And if this agreement is submitted to the Minister and he is satisfied that the agreement has been negotiated by a majority of Bantu employees in that particular industry or undertaking, because they represent “a class” in terms of this provision, then once the Minister gives his approval to that agreement, it will be binding on all of the employers in that particular industry or class of undertaking. I think it is important that we should have this aspect cleared up at this third reading so that we will know the value of this new principle that is now being introduced into the Shops and Offices Act, for the important reason that if this principle is found to be an effective way of overcoming the problems that employers have who are anxious to improve the working conditions and rates of pay of their employees, this principle could very well be extended into the Factories Act for the same purpose. It is a fact that in the legislation which we have, particularly that falling under the Minister of Labour, that what is accepted as a principle in one piece of legislation is usually applied to the other legislation as and when amendments take place. So the hon. the Minister can appreciate the importance of this new principle which we are now introducing into the Shops and Offices Act. I do not think that I am being unreasonable in putting this interpretation on this clause, because we had evidence before the select committee that it was extremely difficult for the trade union movement to organize all of the workers that are affected by the Shops and Offices Act, and because of that employees are dependent on legislation of the type which we are now passing to control the hours of work and the conditions under which they work—legislation rather than by way of the collective bargaining principle. The hon. Minister will appreciate why I asked at the second reading that the hon. Minister should state as a matter of policy what the Government’s attitude is as regards collective bargaining. The hon. Minister made it quite clear that the Government is as keen as the Opposition is to further the cause of collective bargaining; principally through the building up of a strong trade union movement in the country. That being so, it is clear that the purpose of introducing this clause into the Shops and Offices Act was to try and introduce collective bargaining rather than conditions being imposed upon employers and employees by way of legislative enactment. That being the case, it appears to me that we have got to put this interpretation on this new principle which we now have for the first time, that, in the absence of trade unions and employers’ organizations as envisaged under the Industrial Conciliation Act, we, as a stop gap to the formation of trade unions and employers’ organizations on a voluntary basis, now in terms of this provision enable agreements to be concluded even although there is no trade union activity or recognized trade unions or employers’ organizations. That is the significance of this clause, and I am putting forward a plea to the hon. the Minister that if I have not interpreted the intention correctly in respect of this sub-section, he should take this opportunity, in his reply to the third reading, to say so, so that employers and employees will know precisely what the position is. To me this interpretation which I have placed on it, and which we on this side of the House would welcome, if correct, will be a tremendous step forward in industrial relations in the Republic, and I am sure the hon. Minister needs no reminder of the fact that we have come under severe criticism from overseas and other sources in respect of the fact that there is no active machinery for collective bargaining in respect of a large section of our workers. This new principle, I think, will help to make outside opinion realize that we are taking a first step towards the ideal of full collective bargaining in the widest sense of the term. For that reason also I think it is important that the hon. Minister should make it quite clear that he sees no reason why this particular clause should not, if properly used, enable us to bridge the gap until such time as collective bargaining in the widest sense of the word is made possible by the registration of the necessary trade unions and employers’ organizations in respect of the distributive trade generally, and all those workers that fall under the provisions of this particular Bill.

In this connection there is another point which I thought significant at the time and I am mentioning it now: When I spoke at the second reading, the hon. Minister interrupted me and asked whether we on this side of the House were in favour of the stop order system in relation to the development of the trade union movement. I said that we were. Now I do not know whether the hon. Minister has had representations made to him for the introduction of legislation to make stop order facilities available to the trade union movement by way of some enactment. But I thought it significant in any case that the hon. Minister wanted to know from the Opposition whether we had any objection to such a scheme being introduced. My answer to him then was that we had none. I think, however, that the hon. Minister should indicate in his reply what he had in mind when he put that question to me, because I can tell him that nothing can facilitate the development of strong trade unionism in South Africa of the type that we all want for the purpose of orderly advance—nothing can stimulate that more than the introduction of stop order facilities for the collection of trade union dues. I think it is important that we should have clarity on this matter also on this occasion.

We are glad that this Bill has reached this stage. We think that it is an important measure, one that now completes the recommendations made by the commission that was appointed some years ago to go into all our industrial legislation, and we believe that if advantage is taken of this measure and there is co-operation and at the same time give- and-take by employees and employers in the application of this Act, we will be taking a tremendous step forward in further improving our industrial legislation in the Republic.

This Bill, will, when it becomes law, replace an Act of a similar nature which was passed in 1939, and it will, as the hon. Minister correctly stated, bring a lot of the provisions and the general practice more into line with modern-day thinking and modern-day conditions. I do feel that the point that has been stressed by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) is something which will bring about a very great improvement in the conditions of the workers. On the Witwatersrand, for some years now, there has been a very sincere effort made by employers to improve the conditions of the unskilled workers, particularly in the field of commerce and industry. Certain committees were established to work in this direction and they have made slow but sure progress. In fact, a great deal of their investigation and research which has been passed onto their numerous members in these fields of activity has borne a great deal of fruit. But I think that this subsection (3) of Clause 2 of the Bill will certainly accelerate that improvement and enable the benefits of research work that has been done to be more fully realized through this principle of collective bargaining which is now being inserted in this legislation. One of the advantages is the fact that all employees will themselves directly be able to negotiate with employers and be able to put their views through their own personal representatives to the employers. I think this is a very important step forward, and probably does herald a new era in labour relations in the country as against something which I previously in discussing this Bill stated to have been a retrogressive step in labour legislation. That was something the hon. Minister did not like. He asked whether there was any other hon. member who agreed with this view. I would like the hon. Minister to know that so far as this side of the House is concerned we still are very strongly opposed to Section 77 in the Industrial Conciliation Act which has enshrined the principle of job reservation into our industrial legislation, into labour legislation. We would like the hon. Minister to know that the comment which I made when I described that type of legislation as retrogressive is certainly as far as we are concerned retrogressive legislation and does blot the copybook of labour legislation in this country.

With regard to the amendments which this side of the House put forward, particularly the one with regard to the shortening of hours, I must confess that I was somewhat disappointed when I heard the hon. Minister’s reply to the case that had been put up to him. Quite frankly I think that he might perhaps have given in this first important legislation that he has dealt with as Minister of Labour, he might have given a much stronger lead, and he might perhaps have accepted the viewpoint of this side of the House, because I think this side put up a strong and sound case. It is my view that if one is to modernize legislation, one has to take into account prevailing practices and conditions in the particular field that the legislation is to cover. I feel that when one is dealing with the streamlining of legislation, the Minister himself should give a lead and not necessarily bow down to a party line. I do not think we were impressed particularly by the arguments put forward by the other side of the House as to why the hours of labour should not be decreased. There was no real sound argument, and the hon. Minister merely said “I have not been convinced by what have been put to me, and therefore I am not prepared to differ from the report of the select committee.” I feel that the Minister could have shown some strength here and perhaps a little vision as well, and that he could have taken a line which would have been to the credit of himself as the Minister of this portfolio and would have been evidence of his leadership in this particular field. I want to say that it is important to-day, particularly when we are dealing with a shortage of manpower in the country, to try and make the best and most efficient use of the manpower that is available. One of the means of doing that is to improve conditions. This Bill which does to a great extent do this in providing regulated forms of sick leave, and annual leave, proper rates of pay as regards overtime, and so on, gives us the opportunity to make more efficient use of the labour which is available. That was really the objective of this side of the House in trying to bring this Bill as up-to-date as possible so that by these better conditions one might get a more efficient service in the country and so make the best and fullest use of the manpower at our disposal, difficult as it may be.

I would like to say to the hon. the Minister that when we are busy amending legislation of this character, it is good and important to lay a pattern for the future. In that sense, I think the hon. Minister has made a valiant effort in this Bill. But my suggestion to him is, following on what has been said on this side of the House, that the Minister could now perhaps reconsider all the other forms of labour legislation and taking into account the economic advance of the country and the tremendous demands that will be made on the manpower of the country and the strength of the country in maintaining our economic development, that he should try and remove from the legislation some of these sections which, I believe, are not only holding back the position in this country but clauses which are also creating a very unsatisfactory image both internally and externally. People judge a country by its legislation and the laws which prevail, particularly in the economic field. Here is an opportunity to do something to bring about a change, because there has been a great deal said on this subject by every sector of our economy with regard to labour legislation. The hon. the Minister who I think is in a position to really make a contribution in this field, should in my view discuss the various aspects of his legislation not necessarily with his Department, but more particularly—this is not intended as a reflection obviously on the members of his Department—with those who are engaged in the economy of this country. I think if he is able to do so and taking into account the advice and the views of people who are leaders in the economy of the country, it will put him in a happier position …

Order! The hon. member is now making a second-reading speech.

Let me therefore suggest to the hon. the Minister that this Bill should with the advantages which it has now incorporated in our legislation, not in future be subjected to amendments which in any way affect the value of the proposals of the select committee which have been incorporated in the Bill. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana has asked the hon. the Minister to advise the House whether he accepts the viewpoint put forward to him with regard to Clause 2 (3), and I hope that when we get a reply, we will also get an assurance that this forward step will characterize his attitude towards labour legislation, legislation on the Statute Book and legislation which he may have in mind to meet the problems of our country in the future.

I would like to make a few comments at this final stage of the Bill before us. I think that in the first place one should consider that this is the first time that legislation of this nature, which contains no racialistic aspects at all, has come before this House and has met with the unanimous support and approval of this House. It will be recognized that in this legislation the conditions of service that will affect all employees who will be affected by this Bill, will affect them no matter the colour of their skin, whether they are Coloureds, Whites or Bantu. The provisions of the Bill will be applicable to groups of employees belonging to all racial groups. Particularly I think this legislation is of value to the Coloured community of the Cape who now play a very important part as office workers in the normal commercial life of this city and in other parts of the Cape Province.

But I want to make one or two observations about the advantages that accrue to workers in this Bill, other than those specifically written into the measure. I refer to the point made by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, namely the inherent power that is now given to workers in this Bill to organize themselves for collective purposes to obtain conditions of service better than the minimum standards that this Bill lays down. Because let it be recognized that where the provisions of this measure lay down a maximum income level of the classes of employees to whom it will apply, in fact if any group of employees in excess of 50 per cent of the employees employed in that class of business organize themselves by way of an agreement, they can negotiate with the employers and obtain conditions of service far better than the minimum standards laid down in this measure. In other words, the Bill is equally applicable under such conditions to employees in income groups in excess of R1,920, the maximum laid down in this Bill, if they can succeed in obtaining a collective arrangement. Where the hon. Minister has refused our suggestion for a 44-hour week as a minimum standard in this Bill, by the same token as the powers that will be given to employees to organize themselves, in the same way the 44-hour week ideal can be achieved if there is a satisfactory agreement between employers’ organizations and the employees. But there is another aspect that I think one should mention in referring to this particular provision, and that is that the workers of South Africa should recognize that where there is a state of wellbeing and a time of full employment, workers may well feel that there is no need at all to presently organize themselves or to take an interest in any workers’ organization. I think that we should point out that the lack of interest on the part of workers who are affected by this Bill can lead to the exploitation of their labour in spite of this measure by unscrupulous employers. This Bill only lays down minimum standards, but for the first time this class of worker has the opportunity to organize so as to achieve higher standards of lasting benefit to themselves. But there is the other principle, that they will be expanding the principle of consultation between employers and employees and the State and widening the channels of consultation down to the very lowest levels as far as the working man is concerned. Therefore I think all members will agree with me that in the passing of this legislation it is the wish of this House in the interests of the workers that they should use the facilities provided and take steps to organize themselves on a collective basis so that they can bargain for better conditions of employment.

Now there is one other aspect and I hope, Sir, that you will afford me the opportunity of dealing with it. During my second-reading speech I referred to a class of employers who gave evidence before the select committee and who did not in any way wish to have restrictive provisions placed upon them by the law in regard to the conditions under which they could employ any men or women in their businesses. In other words, they wanted a free and unfettered control of the conditions under which they could exploit labour for their own gain. Only by chance did I use as an example the evidence given by the Handelsinstituut, and when I referred to it I made no mention at all of the names of any individuals who gave evidence in that regard before the select committeel. I chose the Handelsinstituut in support of my argument for the one simple reason, that in all the evidence taken by the committee that was the only example of an institute speaking for a group of employers who were totally opposed to the principle contained in this measure. I say that on purpose because a personal attack has been made on me by a certain Mr. Borman, who is the secretary of the Handelsinstituut. He described my remarks as reprehensible and a distasteful attack, and he stated that in making my observations here I was suffering from hallucinations. My observations were confined entirely to what was said before that committee, and nothing else, and I repeat them here, but I will go so far as to say that there are classes of employers who have this out-dated point of view, because evidence was given by this same body that all they wanted was a code, and when they were challenged in regard to the code in which they would lay down the conditions of employment, and when they were questioned by hon. members opposite in regard to the memorandum they submitted on this code, they stated that they could not give any evidence whatsoever of any code laid down by this body, laying down minimum conditions for employees. They said, “No code of that nature is in existence”, and they went further. They were asked the direct question: “In other words, you have no code laid down by your association at all?”, and the reply was: “That is the position. There is no necessity for such a code”. If one looks a little further in the evidence given by Mr. Borman, he was put a very direct question. When we discussed whether they would welcome a Bill of this nature providing for collective bargaining by the employees, he was asked: “In other words, you would welcome a wage determination affecting office workers”, and this was his reply: “We shall not welcome such a determination if the necessity for such a determination has not been established. We believe that the necessity for this Bill has not yet been established”. If there is any clearer evidence of the out-dated concepts held by this body in regard to the rights of workers and unscrupulous exploitation by employers, I can do no better than to quote the words of Mr. Borman, who said this: “We are convinced, however, that there is no need which can be met by this Bill. We are also of the opinion that there is no necessity for the Bill. In fact, we are of the opinion that this Bill holds many disadvantages for the country as a whole.” I say that before such cheap and irresponsible observations are made by representatives of certain employer organizations in respect of hon. members of this House in respect of fulfilling their duty towards the workers of South Africa, and when they show deep indignation when I quote their own testimony to hon. members of this House, they should think again.

Sir, I have spoken with some heat in regard to these observations, and I think rightfully so, because when I think how some employers can exploit the White workers, especially if they hold the views that are held by the Handelsinstituut, there is no better reason why this Bill should be passed by this House.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) has again raised the question of the 44-hour week and suggested that I should consider reducing it from 46 hours to 45 hours. I gave a full reply to that suggestion during the Committee Stage, when the matter was fully discussed, and I am not preapred to agree that there should be a reduction in the hours stated in the Bill.

Not even by one hour?

No. I pointed out that in some of the evidence given before the select committee by Mr. Altman, who is the representative of the Distributive Workers’ Union, he actually said that there were many cases where the hours of work varied from 45 to 46 hours a week. I also stated that the 46-hour week was based on the Factories Act and that if we now agreed to a reduction from 46 to 44 hours I would be inundated with requests from trade unions and organizations that right throughout our labour legislation we should also agree to a reduction. I think that would be the logical consequence of my agreeing to reduce the hours of work from 46 to 44 or even 45. I am not going to repeat all the arguments, but I say that I am not prepared to consider a reduction in the hours of work.

A much more important matter was raised by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. He referred to an amendment which was accepted in the Committee Stage to Clause 2, which deals with persons and institutions which are exempted from the provisions of the Bill. Amongst others, sub-paragraph (3) provides that the provisions of Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 shall not apply in respect of any employee employed in any class of industry, business or undertaking in any area if not less than one-half of the employees employed in such class of industry, business or undertaking in such area have entered into a written agreement with the employers regulating the conditions of employment of employees of the class to which such employees belong, and the Minister has for the purpose of this sub-section indicated by notice in the Gazette that he is satisfied that the provisions of such an agreement are on the whole not less advantageous to such employees than the provisions of the said section. Now I think we should note that any agreement which is entered into is an agreement which has regard to the provisions of this Bill, and that the only employees who will be excluded are those belonging to a class covered by any written agreement. I think it is clear that in dealing with the provisions of this Bill we are only dealing with hours of work, leave privileges, annual holidays, etc. This Bill does not deal with wages in any way whatever. Each agreement, of course, after it has been entered into, will be considered on its merits. But I want to emphasize this point, that it is still for the employers to decide with whom an agreement will be entered into, and the Bill is in no way an attempt to extend recognition to any kind of organization. The test, I think, will be purely whether there is in fact an agreement with the majority of the workers of the class affected by this provision. Now the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) supported the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, and I cannot escape the conclusion that the Opposition is quite clearly trying to use this new Clause 2 (3) for a purpose for which it was never intended, namely the granting of recognition to Bantu trade unions.

No, I never said that at all.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana stated it quite clearly, and he emphasized this point. He said: “I want to emphasize that this amendment deals with all workers, including Bantu workers”.

So it does.

As I say, this paragraph (3) is now being used for a purpose for which it was never intended, and I want to make it quite clear that as the responsible Minister I will look at these agreements very carefully and I will not hesitate to refuse to recognize any agreement which in my opinion will be an attempt to force the Government to recognize Bantu trade unions. [Interjection.] That is as I see the matter. I want to repeat that first of all it is for the employers to decide whether they will enter into an agreement. The agreement itself can only cover matters which are included in this Bill, because if an agreement is entered into the employers are excluded from the provisions of this Bill; so that any agreement which deals with wages, in my opinion, will not be an agreement as contemplated in this Bill.

What about the double pay for Sunday work and the 1⅓ time for overtime?

That is only in regard to overtime. I am dealing with ordinary wages now. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana also asked me as to whether I would make a statement in regard to the question of stop order facilities, as I had indicated by an interjection. I want to tell the hon. member and the House that I have under consideration at the moment the question of making it compulsory for employers to adopt the stop order system. That matter is under consideration at the moment, and I hope that during the recess I will have an opportunity of going into it. I am pleased to hear from the hon. member that I have the support of the Opposition if I move in that direction. I think it must be obvious that if we are to improve relations and encourage collective bargaining and the things that flow from it, we should seriously consider a compulsory stop order system, and I give the hon. member the assurance that that will receive my attention.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

This Bill will replace Acts some of which have been in operation for more than 80 years. Some of them are either almost unobtainable nowadays, or they are only in one of the official languages or they are only applicable to certain provinces or to a particular province (or even to a portion of a province only). It is almost impossible to work out what it costs the legal profession, the Department of Mines, the police, prospectors, developers, diamond buyers and other sections of the community to ascertain the law from this mass of out-of-date enactments.

The passing of this Bill will certainly be an important step therefore in the interests of all those concerned with some branch or other of the diamond industry, and it will place the legal aspect of one of the Republic’s biggest and most important industries, namely the diamond industry, on a much sounder basis.

This legislation required years of preparation. Numerous interested bodies were consulted, and in drawing up this new measure an effort was made to keep it as simple as possible, not only for the sake of those who have to apply it but also for the sake of those to whom it will be applicable, but without sacrificing the control which is so essential. The 127 clauses of this Bill replace more than 300 sections of existing laws.

When the existing Precious Stones Act, No. 44 of 1927, which is generally known as the Diamond Law, was piloted through this House, the then Minister, Advocate Beyers, was obliged to curtail the rights of certain vested interests in an attempt to create order out of the haphazard conditions which had come into being with the great discoveries of diamonds at Alexander Bay and elsewhere in Namaqualand, as well as at Lichtenburg. He was obliged to withdraw from prospecting certain ground on which various bodies were already prospecting; to declare invalid, with retrospective effect, the steps which land-owners had taken to acquire more owners’ and discoverers’ claims through the large-scale sub-division of their farms, and to place restrictions upon syndicates and companies as far as the acquisition of claims on proclaimed diggings was concerned. It is understandable that steps of this kind—however necessary they may have been—were not very popular and the 1927 Act was therefore a highly contentious measure.

The present Bill, on the other hand, is not of a contentious nature. It is mainly a consolidating measure but it omits quite a number of provisions which over the past eight decades have become out-of-date and fallen into disuse. There are nevertheless a few new principles in the Bill which perhaps deserve special mention and which I propose to explain first briefly.

I refer in the first place to the definition of the word “mine” in Clause 1, which is practically the only provision of the Bill in regard to which complete unanimity was not reached. Under the existing definition of “mine”, as amended in 1941, diamonds which actually occur in mine formation may be declared by the State President to occur in alluvial. Representations were made that this provision should not be, i.e. embodied in the Bill so that in the future it will no longer be possible to proclaim pipes and kimberlite fissures as alluvial diggings, as has been done already in the past.

These representations were carefully considered but it was found that it was still necessary to make provision for this power. It may, for example, suit an owner and all other interested parties very well indeed to enter into a prospecting and digging agreement in terms of Clause 20 in respect of ground in which diamonds occur in alluvial as well as in mine formation. It will not be possible, however, to do this until such time as the occurrence has first been declared to be alluvial. One may also find that diamonds are discovered in payable quantities in mine formation on ground in respect of which the precious stones rights are held by the State and by some individual in undivided shares. In that event the only practical solution would be to declare the occurrence to be alluvial so that it can be worked by the person concerned under a prospecting and digging agreement in terms of Clause 20 (14).

The relevant provisions are being retained therefore with the idea of applying them in those cases where it is also in the interests of the owners of the right to precious stones todo so; it is not the intention, without their co-operation, to proclaim their ground and to make it available to others. I gladly give this assurance.

Then it will be noticed in Clause 1, the definition clause, that the term “residential and work permit” is being substituted for the term “certificate of character”. Applications for this type of document are sometimes refused purely for policy reasons, reasons which have nothing to do with the applicant’s character—for example, where he does not actually require such a document—but because it is called a “certificate of character” unsuccessful applicants often complain that refusal to grant such a certificate either means, that they are suspected of having committed some offence or that in the eyes of the authorities there is something wrong with their character. This document is required by persons who wish to work or reside on alluvial diggings or claims, and what is being done here therefore is simply to describe this document more accurately having regard to its real purpose.

Under the present Act prospecting could take place on unalienated State land (now simply described as “State land”) by pegging prospecting sites of 2,000 x 2,000 feet. Any person, armed with the necessary prospecting permit, could peg such a site and hon. members will realize to what complications this could give rise—we are thinking here, for example, of difficulties such as pegging disputes, conflicting claims in respect of discoverers’ rights, etc.—if these provisions were ever invoked on a large scale. Fortunately it was realized shortly after the passing of the 1927 Act that the pegging of claims by the public on State land would be undesirable, and such pegging on State land was forbidden throughout the country by Proclamation No. 200 of 1928—a prohibition which to this day is still in force. These pegging provisions were therefore a dead letter practically from the start and they have therefore been dropped. Instead of that, prospecting will now take place on State land in terms of Clause 4 under prospecting leases which can be made subject to conditions which in each particular case will promote orderly prospecting.

In terms of Section 6 of the 1927 Act the holder of the right to precious stones in respect of privately owned land may allow up to five persons to prospect there simultaneously. In this case too it is perhaps more a matter of luck than wisdom that serious difficulties did not arise in this connection. Clause 6 of the Bill now provides that the holder of the right to precious stones, if he does not prospect himself, may grant permission to only one other person to do so. In the case of a discovery of diamonds in payable quantities the position in the future therefore will be that only one person at a time will be able to claim discoverers’ rights instead of five possibly.

One of the more important changes proposed in the Bill is that contained in Clauses 13 and 17 of the Bill. In order to encourage prospecting the number of discoverers’ claims on State land and alienated State land is being increased from 30 to 50, and in respect of privately owned land in all four provinces the number is being fixed at 200. At the present time it is 60 on privately owned land in the Transvaal and 200 elsewhere. The number of owners’ claims in respect of privately owned land in the Transvaal is being increased from 235 to 400, which is the case at present in the other three provinces, so that in this respect too there will now be uniformity throughout the country.

If hon. members look up the debates held in this House in June 1927 they will find that certain sound reasons were advanced at the time for making provision for only 60 discoverers’ claims and 235 owners’ claims, a total of 295, in respect of privately owned land in the Transvaal, while the corresponding figures for the other three provinces were 200 plus 400, a total of 600. After careful consideration, however, we have come to the conclusion that the time is ripe to place discoverers of precious stones on privately owned land and the holders of the right to precious stones in respect of privately owned land on the same footing throughout the country, that is to say, 200 discoverers’ claims and 400 owners’ claims, a total therefore of 600 claims. As far as shares in mines are concerned, the shareholding of the owner and the discoverer in the case of both classes of State land is being increased from 30 per cent to 40 per cent, and this is also being done in an attempt to encourage prospecting for precious stones which occur in mine formation. In the case of mines on privately owned land the shareholding remains 50 per cent, which is regarded as sufficiently strong inducement. Unlike the position at present, it will now be possible to develop discoverers’ claims and owners’ claims as soon as they have been properly pegged and a satisfactory diagram of the claims has been registered. They need not wait, as at present, until the ground in question has been proclaimed or until special ministerial permission has been granted. The existing measure resulted in unnecessary waste of time, inconvenience and expense.

Another provision which should be mentioned is that contained in Clauses 20 (9) and 20 (10), in terms of which land in respect of which there is a prospecting and digging agreement may be proclaimed as an alluvial digging and made available to the diggers, but in that event the diggers have to pay 10 per cent of their yield to the owner of the land. This provision is being made in an attempt to make it more attractive for land-owners to prospect their land with a view to making available a portion of the land to the professional diggers, about 200 of whom are still digging regularly in the Transvaal and approximately 300 in the Cape Province. At the present time it is almost impossible to acquire new ground, for these diggers in which diamonds occur in payable quantities, because land-owners regard the normal compensation according to the claim licence tariff (50c per claim per month), of which they only receive half, that is to say 25c, as inadequate—except in those cases where a comparatively large number of diggers peg claims on the same land. These provisions will also offer a way out of their difficulty to those people, including companies, who say that they are prepared to prospect their land in the vicinity of existing diggings and, if diamonds are found there in alluvial ground, to make it available to the diggers provided they have some certainty that there will be no repetition of what happened in the past where discoveries in mine or fissure formation were also thrown open to the diggers.

The new provisions will make it possible to regulate these matters by way of agreement. Land-owners will be at liberty to enter into such agreements; it will not be possible to force them to do so, just as they cannot be forced at the present time to prospect their land. But the Minister will also be at liberty to refuse to enter into such an agreement if he is satisfied that in a particular case it will be to the disadvantage of the diggers or that it will not be in the public interest.

The object of Clause 21 is to make it possible to grant exploitation rights in the form of mining leases in respect of portions of the sea or portions of large tracts of State land without first having to declare such portions formally to be alluvial diggings in view of the fact that such proclamation automatically brings into operation control measures which are really intended for the more thickly populated diggings and not for those cases where the development is undertaken by one body or even by a few bodies.

Clause 29 once again makes provision for a right of appeal to the Minister against the refusal or withdrawal of a digger’s certificate, but the procedure to be followed in the case of such an appeal is being simplified considerably. Diggers’ certificates and residential and work permits, in the case of Whites and Coloureds, will in future be issued by mining commissioners who, in the nature of things, are much more closely connected with the administration of the Act than magistrates, while in the case of Bantu they will continue to be issued by Bantu Commissioners. Whilst a certificate of character can only be withdrawn at present on the strength of the fact that the holder is regarded as an unsuitable or undesirable person to work or to reside on diggings, it will now also be possible, in terms of Clause 31, to withdraw the corresponding residential and work permit where such permit is held purely in order to enable the person concerned to squat on somebody else’s land.

And so I could go on from clause to clause and explain each of the changes, but I doubt whether hon. members will find that necessary. I have distributed quite a number of copies of an explanatory memorandum, which explains each clause in detail, amongst hon. members on both sides of the House, and if further information is required with regard to specific clauses I shall gladly furnish that information. I apologize for the fact that the memorandum, to which I have referred, is available in only one of the official languages. It is not, however, intended as an official “White Paper” or explanatory memorandum; it was drawn up as a domestic document for inter-departmental consultation, and it was made available to hon. members who asked for it.

I propose to take a short-cut now to Chapter IX, Clauses 84 to 110 of the Bill. The provisions of these clauses, which have perhaps undergone the greatest change in this Bill, are applicable to trading in rough or uncut diamonds. The diamond trading laws in particular are hopelessly out of date. Various laws are applicable in the different provinces; in fact in the Cape Province there are two, namely the Diamond Trade Act, No. 48 of 1882 (which is applicable to Griqualand West and certain other districts of the Cape Province) and the Diamond Trade Act, No. 14 of 1885, which applies to the remainder of the Cape Province. The strict control, to which transactions in rough or uncut diamonds has always been subject, is being retained but the procedure will be less cumbersome than it has been hitherto.

The question of a general increase of fines for contraventions of the various provisions of the diamond laws was carefully considered in the light of present day circumstances and it was felt that in the case of illicit dealings in raw or uncut diamonds a drastic increase was called for. Clause 83 (3) therefore provides for a maximum fine of R10,000, in comparison with the existing maximum of R4,000 in the Orange Free State and R2,000 in the other three provinces. In addition to that the present maximum sentence of imprisonment of 15 years is being retained and it will now be possible therefore to sentence an offender to a fine of R10,000 as well as imprisonment for 15 years.

It was put to me that usually by the time persons who engage in illicit diamond dealings are trapped they have accumulated so much wealth that the prospect of a fine, however heavy it may be, is no deterrent to them and that provision should be made for a compulsory sentence of imprisonment for a minimum period of one year in all cases, even in the case of a first offence. I considered this proposal very carefully but I felt that the penalty provided for here was adequate. To sum up, the position is that in future it will be possible to sentence a person who illicitly deals in diamonds to a fine of R10,000 as well as imprisonment for 15 years. In addition to that, in terms of Clause 108 (2), he will also forfeit all moneys (frequently large sums) handed over by him for the unlawful acquisition of diamonds, and in terms of Clause 107 he will also lose his diamond dealer’s licence. These penalties, in my opinion, ought to be a sufficiently strong deterrent. After all, however difficult it may be to cope with illicit diamond dealings this matter must be viewed in the right perspective; this is not a matter in which the safety of the country or the survival of the nation is threatened.

As is the case at present, persons who wish to obtain a diamond dealer’s licence will have to furnish a recognizance for an amount of R1,000 but such recognizance will no longer be enforceable for any trivial contravention. It is proposed to lay down by regulation that such a recognizance will be enforceable only in the case of a sentence of imprisonment without the option of a fine or a fine of R50 or more. That is the position under the Diamond Cutting Act, Act No. 33 of 1955, the relevant provisions of which work quite satisfactorily in practice.

One of the most important simplifications which the new Act will bring about is the abolition of the system of double registration which applies where rough or uncut diamonds are brought or imported into one magisterial district from another. At the present time such diamonds have to be registered both when they are brought into a district and when they are taken out of the district again. This results in unnecessary work and inconvenience, and in practice it was sometimes found impossible to comply with the letter of the law, particularly in those cases where diamonds had to be conveyed over a large number of districts. It was decided therefore, after full consultation with the Diamond Division of the South African Police, to provide that such registration need only take place in those cases where rough and uncut diamonds are imported into a magisterial district. (Clause 98.) This will greatly facilitate matters for diamond dealers, without in any way obstructing the control measures which the police regard as essential.

These are more or less the main provisions which can be regarded as new provisions in the Bill. In the main this Bill is really a consolidating measure, and we know that there are many interested parties who are anxiously looking forward to the day when, for the first time since 1882, the provisions of the various laws, numbering almost 18, which are at present applicable to the diamond industry in South Africa, will be contained in one single measure.

As I have already indicated, in contrast with the previous legislation which discouraged it, the approach here is to encourage the discovery and mining of diamonds.

I would like to say immediately that in respect of certain aspects of this Bill we are very grateful to the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Department. In the first place I agree with the Deputy Minister that it was high time our laws in respect of the diamond industry were overhauled. As he said, some of them have been enforced for almost a century. There is a very big number of laws which are being repealed, as hon. members will see from the schedule. I agree that the law has not been readily available; the Statutes of 1882 are not to be found in very many libraries other than our law libraries and some of the old legal libraries, and consequently it is most important that the law should be brought up to date in respect of this important industry and the various laws should be consolidated. It was important too to allow a reasonable time for a study of a measure of this nature, a measure which has no less than 127 clauses. We have had that opportunity and for that we are grateful to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I would say too, in respect of the memorandum to which the Deputy Minister referred and which was handed to us in Afrikaans—I do not object to that but it is difficult for some members to follow it—that this is a very important memorandum which sets out the changes which are now taking place; and which deals with the matter very fully. Sir, for all those things we are very grateful but I must offer a word of criticism. In the first place I would like to say that when you are dealing with a measure of such very great importance as this measure is, I believe that there should be a select committee which can hear the interested parties, give further publicity to the Bill and help to ensure that the Bill is fair to all interests involved. I say that although I am fully aware of the fact—the Department has told me and I have also ascertained it from another source—that there has been very full consultation with the interests which are involved, with the diggers’ committees both in the Transvaal and in the Cape. Sir, that is all to the good but despite all that the real responsibility for seeing that a first-class piece of legislation goes on to the Statute Book is the responsibility of this House. I believe that that responsibility in respect of a Bill of this nature which is of a highly technical nature, can only be discharged if the Bill is referred to a select committee and if there is an opportunity of thoroughly examining it. Sir, having already expressed our thanks for the number of copies which were given to us of the departmental memorandum, I still believe that in a Bill of this importance there should be a White Paper made available to all members of this House, not just a few selected members, as was done in the case of this memorandum. In addition to that I believe that it should be possible for interested parties outside to obtain these documents. I hope the day will come when it will be taken as a matter of course that members should be provided with a White Paper and when this type of Bill will be referred, almost as a matter of course, to a select committee so that there can be a full examination. It is a matter of very great gratification to all of us that after years of limitation in this industry we are again passing into a period where there is expansion and where new diamond fields are being discovered and where South Africa is thus enabled to continue to play the very important part which she has played in the diamond industry throughout the past century.

Sir, this Bill, as the Deputy Minister has said, introduces very important changes. I do not think any purpose would be served in trying to deal with them in detail at the second reading. They will be dealt with at the Committee Stage, but there is one matter in respect of which I believe this Bill fails, just as other legislation of this kind has failed over a very considerable time; I refer to the fact that in this Bill we find that there is a further and further extension of powers to the Minister and his Department. I know that it has been found necessary to make provision for powers of this nature. We know that very important powers were given in the 1927 law. The whole tendency of our law in respect of the diamond industry has been to establish control, and we know that there has been times in our history when there would have been complete chaos in the absence of control; I accept that that is so but I believe that it is utterly wrong in respect of a measure such as this that there should be placed in the hands of the Minister extensive powers such as those contained in this legislation. Let me say at once that for the greater part they are powers which already exist in the existing legislation, but I believe very sincerely that it is necessary that there should be an opportunity to examine those powers. I believe too that it is very important, where powers of this nature are placed in the hands of the Minister that they should not only be examined but that there should be full publicity. I believe that it would be very much in our interests if a detailed report were submitted to this House. Exactly how it should be dealt with is a matter which I do not need to discuss at the present time. But where great powers such as these are vested in the hands of the Minister there should be publicity in the shape of a report that deals with the exercise of these powers and, if it is considered necessary, I believe that there should be an examination by a select committee of this House. Sir, I express the hope that the Minister will be prepared to give consideration to this suggestion; I believe that it would be in the interests of everybody.

I hope that this Bill will form the basis of our Diamond Law for a considerable time to come. I know that experts who have examined it agreed that the Department has done a very fine job in putting together the various Acts which are on our Statute Book at the present time. I also agree as far as the drafting of the amendments is concerned that the provisions generally are clear and free from doubt. I would like to pay a tribute to the Secretary for Mines and his staff because I agree that they have had a tremendously difficult job, and the words of criticism which I have uttered in no way detracts from the fact that I accept that the Department has done a splendid job of work in presenting this House with this Bill in its present form. I believe that a very good example has been set in this case in not rushing this measure. All too often legislation is rushed through in this House, but that certainly cannot be said of this Bill. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will agree with me that the right way to deal with a measure of this sort is to send it to a select committee. However, in view of the long period that we have had the Bill we do not suggest that that be done now, but I do hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will bring my remarks in this regard to the notice of the Prime Minister, because it would be in the interests of this House and in the interests of this country if that principle were adopted.

As far as the provisions of the Bill are concerned I believe that no purpose would be served in extracting some of them at this stage; we will deal with some of these provisions during the Committee. Stage. I think they can best be dealt with at that stage. I close by expressing the hope that this great industry of ours which in fact provided the spark which set this country on the road to the very great development which has taken place in South Africa over the past 100 years, is going to continue to play a very important part in our economy, as I am sure it will, in the years which lie ahead. We can be tremendously proud of the very great efficiency not only of our Mines Department in respect of this matter, but the development of this industry has, of course, depended on private enterprise, and we must congratulate the people who have played such an important role in making our diamond industry almost a model industry in the world. We will therefore support the second reading of this Bill and we look forward to the Committee Stage when some of the specific provisions of the Bill will be examined in greater detail.

In three years’ time, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has already mentioned, 100 years will have elapsed since the discovery of diamonds in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, if one knows something about the history of diamonds in South Africa, particularly before 1927 when the original legislation was placed on the Statute Book, and if one considers for a moment that diamonds, apart from industrial diamonds, are never wasted and that diamond prices have always gone up throughout the years, then one realizes how important it is that there should be legislation under which proper control may be exercised over this industry. Just think of the conditions prevailing in the diamond industry prior to the promulgation of the 1927 legislation.

There are two features in regard to diamonds I should like to mention briefly. One is that diamond prices are sensitive in times of fluctuations, but diamonds have nevertheless fetched good prices throughout the years, and the prices to-day are higher than ever before. A second feature of course is that because of the size and the great value of diamonds, one can invest one’s capital in diamonds, which one can easily transport in troublous times. I should like to refer to the changed circumstances that have arisen since 1927 and which have made these amendments necessary. Since 1927 there have been tremendous discoveries, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has rightly stated. At the time of the discovery of diamonds at Lichtenburg and elsewhere, one found long convoys of wagons on the roads in the whole of the Western Transvaal, as people migrated from one proclaimed farm to the other. After the discovery of diamonds at Lichtenburg, of course, diamonds were discovered at Alexander Bay and on the West Coast of Africa, in the Belgian Congo and other territories. There were so many new discoveries that the whole diamond industry found itself in a very precarious position. The position became so bad during the depression years that many diamond mines were closed for a certain time, and the State simply had to intervene.

Whereas formerly the entire diamond industry was originally in two parts, a third part was now added. The first is the volcanic pipes exploited by the mining companies and which we normally call Kimberlite. The second is the alluvial diamonds which are left to the private diggers, and now there is a third, namely sea diamonds, which also occur in alluvial formation. As regards this part, there is a good deal of speculation even among the geologists. The old idea was that the diamond mines were to be operated by companies, and that alluvial digging was to be left to the individual. Of all the mineral riches of the country, this is the only one which has been reserved for the individual, and the 1927 Act made provision for this. The old policy resulted in a tremendous rush of people of all classes over the length and breadth of the country to the alluvial diggings, people who should never have been allowed there. That led to the greatest poverty and the greatest misery. It cost the State an enormous sum of money and a multitude of headaches. It meant that special steps had to be taken to control this state of affairs. The 1927 Act specially sought to limit prospecting and so to limit the tremendous expansion of diamondiferous land. I think I am correct in saying that it took a very long time to pilot that Act of 1927 through this House. It even needed a Joint Sitting of both Houses in order to pass the Bill. Unfortunately it did not limit the rush to the existing diggings, and therefore new steps were taken in 1941 to halt this rush. It was decided then to entrust the issue of digger’s certificates to the Minister in order to limit the rush to the diggings. The issue of certificates was within the sole discretion of the Minister. The result is that at the present time we have only 500 bona fide diggers left who are still actively digging. We know about 1,500-1,600 people possess digger’s certificates, but who do not themselves dig. They faithfully pay their licence fees so that when new riches are discovered and there is the possibility of a diamond rush, as happened under the old system, they will then have their certificates.

I must say at once that I have the greatest sympathy with these approximately 500 diggers. There are about 300 of them in the Cape and 200 in the Transvaal. They are people who have for the whole of their lives been making a living by digging. If you know any of them, Mr. Speaker, you will know that thus far they have succeeded in making a decent livelihood. They are people who know the business of digging for diamonds, and accordingly they are able to-day to make a living in spite of the fact that the diggings are becoming exhausted. At the present time there is an unprecedented demand for diamonds and the prices are tremendously high. There was a stage in our history when we considered that there were no longer any new diamond fields in South Africa, and that the State and the diamond companies would be unable to meet their commitments to buyers’ organizations. But no one will tell me that if we were to encourage prospecting, further tremendous riches will not be discovered in South Africa in the form of diamonds. However, we agree that we cannot have a repetition of the position we had in 1927.

I should like to thank the hon. the Minister and his Department for the colossal task they have performed and for the attention they have given to this complicated matter in order to come forward with this legislation. They have succeeded in meeting the changed circumstances in South Africa in this legislation. We realize that when these 500 licensed diggers no longer are there, that entire pattern of digging will have come to an end. The Minister is now making new provisions in this Bill for the exploitation of those riches. However, we must remember that in the meantime we must make provision for those 500 diggers who may possibly have a working life of another 15 or 20 years. I think about 60,000 morgen in the Transvaal and about 50,000 morgen in the Cape have been proclaimed as alluvial diggings. Now the position is that when a farm is proclaimed, it continues to be subject to proclamation for as long as there are a few diggers on the farm. You can understand, Mr. Speaker, that this has deterred the owners of farms; they were not anxious to have their farms proclaimed. As the Minister has rightly stated, if there were to be a new proclamation and there are only 500 diggers (300 in the Cape Province and 200 in the Transvaal) with certificates that are not transferable, you would have only about 20 or 30 diggers on that farm. They will dig for a month or so, begin to move off and eventually there will be only four or five left. The owner of that farm will then be dependent upon an income of R3 or R4 per month. We cannot afford to have land worth R50 to R100 per morgen falling into such a state that the owner, under the proclamation, derives an income of only R3 or R4 from it. That retards the entire development of the farm. In view of the existing number of diggers, no owner can afford to have his farm proclaimed. The owner’s source of income is threefold; firstly, the 25c. licence fee; secondly, and this is the most important, the sale of water; and thirdly, trading licences. There will in future be no trading licences, nor water sales, with the result that no owner will ever think of having his farm proclaimed. For that reason we are glad the Minister is now making provision for those diggers to have access to new land. Generally speaking, we welcome it.

I know there is a difference of opinion between the diggers of the Transvaal and those of the Cape Province, but I really think the hon. the Minister should consider issuing a joint certificate to those old diggers in the case of new proclamations. That number of 500 is diminishing, Mr. Speaker and the smaller the numbers become, the more difficult it will become to persuade any owner to have his farm proclaimed. It is really in their own interests that a joint certificate be issued at this stage. I should like to urge the Minister to accept this suggestion, and to grant a joint certificate to these people. I think it is in the interests of the Cape diggers as well as that of the Transvaal diggers.

I had certain objections to Clause 6. I felt that we were interfering with the rights of ownership of the owners but the other concessions made to them compensate them for that interference, and my objections fall away.

The final point I should like to raise is in connection with the illicit diamond trade. Mr. Speaker, I realize that heavy fines are imposed in cases of illicit diamond dealing, but we must remember there is tremendous temptation. I realize also that this is a matter for the courts. Mr. Speaker, when a person is in dire financial straits, he must be an exceptional person if he resists that temptation. It is only the person who is familiar with the diamond trade and the dangers involved who will be able to say: I do not buy diamonds. It is a tremendous temptation and I wonder whether we should take it so seriously although I realize that this is an industry in which heavy fines must be imposed in cases of illicit dealing in diamonds. However, I feel that diamonds should not be used as bait in normal circumstances to tempt people to buy diamonds.

I should like to thank the Minister for the steps he is taking in this legislation.

I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel). I too have a great deal of sympathy for those diggers whose numbers are slowly dwindling. I agree that we cannot go back to the days of the Grasfontein rush at the Lichtenburg diggings but I must express a feeling of uneasiness about this Bill and that is that I feel it looks after the big man—I am not so sure about the little man. I do not want to speak against this Bill but I do want to object to the manner in which it was introduced. I accept that it is in the main a consolidating Bill. We have to appreciate the fact that this Bill deals with all the undiscovered wealth of this country, wealth which, as the previous speaker has said, is something which nobody can measure but which, we are sure, will be of infinite value to us. If it deals with matters of such great value the Bill should surely have been sent to a select committee before it came to us, even if it is mainly a consolidating Bill. We have checked up as much as possible and we are satisfied that most interested parties consider that it is absolutely essential that this Bill go through, even if it is only to bring the laws in the various provinces into line. We too feel the necessity of protecting the minerals in the seas around us and we shall support the second reading of this Bill but I must follow the line taken by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker). If ever a Bill should have been referred to a select committee this one should have been or we should at the least have had a White Paper on it, and a very comprehensive one. We are not dealing with a couple of bags of wool or a couple of blocks of flats, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with untold wealth. The Department has done everything in its power to assist us; they have given us a few copies of the notes. But I do not think that is the correct way of dealing with such a matter. However, as the hon. member for Springs has said, our investigations are not yet quite complete. There are certain matters into which we shall inquire further in the Committee Stage. But I repeat that when a measure of such tremendous importance is put before us we are entitled to more information; we are entitled to a White Paper, a select committee report or both and not just an enormous document like this and an enormous document like the next one. It is almost impossible for us to do our duty to the country in this House in these circumstances.

I rise to express my appreciation for the provisions of this Bill introduced here this afternoon by the hon. the Deputy Minister. We are very glad that the 16 Acts governing precious stones are now being consolidated in this Bill which is the result of very hard work.

I have listened to the speeches of the hon. members for Springs (Mr. Tucker) and Benoni (Mr. Ross). It is clear that the Opposition do not object to the contents of the Bill as it is before this House at the moment, but that they object to the manner in which the Bill has been introduced, namely, that it has not been referred to a select committee first. In the first place the hon. member for Springs asked for a select committee, and then he subsequently expressed his appreciation because a memorandum had been made available to some members. He also asked that a White Paper should at least be Tabled in which the provisions of the Bill are explained. It has become almost a refrain with the Opposition, to ask for a select committee. I do not wish to disparage the work done by select committees, but I should like to agree with previous hon. members on this side that this Bill is a fine piece of work, and that we are very grateful for it. I really think I may say to the hon. the Minister on behalf of all concerned, but in particular on behalf of the alluvial diggers, that we are very grateful for these provisions and for the many things put right in this consolidating measure that were wrong in the past.

I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) has said. As far as I am concerned, there is one thing which this Bill does not put right. I refer the Minister to Chapter V, Clause 27 (5) which reads as follows—

and here are the words I object to—

I should like to make a very earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister to seriously consider putting right this wrong thing, while we are now dealing with the consolidation of the laws relating to precious stones. I say it is wrong to limit a digger’s certificate to the province in which it is issued. If mistakes have been made in the past, this House is not bound by the mistakes of the past. It is still our duty to correct mistakes. It is the State which, after the prospecting for and the discovery of precious stones in certain areas, proclaims land; it is not the Provincial Administration in that province which proclaims it. The State proclaims a part of South Africa as an alluvial digging and that alluvial digging which has been proclaimed belongs, subject to the rights and privileges derived by the owner of the land from it in terms of this Bill, to the diggers of the Republic and not to a particular province in the Republic of South Africa. I know the argument will be used that when great riches were discovered in the Transvaal, the Transvaal Diggers’ Committee objected to the diggers of the Cape in particular going to the Transvaal. That is true; it is a fact, but I say to-day that the Transvaal Diggers’ Committee made a mistake in that respect. Nevertheless it went through like that, and if precious stones were to be discovered in the Cape, the Cape will from the nature of things also object now; it will be very human to do so. I should like to ask the Minister not to cast the onus upon the diggers’ committees of the various provinces. This House is responsible for legislation and this House must accept responsibility for that legislation; we have to go and defend this legislation outside. I shall have no hesitation at all to defend the particular provisions of this Bill outside. However, I cannot defend this one clause. Apart from the fact that I happen to represent a constituency in the Transvaal, I regard it as wrong in principle. Therefore I should like to urge the Minister very strongly to remedy this anomaly as I regard it, in the Bill at the Committee Stage or possibly in the Other Place.

What the hon. member for Christiana has said is true, namely that at the present time there are only a small number of bona fide diggers left. There are 500 at the most; I doubt whether there are so many. We know there are 1,600 digger’s certificates in existence at the present time. It is a good thing too that this is so, for there are times, such as the conditions we are experiencing in the Western Transvaal to-day, of great droughts where the farmers who still possess diggers’ certificates can do a little prospecting and digging. These people render a great service, Mr. Speaker, because on such occasions, occasions born of distress, rich diamondiferous land may still be discovered.

I should like to tell the Minister that the individual alluvial digger in the Transvaal is having a lean time at the present time. He is having a lean time because there is no diamondiferous land available to him. It is true that thousands of morgen of land are still proclaimed, and that this land is kept subject to proclamation for the sake of the few diggers interested in it and still digging there. If we were to limit it, then we shall, as the hon. member for Christiana has said, limit the people to such an extent that no owner will be encouraged to have his land prospected or proclaimed.

Mr. Speaker, I may rightly say of our bona fide diggers that they have not skimmed the cream off the rich parts of the country, and have not worked the poor parts. To put it in digger’s language: They have not exhausted only the “potholes” and then moved on. These bona fide diggers have won all the diamonds for South Africa; they have rendered a service to the Republic of South Africa. Sir, it is hard work to expose the diamond. Sometimes it is a very expensive process. In many cases thousands of tons of dead earth must be worked away before the diamondiferous gravel is reached. Tons of that have to be excavated and that gravel must then “dommied”—I do not know any other word—to separate the diamonds from the gravel. The water sometimes has to be carried long distances, and it is an expensive process to bring the water where it is required for the washing process. The most important thing of all is the washing. I wonder how many hon. members in this House know what it is; a skilful digger knows that when a start is made with the washing process, he must be present to keep an eye on that washing machine, for that washing machine must now be kept “porrelling”. “Porrel” must be thrown off from morning to night to keep that machine working properly. If you do not keep the machine “porrelling”, it may be that the heavy material in which the diamonds are found, goes to waste with the tailings. I am putting this in digger’s languge, because it is a skill the digger has developed to see to it that the process of washing is conducted properly and is handled properly in order to provide those precious stones that scintillate in the engagement rings of the ladies. It is hard work, and I take the liberty of appealing to the Minister, while thanking him for the other provisions of this legislation, to remedy this one anomaly, as I see it.

As in the case of so many other industries, it is strange that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I want to say a word or two about the problems of the alluvial digger and about which the hon. the Minister unfortunately has not done anything. This great and very rich industry in South Africa has to a great extent depended on the work of the original prospector and the diamond digger. What has he got to show for it, Sir? There are only a handful of them left, relatively speaking; there may be 500, and perhaps another 1,000 who are ready to enter the fray again. I feel that something must be set aside for these people. I am not suggesting that we should build a monument for them; that is not what I have in mind. From the time a diamond digger sells his diamond the profits on that diamond grow like a snowball. The man who gets least for the diamond is the finder. The more it costs the buyer the more he wants for it and the profits increase every time. I want to know whether it is not possible, at some stage during these transactions, to place a levy on the profits made. It can be done through the taxation channels. That levy should be paid into a pool so that the prospector or the digger who is down in his luck or who has become less active and unable to do the work that he used to do, will know, that the day he puts down his pick and shovel, there will be a pension for him and that he will be looked after. Let us, for these few people that are left build houses so that they will have a permanent roof over their heads. Let us see that their offspring have got sufficient to go to, if necessary, a university. What has happened in the past? These people have been kept limited in their activities, limited to one area almost, without the provision made for them like in other industries, for expansion, and the only time they moved was when a piece of ground was worked out and they were allowed to go onto another piece of ground nearby to find a living again out of the alluvial deposits. It is not asking much. It would be a gesture by this Minister, who knows what tremendous profits can be made out of diamonds, to give to these people a little stake for the remainder of their days here. It is very, very little compared to what has been taken out by the shareholders of diamond mines, by the owners of diamond mines, who would have had nothing if it was not for these people and perhaps their fathers. For them I stake this claim. Give these poor people this consideration. I do not think there is one of them who has been able to set aside sufficient for the rainy day. Give these people some share of the profits that are going to be made from now into the future. If this can be done, I am sure they will be more than satisfied and they will not want any bronze monuments on the diamond fields of South Africa.

I welcome this legislation and I wish to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister and his Department on this comprehensive and understandable Bill, as well as on the memorandum they have issued in connection with it. I wish to express the hope that this Bill will be the instrument whereby certain abuses which have taken place in the past in connection with this industry will be eliminated and whereby certain problems will be solved. In the first place I wish to deal for a moment with the abuses which take place in the constituency which I have the honour to represent as far as the acquisition of options is concerned. I think this was mainly due to the fact that the Act was not available to the owners of land so that they could read and understand it with the result that many mistakes were made. In the first place the owners of land in that area were very confused as to what their legal rights were in respect of land on their farms that was possibly diamondiferous. I do not think they realized that they were not absolutely the sole owners of that land but that they only had certain rights on it. Nor did they know that there was a difference between land in respect of which the mineral rights have been reserved in favour of the State and land which was sold to them before a certain date. There was a great deal of misunderstanding in that regard which I hope will now be cleared up. In the second place, you had the speculators who went around and took advantage of the ignorance of people and traded in the option they could lay their hands on. I can give far-reaching examples of the trading that took place. A certain farmer recently came to me and by that time he had already on five different occasions granted options to various people and each one of them had given him the assurance that he merely wanted something else and that it did not cover the other person’s option. That happened in respect of a farm on which his father had already sold all the mineral rights to a certain company which had gone out of existence in the meantime, but whose successor had taken those rights over. That option reads that if the company should find minerals on the land they would have the right to purchase the land at 5s. per morgen. The good faith and the honesty of those people have been shockingly misused. I trust that an end will be put to that sort of thing now that we have a consolidating measure which can be clearly understood by people. I hope an attempt will be made to bring to the notice of those people the fact that they can in future check on the provisions themselves and acquaint themselves with the legal position as it exists to-day. I trust this Bill will to some extent offer a solution to those serious problems. In the second place, I want to admit, I cannot speak with any authority on what is happening in other provinces and other areas, that in the area which I represent the days of the small digger, the small prospector, are definitely something of the past. Our diamonds are spread over an enormously large area and to mine them today is not the work of the small man with his old methods of pick and shovel and wheelbar row. That man’s fate is to go hungry and I am very pleased that the Department of Mines have realized that and that they have adopted a very positive attitude in this regard. You only place temptation in the way of such a person to become a poor White if you allow people to go and try to prospect in this way. I am particularly pleased that the Department of Mines had adopted a very positive attitude in this connection so that this kind of thing will not only not be encouraged but that they are definitely trying to put a stop to it. This has, however, led to another extreme. It has given rise to very dangerous and undesirable speculation in possible concessions or the granting of possible concessions. I am grateful that the hon. the Minister and the hon. Deputy Minister and the Secretary of Mines have on occasion voiced their opinion about these matters and have uttered a warning because I think this is something which has got completely out of hand and we must warn against it. Sir, I know of a certain company which two years ago, when it was still in the course of formation, a company which intended to acquire diamond concessions which had not yet been issued in Namaqualand, issued shares and sold them at a 100 per cent profit, i.e., simply the allocation of shares in a company which still had to be formed in respect of concessions which had not even been granted! I regard that as an extremely serious abuse and I am pleased that the hon. the Minister, the hon. Deputy Minister and the Department have issued a warning. We must take very positive measures to discourage and combat this sort of thing and I am pleased that power to do so is granted in this legislation. I trust that power will be exercised in order to discourage these things.

A clause which I find very interesting in this legislation is Clause 53 and the subsequent clauses which deal with alluvial State diggings. Here we are dealing with a sub-section of our mining industry which has perhaps not been sufficiently appreciated. The general idea in this country is that private initiative conducts its mining business on a much more economic basis than the State. I personally have also always been under the wrong impression because we are always told of the big profits which certain undertakings show in connection with their mining activities and the comparatively lower profits shown by the State diggings. I recently spoke to one of the managers of one of the largest diggings in South Africa and he told me that he did not think there was another undertaking which moved such a huge quantity of soil per unit than the alluvial State diggings at Alexander Bay. In other words, that undertaking which is conducted by the State, is given as an example of efficiency for the way in which it moves material and sorts it. Mr. Speaker, we know that the land south of the Orange River is poor and the further south you go the poorer it becomes in comparison with the land immediately north of the Orange River. It is natural therefore that the gross profits cannot be as high in comparison. But I want to state categorically that it definitely has nothing to do with the method and the basis of digging. Those people have to a very large extent succeeded in giving the best service. Those diggings have already been the source of great revenue to the Union and subsequently to the Republic and I do think that method of digging should simply be discarded. I think it remains one of the cheapest ways of digging. I know there are many people who will not agree with this statement of mine but I do think that those people who have operated on those alluvial State diggings deserve a great measure of protection from the State and that they should at no time be left in the lurch because they have rendered a great service, they have done so honestly and the Republic owes them a deep debt of gratitude for what they have done.

In conclusion I wish to express the hope that this diamond industry which is very speculative at the moment—far too speculative, I think—will be placed on a more stable basis, that it will become a more stable industry and that more of its profits will be utilized to develop the economy of our country and to carry out the policy of the country in general. I think that can be done if we deliberately go out of our way to bear that ideal in mind when concessions are granted, particularly the more lucrative concessions.

The few points that I would like to discuss with the hon. Minister affecting diamond diggers are points which I think could be embodied in this Bill to the advantage of the people on whose behalf I am about to plead, and certainly with advantage to the country. I am referring now to the small digger, both the White digger and the Coloured digger, amongst whom I have grown up and spent my whole life. The Coloured digger today by virtue of the fact that so little land is available “ground” as it is called, finds himself in great difficulty to know what should be done about his future, and I think the hon. the Minister might with advantage follow the suggestions I am about to make because I would like him to know that the Coloured diggers of whom we have many hundreds in the Cape as well as in the Transvaal, on the other side of the border of the Cape, need some assistance. The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) said that the law as it stands to-day makes the rich man richer and the poor man poorer. Sir, if an individual makes a discovery, he pegs a claim and starts to work it. If it eventually turns into something like a mine, he needs money, and it has often happened, as the hon. Minister knows, that well-intentioned Whites have been working in partnership with these diggers for many years, with great advantage. But it does sometimes happen that the Coloured digger finds himself indebted. It does sometimes happen that the Coloured digger finds himself indebted to his White partner and when he is least able to afford it, he is called upon to repay a loan or the advances. He then finds himself dispossessed of his claim. The Coloured digger or the poor White digger can never hope to compete, in terms of the law as I see it, with the big corporation or with the very well-financed White digger. Let us take for example the question of breakwaters in the Vaal River. A Coloured man may decide that he would like to build a breakwater in the river. He certainly is not financially able to do so and the result is that the proposition is exploited by others, and not always by others who wish him well. Although in many cases he has the opportunity to peg claims, it does happen that he finds himself with nothing. I have perused this Bill with great interest to see whether any provision is being made, or whether the Government has considered having some basis on which a man making a discovery should be able to obtain financial assistance to develop the proposition on his own account. I believe that if an individual makes a discovery and finds a rich deposit, he should receive the lion’s share. He should not have to take a subsidiary interest in what he has produced. I have raised the question in the House before, once on the Minister’s Vote. The hon. the Minister of Mines did not give me a reply on the same lines as my question at all which related to the differentiation between those people who are going to be permitted to prospect for diamonds in Namaqualand in a Coloured area and the White people, who are going to prospect in a White area. I find on investigation that there is a possibility that the Coloured Development Corporation might do the work on behalf of the Coloured diggers and that Coloured persons will work there as individuals and be permitted to buy a share, or whatever they can afford. I believe that the correct procedure should be that those people should be permitted to prospect that piece of land. If they make a discovery, the Coloured Development Corporation should assist them financially on terms that will be acceptable and profitable. If a discovery is made, the Government, according to the Bill, can take up to 60 per cent of the profit. This has been the law for some time and in my humble opinion it is a bit unfair. Excluding the 60 per cent, there is a discriminatory tax of 45c in the rand on diamonds. I do not think that that is going to encourage anybody to go into the mining business. The individual who really makes a discovery will need a tremendous amount of money which is not in his possession nor within his resources. The Government, in its turn, will take the large cut of 60 per cent of the profit. We all know that some years ago the attitude of the Government was that diggers should become fewer because the diamond fields were being worked out. Reference has been made here to Lichtenburg and other places. There are also of course the alluvial diggings from Windhoek to the Vaal. As always happens, the prophets of doom were proved wrong and other discoveries were made. It is the contention of those, who understand and know, where the wealth of this country lies, that there will be many more discoveries. Whoever thought that the Britz mine would be discovered at Postmasburg? The wiseacres and clever people said that that part of the country was a goner as far as diamonds were concerned. I say, that with the tremendous shortage of gem diamonds in the world to-day, and with the competition which is being provided by the Soviet Union, every man who is anxious to prospect for diamonds should be permitted to do so, and that, if such a person makes a discovery, he should be entitled to exploit it. I see no provision here by means of which the Minister may give himself the power to assist in the financing of equipment which is required to-day. It is a well-known fact that old diggings are being reworked along the Vaal River in the alluvial areas and that diamonds which were thrown way in years gone by are being recovered. I believe that when discoveries are made—and although there has been no improvement on the old rotary pan for some years—the man who finds himself in the position of the Coloured digger should have some means—because the Government is his father, his friend—of finding money, or having access to money, under proper approved conditions to provide himself with proper equipment and to work the discovery he has made.

I do not think there is any question in regard to the position of digger’s certificates. The points raised by the hon. members for Wolmaransstad and Christiana are fair and valid points. Why we persist in living in the past and in saying that a digger’s certificate is valid in only one province is hard to understand. I submit, for the hon. the Minister’s consideration, that he should amend the Bill now, to make it possible for digger’s certificates to become valid anywhere in the Republic. I cannot see what the difference is between a digger at Christiana and a digger at Barkly West. I cannot see the difference between a person prospecting for diamonds in the Free State and one prospecting for diamonds in the Kimberley area. I do not know what the idea was originally. I think this is a good measure, but there is no shadow of doubt that we are allowing the dead hand of the past to overshadow the legislation of the present day.

My final point is in regard to options. I believe that an option should lapse by law unless the proposition is prospected, and a decision taken one way or another as to whether it is payable or not, and the deposit worked. It may be possible to make options renewable under certain conditions, but the contentions made by the hon. member for Namaqualand are absolutely valid. People who signed options on various properties years ago now find themselves unable to do anything with their farms because of these options which were given a long time ago by their forebears, who were not as well versed in the law as the option seekers. I think that the wealth of the country should be shared by all, and that the Coloured digger, no matter who he may be, is just as entitled to become a millionaire as anybody else.

Finally I should just like to place on record that, although the Minister has always had power in the granting of concessions, I should like him to know that there is a considerable amount of dissatisfaction and disquiet in regard to how these concessions are awarded. I offer no criticism except that it would appear that certain people are favoured in that concessions are granted before the public really knows that these concessions are available.

To which concessions are you referring?

I am speaking in general terms. There is general disquiet. I do suggest that the Minister might with advantage look into that aspect and frame regulations which would give everybody a fair chance, a fair bite at the cherry. I shall conclude on this note and, in supporting this Bill, say that it is long overdue that the law relating to diamonds should be consolidated. I hope that the penalties in connection with illicit traffic will be enforced to the maximum, because, strangely enough, many people consider that the losses—which are considerable, no doubt—resulting from illicit traffic from the mining companies is the one and only festering sore. I think, however, that the poor Coloured digger loses more himself—and the White digger as well. These are the people who really lose the diamond that they have been waiting for and sometimes dreaming about. When a diamond does come to light, it is spirited away and sold to people who have no interest in the business whatsoever. I therefore suggest to the hon. the Minister that it should be the aim and object to ensure that illicit traffic should be stamped out and that no quarter should be given when these people are brought to book. I think they are not only a nuisance, but also an economic liability.

A few matters have been mentioned to which I should like to reply. Quite a number of contradictory representations have been made. I begin by referring to the question as to whether this Bill should not be referred to a select committee. Let me say immediately that 90 per cent of this Bill is consolidating. In so far as the rest of the Bill is concerned, there have been appreciable negotiations over the course of the years. This Bill has been discussed with the Transvaal Alluvial Licensed Diamond Dealers’ Association, the Cape Province Diamond Dealers’ Association, the Department of Justice, De Beers Consolidated, various mining commissioners, the S.A. Police, the Secretary for Internal Revenue, the Registrar of Mining Titles, the State Mining Engineer, the various diggers’ representatives through the mining commissioners, the S.A. Agricultural Union, the Public Service Commission, the Treasury and the Department of Lands. It will therefore be seen that practically every body which may be directly or indirectly affected by it has been consulted. After this consultation it appeared that there was such a measure of unanimity in regard to it that it was felt that it would not be necessary to refer this Bill to a select committee. I may perhaps mention that we are also busy with a consolidating Minerals Act. That deals with base metals and also with gold. It is an enormous task. That Bill is practically ready. We hope to introduce it next year, and the intention is to refer it to a select committee because it covers so many aspects.

Reference was made here to the question as to whether more publicity should not be given, and that too wide powers are being given to the Minister. I am not quite clear about that, because as far as I can ascertain the powers granted to the Minister here are powers which already exist. Possibly there will be more specific reference to it in the Committee Stage. There will then be an opportunity to refer to it. Let me say immediately that I do not regard this Bill as contentious. If any suggestions are made which will improve the Bill in any respect, I am quite prepared to consider them on their merits.

Reference has been made to the countrywide validity of diggers’ certificates. The hon. members for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) and Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) and Karoo also referred to it. During the course of the years representations have also been made by the hon. members for Christiana and Wolmaransstad in this regard, and also by the hon. member for Lichtenburg. I can quite understand that they have strong feelings about it. As was correctly stated, mistakes may have been made in the past. At the time when Grasfontein, near Lichtenburg, was overrun by diggers in the 1920s, the Transvaal diggers requested that this section should be inserted in the Act, that diggers’ certificates would only be valid in the province in which they were issued. Thereafter Goedvooruitzicht was proclaimed in the district of Lichtenburg in the 1940s, and when the Cape diggers wanted to go there the Transvaal diggers adopted the same attitude. When Welsbank was thereafter discovered at Barkly in the 1950s the Transvaal diggers wanted to go there, and then the Cape diggers objected, and lastly there was Pypklip, also near Lichtenburg. There were great expectations, and when the Cape diggers wanted to go there the Transvaal diggers objected. Later it appeared that Pypklip was not as rich as was expected. Among these diggers there are still about 60 Coloured diggers. If the certificates are made applicable to the whole country, it of course means that they can also dig in the Transvaal.

I am prepared to accept that.

The hon. member for Karoo also asked that these certificates should be made countrywide, but our problem is that among the people who objected to it most strenuously were also the diggers of Barkly. There are altogether 300 active bona fide diggers, including 60 Coloureds. I think that if he can convince those diggers to adopt the standpoint he stated here to-day, it will definitely facilitate the issue of a country-wide certificate. But there is strong opposition from those groups. But let me say this. It is not necessary to amend the Act, because a certificate can be issued to the same man in two provinces and I am quite prepared, if these diggers can come to an agreement, to do so. I have much sympathy with that standpoint and if it is in any way possible for those two groups to come to an agreement, I shall do it, and I want to appeal to the Members of Parliament of those constituencies to see whether we cannot do it. If they can manage to do that, then it can be done in practice without amending the Act, and we should like to do so if it is in any way possible. There are other aspects which may also be considered. It may perhaps be considered that the country-wide certificates should apply to any proclamations which may still be made. That may be a solution by way of compromise. I mention it because we should like to see those parties considering the matter.

In regard to the State lands in Namaqualand, which are now being considered by this Committee, the intention is that the companies or individuals who obtain those rights will be asked to make provision for these diggers, both from the Transvaal and the Cape Province, and in those cases where the right is granted to a company the diggers can go and work there if they have a digger’s licence. It can therefore easily be arranged for them to be employed there, and it is also quite probable that quite a number of them will be given an opportunity there.

It was pointed out that there was a shortage of available ground for these diggers. In 1963 it was agreed to have the farm Wildebeeskuil in the Kimberley district prospected by De Beers, and they agreed that if a remunerative discovery was made it would be proclaimed and thrown open to the diggers. It has, however, appeared now that it is not remunerative, and in January this year they came to the conclusion that it was not worth while proclaiming it because out of a total of 1,409 loads, only 5.6 carats was found. At present negotiations are going on in regard to two farms in the Western Transvaal, Koppiesfontein and Biesieslaagte, and we hope to come to an agreement there which may perhaps lead to its being prospected and proclaimed and thrown open for pegging by the diggers. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) asked that a levy should be imposed so that funds could be built up to give more facilities to the diggers. On the other hand, the hon. member for Karoo asked that the taxation should be reduced. The taxation on diamond mines is particularly high. The royalties paid to the State, together with the tax of 45 cent in the rand, comprise more than 60 per cent of the profits, and thereafter dividends are paid which are still subject to income-tax, so that the taxes are high. On the one hand the request is that the taxation is too high and should be reduced, while on the other hand a further levy is asked for. I think the hon. member for Rosettenville should tell us specifically who he suggests should pay that levy.

On your share of the profits.

I take it that the hon. member is referring to me, but that includes his own share, because the taxes we pay are precisely the same. We both pay income-tax on the same basis, so that in other words the hon. member is asking for an increase in income-tax, because the only tax I pay is income-tax, just like the hon. member himself.

I mean a part of the present taxation. May I explain. There is a tax on diamonds. I do not want that to be changed, but I want the Government’s share to be reduced, and that should go back to the digger.

In other words, it amounts to this, that part of the diamond mine taxation must go to the digger and that the State should take less. The State then gets less, and the State must make up for it out of the ordinary income-tax. But apart from that, let us take that example further. There is now a diamond tax of 45 per cent, mainly payable by the mines. Supposing De Beers has to pay 45 per cent taxation, of which a portion has to go to the digger, how on earth is one going to apportion it? Because the people who work in the De Beers mines are not diggers in the ordinary sense of the word.

Who will be the digger?

How will it be distributed? The hon. member should consider the matter, and I should like him to make suggestions as to how he wants to do it. It would be interesting to analyse it.

Is it not a fact that when the digger needs care, the Government has to maintain him?

The digger is in the same position as the farmer who at a certain stage becomes entitled to a pension. There is not a special pension for diggers.

The hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Maree) referred to options which were taken. It is correct that certain persons gave away their rights by granting these options, but that is not a matter with which this Bill is concerned. The right of an owner to grant an option on his farm is a common law matter, and for the State to interfere and to apply restrictions would be very difficult. But I think that in general landowners, and particularly those who own diamondiferous ground, are to-day much more well informed than they were previously, and I think the chances are slight that they will give away their rights. But I can quite understand that there may be cases where the man feels that he is not getting his legitimate share, particularly when a discovery is made. The fact remains that it is speculative. The hon. member himself said that he felt that the small digger should not be allowed in Namaqualand. For years it has been the policy not to allow individual diggers in Namaqualand. It is an inhospitable region and it is impossible to supply facilities. But now the hon. member for Karoo again says he wants the Coloured diggers to be allowed to dig there individually on the State land which is now being made available. I can only say that it has always been the policy not to allow individual diggers there. It is very difficult and the costs are high, and probably more than they can afford. Water is scarce and there are all kinds of problems which make it very difficult for the individual digger to operate in the areas to which he referred, the Coloured reserves, and apart from that the question of security will become very difficult.

The hon. member for Namaqualand further referred to the State diggings. Many Namaqualanders are employed there, and the life of the mines at Alexander Bay is limited. It is expected that at the present rate of development they will last for about eight years, but consideration is presently being given to perhaps also developing the less profitable areas, and then the life of the mines can be prolonged to 12 years without any further prospecting, and possibly in future there will be further prolongation. That is still under consideration.

The hon. member for Karoo referred to Coloureds who discover a mine. If a Coloured digger discovers a mine, he is in the same position as anybody else. He gets a two-fifth interest, in that mine, which is a large interest If they make a discovery, they get 200 prospector’s claims, so that they are treated in the same way as everybody else. They can sell them or work them or do whatever they wish with them, just like anybody else. He said there was a shortage of capital and he referred to the dams built in the Vaal River. It is correct that dams are built there, but he also knows that some of those dams were a failure and that all the capital was lost. Last year that happened again. The year before that there was some measure of success, and Coloureds could also peg claims there. It is therefore highly speculative and the question arises as to the extent to which the State should make money available for it. There is now the Coloured Corporation, and if-any of these Coloured diggers make a discovery which can become a mine and they need capital, they can approach that corporation.

The hon. member spoke about “the disquiet about concessions”. I specifically asked him what he was referring to. I would be very interested to know what he referred to. I hope he will tell us later to what he referred, because I do not think the hon. member has any reason for saying that any favour was granted in connection with concessions. The fact is that in regard to private land right throughout the country, whether it is private land as described in the Act or alienated State land, the basic rights rest in the hands of the owner. He is the one who must appoint the prospector, and he receives his fair share, as well as the prospector. I cannot think what the hon. member was referring to. He should tell us. I regard it as a very unjustifiable reflection he made.

The hon. member also referred to the State land in Namaqualand. That matter has been referred to a committee which is considering the whole matter, and there is very little State land outside Namaqualand which is diamondiferous. Therefore I cannot see why he had any reason for making this statement, because any man is free, if he wants to prospect for diamonds, to go to the nearest mining commissioner’s office to take out a prospecting licence, and he can apply for a digger’s licence, which we grant free, unlike the other certificates, and by agreement with the owner he can start prospecting. Anyone is therefore at liberty to do so.

In regard to the terms of mining leases, that is referred to the Mining Leases Board, and it is tabled here and anyone can have a look at it. I cannot see why there should be advertisement. It is not advertised in the same way as when rights are claimed in respect of base minerals, but I should like to hear in the Committee Stage what the hon. member was referring to.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, hon. members who are familiar with the objects of a co-operative agricultural association or company, or agricultural cooperative society as we call it, will know that such a co-operative society may be established, inter alia, to purchase or in some other way to acquire agricultural implements and agricultural machinery on behalf of its members and to supply such equipment and machinery to its members and, furthermore (I quote the wording of the Act) “to manufacture or to process feedstuffs, fertilizers or other farming requisites”.

Since the passing of the original Act my Department has always interpreted the provisions which I have just quoted and which are contained in Sections 6 and 7 of the Act as meaning that an agricultural co-operative society may also be authorized to manufacture agricultural implements and agricultural machinery for its members. My predecessors in office and I have accordingly authorized various agricultural co-operative societies from time to time to manufacture agricultural implements and agricultural machinery on behalf of their members.

Hon. members are aware of the fact that all Government Departments have been revising the existing Jaws and regulations for some considerable time with a view to consolidating them. In this process an attempt is also being made to adapt the older laws to present-day circumstances and developments. A certain amount of doubt has now arisen as the result of a legal interpretation as to whether the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act authorized the Minister beyond any doubt to grant authority to agricultural co-operative societies to manufacture agricultural implements and machinery as well, in addition to feedstuffs and fertilizers which are specifically mentioned in the Act.

Since various agricultural co-operative societies, as I have already said, have in fact been authorized to do this in the past and since there is a certain amount of doubt as to the validity of such authorization, it is now proposed to amend Sections 6 and 7 of the Act to make it perfectly clear, beyond any shadow of doubt, that the Minister may grant such approval to agricultural co-operative societies to manufacture agricultural machinery and implements. Hon. members will appreciate that those co-operative societies will be placed in an embarrassing position and even in a financial quandary if they are now called upon, through no fault of their own, to discontinue their activities.

I might just mention here that the principal Act specifically envisaged the establishment of trading co-operative societies for manufacturing purposes. (Section 4 (d).) It would therefore create an untenable position if trading co-operative societies were allowed to manufacture goods which agricultural and special farmers’ co-operative societies have to supply to their members while the latter societies themselves are not allowed to do so. The implication of that is that trading co-operative societies, which may then be established for this purpose, will supply implements and machinery to the agricultural and special farmers’ co-operative societies and create a situation in which manufacturing takes place indirectly and from which undesirable practices may arise, particularly in respect of nonmember businesses.

I might also mention here for the information of hon. members that there is a considerable number of agricultural co-operative societies which have workshops where repairs are carried out for their members. In times of depression some of these workshops are productively used for the manufacture of certain farming implements such as trailers, for example, which are then supplied to the members. Without the amendment proposed here it may remain doubtful whether these activities fall within the powers of such co-operative society workshops.

Mr. Speaker, it is not the intention to give co-operative societies a free hand; every such application will have to be submitted to me and will be considered on its merits.

I trust that hon. members will give their approval to this amending Bill, particularly since it contains no new principle but merely authorizes in unequivocable language a practice which has existed since the passing of the Act and in regard to which there is a certain amount of doubt.

I have also received representations from the Chamber of Industries and the Chamber of Commerce, who came to see me with regard to this matter. I pointed out to them that these sections had always been interpreted in this way and that co-operative societies may be established specifically for the purpose of manufacturing. I know that some of them rather misunderstood the position, but I think they are satisfied now that the explanation has been given to them that it is certainly not the intention to push every co-operative society into the manufacturing business but that permission will have to be given to some of them, as has been done in the past, to carry out these functions.

We on this side of the House would very much like to assist the hon. the Minister to rectify a position which may not be legal to-day. The Minister has told us that there is a possibility that there may be a misinterpretation of the Act as it stands and he is therefore introducing this amendment in order to rectify the position. However, we feel that the insertion of the words “agricultural implements and machinery” may widen the scope of the cooperative societies, and in view of the fact that there is now a commission inquiring into the privileges and limitations of co-operatives, we feel that no extension or, for that matter, curtailment should take place at this stage. We think that any change in regard to privileges or limitations should remain over until such time as this commission reports. Therefore, in these circumstances, we feel that we would like to move an amendment in order to have the position remain as it is and not to make any change now, and therefore we move—

It is a great pity that the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) and his party are opposing this Bill and have moved an amendment which will actually make it impossible to proceed with this measure pending the results of the investigation that is at present being made. The inquiry in connection with co-operatives has nothing at all to do with these activities which as a result of the daily business of cooperatives have been practised now for some time. I think that the hon. the Minister made it very clear that various co-operatives have workshops which in the normal course of events undertake the repair and maintenance of the implements of their shareholders or members. It is also necessary for many of these co-operatives to render that service for their members if there are no other bodies which can undertake the maintenance and repair of these implements and machinery. The co-operatives are already doing this work. If the co-operatives are not allowed to manufacture these things, it will mean that for a long period—and this is the period outside the productive season—they will have to retain the services of a number of workmen together with all the spare parts. This will be a dead and unproductive capital investment which will only serve to increase the cost structure of production so much more because a cooperative is actually not a business. It consists of a number of producers who have become organized and have appointed a board of directors to look after their affairs. I think that the inquiry to which the hon. member referred deals particularly with the trade which co-operatives may carry on with non-members. It does not deal with this aspect of the matter. That is why I am sorry that particularly in the case of that hon. member who is so actively engaged in agriculture, a person who is always trying to tell us that it is the task of that party to see to it that the farmer in this country is given his rigthful share of our prosperity, an hon. member who tells us that agriculture is lagging behind in South Africa’s economic development, where the farmers are trying to effect a saving by keeping their workmen in full-time service, should dig his heels in and make things more difficult for the farmers. This is not compatible with the accusations and the promises which these people have made to the effect that they do not want to make things more difficult for the farmers, because a co-operative is nothing more than a group of farmers who have become organized. That is why the hon. the Minister pointed out that there is nothing to prevent an ordinary trading co-operative having itself registered as a trading co-operative and continuing to manufacture. But in this regard he wants to give producers’ cooperatives the opportunity to obtain the maximum benefit from the repair and maintenance work which they do during this period. I think that it is a pity that this hon. member who is so concerned about agriculture has to be the one selected by his party to oppose this measure.

In reply to what the previous speaker has said I want to read out paragraph (b) of the terms of reference of this commission of inquiry to show him that what he said was to a large extent incorrect. Paragraph (b) of the terms of reference reads—

That is what the commission of inquiry is going into. I want to make it quite clear that as far as we are concerned we realize that the farmers are very jealous of their co-operative societies. We realize that they are very jealous of their right to regard themselves as a special class of people who produce all the things we need to live, and we accept the position that when they trade amongst their own members, very little limitation should be placed upon them. We have proved that by our conduct in the past, and anybody who chooses to look at the objects and powers of these co-operative societies might be a little bit surprised to find how much they can do. My difficulty arises from the position of commerce and industry, just as the Minister’s difficulty arose from the position of commerce and industry; that is why he appointed this commission of inquiry. I want first of all just to quote from this Bill; I need only read out the one quotation because both sections are the same; they just apply to different sorts of co-operative societies. Section 6 (d) at present reads—

The effect of this Bill will be to make it read—

Sir, I want to do a little bit of quoting. I want to quote an extract from a report of the Chamber of Industries—

It is very difficult to know how the Department can say that it cannot support an intention if under the law co-operative societies have the power to do certain things. I may be wrong and perhaps the Minister will put me right, but if the power is there then surely the co-operative society can utilize that power. The report goes on to say—

Well, that is only the Department’s point of view. It is not necessarily what the law is. Sir, last Wednesday the 10th Annual Co-operative Congress was opened in Pretoria. Let me quote from the Financial Mail of 22 May1964—

Apparently there was a lot of argument amongst the various delegates. Some of them felt that the co-operative societies should be authorized to purchase shares in companies carrying out these activities. Let me go on quoting what the Financial Mail says—

I am entirely on the hon. the Minister’s side. I have never heard of a wiser speech de-livered at a congress where, as we all know, so many different views are expressed, and it is an impossible job for the chairman finally to find out what congress wants. The Minister had appointed a commission of inquiry to go into this matter and he gave the only possible answer. Sir, I want to apply this question of selling to your own members to the question of building tractors. I am told that it has been suggested that one firm should enter into a contract with one of the co-operative societies and then proceed to build tractors in South Africa, if that particular concern makes arrangements with all the co-ops it will have practically the whole market to itself, because practically all the tractors are bought by farmers. I do not think that that should be envisaged at all. The Minister himself wants clarification with regard to the activities of the co-ops. He appointed this commission and he has to reconcile the interests of the farming community and the interests of commerce and industry. He has to be fair to the farmers and he has to be fair to the others as well. We want to be fair to the farmers but we do not want them to run haywire as was suggested by the previous speaker. We have nothing against the co-operative societies having their own repair department for their implements. They would be very silly if they did not, but there must be a dividing line. What we want to know is this: Why must the powers of the co-ops be extended so widely by legislation before the Minister’s commission of inquiry has reported? The hon. the Minister ought to know as well as I do that once you have given something it is extremely difficult to take it away again, particularly if you are dealing with such a particularly powerful body as the farming community of South Africa. We are not against the co-ops; we are all for them, but we want the Minister to leave the position as it is until his commission has reported. I cannot under-stand why initially he refused our request that this Bill should be held back until such time as the commission submits its report. We would then have something that we could get our teeth into. If the Minister persists in re-fusing to agree to our request to hold back this Bill I hope he will not quarrel with our amendment.

I am very sorry to see the trend which the debate has taken. We really thought that it would not be necessary. We hoped for various reasons that it would not be necessary to have a long debate. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat has made it necessary for us to debate this whole matter, a matter which we wanted to avoid debating at all costs. Apparently the hon. member and other hon. members on that side want to take us back to what happened in the past. There is no doubt at all—and that hon. member cannot deny it—that the farmer in South Africa is receiving the smallest share of the present prosperity and development in South Africa [Interjections.] I shall be pleased if hon. members will discuss the merits of the case instead of arguing amongst themselves. Let us thrash this matter out. I repeat that we had hoped that it would not be necessary to have a debate on this matter and that is why we deprecate the fact that this amendment has been moved. We are immediately transported back to the past. Nobody can deny that South Africa has been built on agriculture. South Africa has been an agricultural country since her earliest years; her industrial life began, as it were, yesterday. Our people and our country have been founded on agriculture. It is we, the farmers, who have to produce food for South Africa; it is we who have to supply our industries with raw materials for processing and for the development of our industries. What is the position to-day? Look at the industrial upsurge, the upsurge in our mines; see how the various branches of our South African economy are developing …

Order! The hon. member is now wandering very far from the Bill. The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill. He must not initiate a long agricultural debate on a small amending Bill.

Mr. Speaker, that is what we wanted to avoid. Under no circumstances did we want this to happen.

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

Have you read this Bill?

This Bill asks for very little for the farmers and it is that “very little” which is now being opposed by hon. members opposite. Then the hon. member has the effrontery to ask me whether I have read the Bill! [Interjections.] Yes, he may have read it but I am sure that he has not understood it! We must immediately ask this question: Why should the agricultural co-operatives in South Africa not be protected by law? Who objects to that? It is only the industrialist who already has a monopoly of all the trade in South Africa. The trade which the co-operatives carry on with their own members is minimal. We as co-operatives are always arguing with the hon. the Minister. I who am personally concerned in this matter have already objected to the fact that the hon. the Minister has bound the agricultural co-operatives to such an extent. Why can we as farmers not be permitted to place our industry on a sound footing? This is one of the grievances that we have against the hon. the Minister. As we know the position, the hon. the Minister has virtually protected the industrialist and the dealer at the expense of the producer. The hon. the Minister has come forward here with a small concession to agricultural co-operatives and to the producers who have found it extremely difficult in the past to place their industry on a sound basis. All we are doing here is asking for the right to place our industry on a sound footing but we are nevertheless being opposed by hon. members opposite. I repeat that we deprecate this fact. What are we actually asking for? We are asking for the right to manufacture those smaller goods ourselves. Sir, who knows the general problems of the farmer better than the farmer himself? The farmer is the producer and it is the farmers who make up these co-operatives. What else is a co-operative but a group of farmers who have banded together in order to be able to produce better and more economically? This being so I honestly think that if the Opposition continue to adopt the attitude which they have adopted here this afternoon and provoke us into carrying on a long debate in regard to this matter, they will be doing the farmer in South Africa a disservice. I want to ask hon. members of the Opposition to consider this matter carefully before they give in to the temptation of sparking off a long debate in regard to this matter. The co-operatives are not the enemies of the consumers in this country; they are not the enemies of the large industries; indeed, we produce for the industries. How many thousands of people in South Africa are connected with industries which have been set up to process the product of the farmer? When we consider this fact then there ought to be the closest co-operation between the farmer and the industrialist. I know that there are various hon. members on that side of the House who feel just as I and other hon. members do about this matter—that the producer must have a better opportunity in South Africa to improve his industries. We cannot reason away the fact that the producer in South Africa has to combat the problem of rising production costs. The industrialist has not been able to keep those costs lower for the producer. The costs of production are continually rising and the producer has to overcome tremendous competition on the world markets. It has become essential in South Africa for the producer to be enabled to produce cheaply; the consumers need that production and our industries need that production as well. In every newspaper one opens to-day one finds that the consumers are asking for cheaper food. They object to increases in the price of butter, milk and cheese and yet, on the other hand, the farmers cannot come out on the prices they receive for their products. This is a problem we have to face.

That is not in the Bill.

I know it is not in the Bill but if the hon. member will control himself and listen, he may learn something.

I want to conclude on this note: We do not want to go back to the chaos of the past. We as producers are grateful for the amount of co-operation that already exists in South Africa between industry and the fanners. Hostility between the industrialist and the farmer can only create chaos and this is something we must avoid at all costs. That is why I want to make an appeal to the Opposition to think carefully before they start something here this afternoon which can only lead to unpleasantness. This Bill gives us certain minimum rights and we ask the Opposition to let the measure go through in this way.

Having listened to the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Schoonbee) I would like to tell him that this side of the House has no real quarrel with the co-operative societies of this country. The cooperatives have undoubtedly done excellent work and we have no fight with them at all. Sir, this Bill is a very short Bill; it looks a very innocent Bill, but what it amounts to is that the co-operative societies will in fact be allowed to manufacture on a large scale if the Bill is passed. The object of the Bill is to regularize the position that has arisen over the years but this Bill instead will open the door wide to manufacturing operations by co-operative societies. When we look at the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the cost and profit margin in respect of agricultural implements and the components thereof, we find that when the commission worked out their terms of reference in regard to the term “agricultural implements,” they found that it included ploughs, harrows, cultivating, spraying and dusting machinery, planting, feeding and fertilizing machinery, harvesting machinery including grinders and mills, shellers, presses and harvesting equipment; earth-moving equipment, agricultural trailers, irrigation equipment, dairy and poultry equipment, tractors (all types), shearing machines and internal combustion engines. Sir, at the present moment you have an agricultural implement manufacturing industry in this country of ours. According to the 1961-2 census there were 162 establishments employing 5.800 people, producing goods valued at R22,700,000, with a salary and wage bill of R5,900,000. They also exported about R1,500,000 worth of goods. If the co-operative societies start manufacturing farming implements they will have an advantage over the private industrialist because they fall under section 27 (2) of the Income Tax Act of 1962, under which they have an advantage in respect of licences, taxation and other matters, so you can well imagine that if a co-operative society goes in for manufacturing on a large scale it will have all these advantages over the ordinary industry. Sir, publicity has been given to the fact that the Government is encouraging the manufacture of tractors in this country. The Government’s aim is to have a standardized type of tractor produced in this country. Naturally overseas firms are very interested in setting up factories in this country in co-operation with the present manufacturers of agricultural implements and machinery. I do not want to mention any names, but there is one co-operative society which is very interested as well. If co-operative societies do go in for the manufacturing of tractors they will naturally have a monopoly because they will be selling direct to all the other co-operative societies. The result would be that private industries manufacturing tractors would fall by the way. The co-operative society manufacturing this standardized type of tractor would have the market of the farmers, admittedly, but in order to produce economically, this factory would have to produce on a very large scale and look for export markets, and failing this the farmers of our country would then find it practically impossible to pay the high price of the tractor manufactured un-economically here. Sir, that is why industry is so worried about this particular amendment. I think the hon. the Minister introduced this Bill quite innocently in an attempt to rectify a position which had arisen over the years, but I do not think he realized what the implications were. If this Bill goes through in its present form the door will be thrown wide open to co-operative societies to manufacture all sorts of things, which I do not think would be in the interest of the country. I think everybody recognizes what the farmer has done for South Africa and we also recognize what the co-operative societies have done for this country, but we must not forget that we have established industries and that these industries and the agricultural industry are inter-dependent. There are agreements between the co-ops, and the big industries of this country to-day whereby they enjoy the benefits of advantageous buying and selling schemes. On the whole co-operative societies pay very much less than the man in the street, because they buy in bulk. I would like to urge upon the Minister to accept our amendment and to await the report of the Commission of Inquiry. As I have said we are not against co-ops, but let us wait and see what this commission reports. If the commission recommends that co-ops, should be allowed to go in for manufacturing then we should accept that recommendation.

I want to make use of this opportunity to make an appeal to the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan). The hon. member is aware of the fact that I have a very high opinion of him as a farmer and that I have always thought highly of what he has had to say in this House. Moreover, he and I are both very proud of the Co-operative Societies Act of 1939 which he has always regarded as United Party legislation but which I have never admitted to be such. This legislation was not passed by the present United Party. In any case, we are both very proud of this old Act. That is why I want to make a special appeal to him at this stage to give his support to this Bill because there are certain things in the Act which are not clear. I am sure that both of us accept the fact that it is of the most vital importance in the interests of the farming industry to eliminate that uncertainty so that the activities of the farmers can be co-ordinated and their productivity increased. As the hon. member said, there is nothing contentious in this measure but there are certain things which are not clear and which must be made clear; there are also certain shortcomings in the old Act which must be rectified. I hold the view that we are jointly responsible for that Act which was passed so many years ago. We wanted to achieve a certain goal by passing that Act. I want to ask the hon. member for Gardens whether he realizes that by adopting this attitude he is greatly embarrassing the members of his own party. It has become very clear to us now that there is a great difference of opinion amongst the members of his own party in regard to the Co-operative Societies Act. They are now giving us the impression that they would not be prepared to support the old Act even if we were to introduce it into this House in its original form. I want to make a very earnest appeal to the hon. member for Gardens and other hon. members of the Opposition to assist us. The hon. the Minister is now eliminating the shortcomings in the existing legislation and we must continue the good work of the old legislation of the old United Party, legislation of which he is just as proud as I am. I ask him in a friendly fashion to assist us to pass this innocent piece of legislation.

The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) made an appeal to the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) and this side of the House to assist the hon. the Minister to have this legislation passed. The hon. member for Gardens told the hon. the Minister quite clearly that we were not unwilling to assist him to legalize the existing position. But this legislation of the hon. the Minister does not rectify the position; it simply opens the door even wider as far as extending the activities of co-operatives is concerned.

Are you opposed to that?

The hon. member knows very well that there is a commission of inquiry in this regard and it is a commission appointed by that side of the House.

What must they investigate?

The hon. the Minister knows what they are investigating. They are inquiring into the financial activities of cooperatives and the extent to which they are encroaching upon the activities of private industry in South Africa. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) read that out to the hon. the Minister. We told the hon. the Minister quite clearly: Come to this House after you have received that report. What did the hon. the Minister say in his speech? He said this—

That is to say, a free hand in connection with the manufacture of farming machinery and similar items—

Surely then the intention is that co-operatives should tend in that direction more than is the case to-day?

You are now making a plea for industry.

I want to put this question to the hon. member: Is he opposed to all the businesses at Prieska? Is he opposed to the local hotels; is he opposed to the local garages simply because they are not in the hands of co-operatives? Of course not. That is precisely what we want. There are certain undertakings in the country which render certain services to the farming population of South Africa. It is the duty of the hon. members in this House to maintain the balance between private industry and the co-operatives. No one denies that the co-operatives perform an important function in the country; they create wonderful facilities for farmers, facilities which in many cases private trade cannot make available on the platteland. The farmers derive a great deal of benefit from the co-operative system. But there are also disadvantages. The co-operatives have, for example, entered certain spheres of activity in which they have not achieved the amount of success achieved by private industry. There are existing interests which render those services for South Africa. As the hon. the Minister said, in some cases the co-operatives have workshops where they repair farming machinery. He said that they perform an important function in this way. But this change which the hon. the Minister is suggesting is not simply being suggested in order to legalize the existing position, a position which, as it existed in the past, now appears not to have been completely lawful …

Doubt exists in that regard.

But is this the only way in which the hon. the Minister can word it? Is this the only terminology he can use? The wording used by the hon. the Minister in this Bill opens the door very much wider. In the light of the fact that we do not as yet have that report which will enable us to see clearly what the duty and the task of co-operatives in South Africa is, it is impossible for us to support the hon. the Minister.

Are you going to vote against the Bill?

Of course. As long as the hon. the Minister uses the wording which is used in this Bill he cannot expect us to support the Bill. If this wording is retained it amounts to the fact that the hon. the Minister is intruding upon the interests of many other people and that is something that we on this side of the House do not want. We want to maintain a sound balance; we do not begrudge anyone a living. Therefore I think that the hon. the Minister must consider the matter very seriously. If he cannot see his way clear to use different wording in this legislation, we will be compelled to withhold our support from the hon. the Minister.

That matter can be discussed at the Committee Stage.

One can possibly make allowances for the fact that the hon. members for Benoni (Mr. Ross) and Salt River (Mr. Timoney) oppose this Bill but that the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) should oppose this Bill must, I am sure, make organized agriculture feel the way Caesar did when Brutus plunged the dagger into his heart and Caesar asked him: Et tu, Brute? As far as this matter is concerned, Mr. Speaker, one cannot actually take any notice of what is said by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) because he likes to have his cake and eat it. I leave his arguments at that but I do want to refer to one remark that he made. He said that the hon. the Minister would simply be adding to the difficulties of the commission if he effected this amendment to the Co-operative Societies Act. How can the hon. member justify that argument? It is true that a commission has been appointed and it is true that the commission will submit a report. But if in the meantime we legalize something which the co-operatives have already been doing on a small scale, how can this have any effect upon the report which the commission will eventually submit? Hon. members opposite know that co-operatives cannot do anything they want to do until they have been registered, until they have the approval of the Minister. The hon. member for Salt River tried to chase up a hare by saving that the co-operatives could even go so far as to build so many tractors that they would have to find an export market for them! Anybody who argues in this way certainly has no idea of the workings of the Co-operative Societies Act and has even less of an idea of what the functions of co-operatives are. I do not want to make quotations and hold up the debate but I want to know whether hon. members opposite who like to pose as the friends of the farmers and organized agriculture know what the attitude of organized agriculture in South Africa is in regard to this matter. They will find it in the latest issue of that publication of May 1964 on page 27. There they will find an article written by Mr. J. van Heerden. I should like to quote it but I prefer to leave it to hon. members themselves to read what the attitude of organized agriculture is in regard to this amendment. They will find that organized agriculture would like greater privileges and more elasticity than it has already been given by the hon. the Minister. This is simply a small amendment to enable the co-operatives to do something which, perhaps owing to a misunderstanding, is already been done by them in the belief that it is a service which they are rendering to the farmer.

If the United Party is going to oppose this legalizing of the existing position, which they are doing to-day, they will be revealing their true colours to the farmers, to the farming industry, to organized agriculture, and we will be able to say of them that they hate the farmers in South Africa.

I am sorry that the United Party is opposing this amending Bill. The position is this. As the Cooperative Societies Act reads at the moment, a trading co-operative society can be established which can manufacture any implement in South Africa. It means that unless one gives the power to the agricultural co-operative society to manufacture these small items, then seven co-operative societies can establish a trading co-operative and open a factory in South Africa as large as any other factory to manufacture whatever they wish to manufacture. That is the first statement I wish to make. The second is this: This Bill relates only to agricultural co-operatives. An agricultural cooperative society can trade only with its members. As the Act reads to-day, it provides that an agricultural association or a co-operative agricultural company may be established with the following objects—

Section 7 (1) (d) provides that a co-operative farmers’ company may be established, inter alia, with the object—

The interpretation of “manufacturing farming requirements” has always been that it can manufacture any implements used in farming. That was the interpretation given to it not only by myself but by my predecessor in this Government, and also by my predecessor in the former Government. On that basis rights were given to certain agricultural co-operatives to manufacture certain things which might be regarded as agricultural machinery. Then doubt arose in the minds of the State’s law advisers as to whether this authorization could in fact be interpreted as meaning that agricultural machinery could be manufactured by an agricultural co-operative. There is a difference of opinion in regard to this interpretation among the law advisers. The Chamber of Industries even told me that the interpretation of their law advisers was that it could in fact be done. Because there is a difference of opinion, we are now ensuring in this Bill that the matter will be remedied. In other words, nobody can now go to court to prevent the co-operative from manufacturing machinery for their members. That is the only reason for this amendment.

The commission of inquiry referred to by hon. members is not investigating the objects of the co-operative societies. The commission is investigating the place of the co-operative in the economy of the country. If the commission finds that when a co-operative takes part in the manufacturing industry it should pay income-tax, then it has the full right to make such a report. And if the commission finds that co-operatives in future may not be allowed to enter the manufacturing industry, then the Co-operative Societies Act must be amended—not this clause, but the whole Act, because the Co-operative Societies Act gives the co-operative the power to manufacture. Supposing we do not make this amendment, what are these agricultural co-operatives, who have already received authorization from various Ministers to manufacture small items, to do in order to be within the law? It is only necessary for seven of them to establish a separate trading co-operative. They can then manufacture those articles and sell them at cost to their member co-operatives. Do hon. members opposite want to prevent people from manufacturing? They can do so now without this amendment. [Interjections.] The hon. member says they do not do so, but why should they do that? Why should they establish a special co-operative, when they themselves can manufacture articles for their members? That is already the practice, and that is what hon. members object to. Hon. members opposite say the co-operatives are taking too large a share of the trade. Commerce does not like to give an agency to the co-operative alone because a co-operative is in the first place compelled to sell to its members only. But there is nothing to prevent two directors or two members of the co-operative from establishing a private company, obtaining the agency for the article concerned, and selling it to their co-operative at cost. Does the hon. member deny that this can happen?

It is impossible.

How can it be impossible? That just shows how little the hon. member knows about co-operatives. Because a co-operative may only trade with its members an implement company does not want to give it the agency. Now two of its members may establish a private company, get the agency from that company and sell the implements to their co-operative at cost price. Why can they not do so?

Why do they not do it?

But they do it Let me put it to hon. members this way: If a co-operative can finance itself without the assistance of the Land Bank, are hon. members opposite opposed to its manufacturing tractors or fertilizer, etc.? Why may it not do so as a co-operative? Is it their standpoint that it may not do so? We want to encourage industrial development in this country. If a co-operative does it, is that not also industrial development? If a co-operative establishes an industry, is that not industrial development?

Mr. Speaker, I really think that if hon. members opposite reconsider the matter they will not vote against this Bill.

The commission of inquiry has absolutely nothing to do with this matter. They are dealing with a much broader aspect of cooperatives in this country. If hon. members want to compromise themselves to that extent, then I want to invite them to vote against this Bill. I think, however, that it will be in their own interest, in view of the fact that the law has always been interpreted in this way, and that even a United Party Minister interpreted it like that, at this stage not to put the cooperatives into the position where somebody can take them to court, which would jeopardize all the money invested in them. We cannot wait for a commission which will perhaps report only in two years’ time, and in the meantime jeopardize the money invested in the co-operatives. If hon. members want to vote against the Bill for this reason, they may do so, but I still feel that it is in their own interest not to bring this matter to a vote.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—62: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Coetzee, B.; Oruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Henning, J. M.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Muller, H.; Odell, H. G. O.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Vosloo, A. H.; Wentzel, J. J.

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

Noes—36: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Connan, J. M.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a second time.

I move—

The Agricultural Produce Export Act, 1959 (No. 10 of 1959) is a consolidation of the legal provisions relating to the prohibition of or the regulation of the export of certain articles and, inter alia, provides for the inspection and grading of agricultural products destined for export from the Republic.

Certain of the amendments proposed in this Bill are mainly formal amendments resulting in the word “Union” being replaced by the word “Republic”, and the word “Governor-General” being replaced by the words “State President”. Amendments are also proposed to provide for the decimalization of the various amounts appearing in Section 8 of the Act. The amendment in Clause 5 comprises the deletion of the words “with or without forced labour” with a view to adapting the relevant sub-section of the Act to the present position in regard to the imposing of sentences. These amendments are contained in Clauses 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Bill.

Section 6 (1) (j) of the Act provides that exporters may by proclamation be ordered to register with the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing and that the relevant registration certificate be issued by the Secretary. For practical reasons it is essential that the power to issue certificates should not be limited to the Secretary alone, and in Clause 2 of the Bill provision is made for the Secretary to authorize an official of his Department to issue such a registration certificate. This is particularly necessary in view of delays which may arise when the Secretary is absent from his office on official duties.

In Clause 3 of the Bill it is proposed that the word “receptacle” in the English text should be replaced by the word “container”. The word “container” is a more exact translation of the word “houer”, and this amendment is proposed with a view to having greater clarity.

At present provision is made in the Act, in Section 7 (1) (d), that the manner of packing agricultural products, the size, description, quality and material of the containers used and the marking of the containers may be prescribed by regulation. The amendment proposed in Clause 3 of the Bill further provides that the way in which containers must be treated physically or chemically or cleaned may be prescribed by regulation, and also the way in which containers, before being used, should be stored.

In view of the stricter requirements stipulated from time to time by importing countries, it is essential to make this provision in the Act. The treatment prescribed will ensure that the contents of the containers will not be damaged by insects present in the containers, and also that the chemicals used to treat the containers will not have a deleterious effect on the contents, for example by causing an unpleasant taste or smell.

In terms of Section 6 (1) of the Act, the State President may by proclamation in the Government Gazette, inter alia, prescribe the requirements with which agricultural products intended for export should comply. Provision is also made for the inspection of such agricultural products before export, in order to ensure that these requirements are complied with. That means that agricultural products which in the opinion of the inspector do not comply with the prescribed requirements cannot be exported.

If, however, an exporter is not satisfied with the decision of an inspector in this regard, he may note an appeal against such decision in the way prescribed by regulation. Section 7 (1) (q) of the Act therefore also provides that the State President may issue regulations relating to the manner in which the appeal should be noted.

Mr. Speaker, the attention of hon. members is directed to the fact that this section was amended last year also with a view to facilitating the lodging of appeals and the disposal thereof. Last year’s amendment also resulted in the fact that the Act, in regard to appeals, was brought into line with the provisions of the Marketing Act.

Following on the interpretation which was given to the relevant sub-section, regulations were issued which provide that the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing may appoint the persons to decide an appeal lodged in terms of Section 12 of the Act. Similar regulations have also been issued from time to time in the past, in terms of the corresponding section of the Marketing Act. In the beginning of this year, however, the law advisers of the Department of Justice drew the attention of my Department to the fact that as Section 7 (1) (q) reads at present, it will be necessary for the names of persons who have to hear an appeal to be mentioned in the regulation, or for their post to be indicated in the regulation in such a way that these persons are easily identifiable. For various reasons something like that is not practicable. Because the officials concerned work in various places in the Republic and are subject to transfer, and also because the persons whose services are utilized for dealing with appeals do not always occupy a particular post, the names of a large number of persons will have to be mentioned in the regulations.

It is for this reason that the further amendment of Section 7 (1) (q) is now being proposed. The proposed amendment, as contained in the Bill, in Clause 3 (d), provides that the State President may issue regulations providing that an official of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, or somebody nominated by him, may appoint the person or persons to deal with the appeal. This amendment will mean that the procedure which has hitherto been followed in all good faith, and which in every respect worked very satisfactorily, may now be continued with. I move.

This side of the House has no objection to this Bill. In view of the fact that it is legislation which improves the existing legislation, we support it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The legal provisions relating to the inspection of fruit intended for overseas marketing are contained in the Fruit Export Act. As in other spheres of the agricultural industry, considerable technological progress has been made in recent years in the treatment and packing of fruit intended for export. It has now become necessary to amend the Act so as to adapt it to the prevailing circumstances and, in addition to that, to make provision for further research so as to be able to continue to comply with present-day requirements.

The progress which is made is dependent largely upon the information which becomes available with regard to the qualities of certain varieties of export fruit; in addition to that it is largely dependent on information concerning the preferences of the various markets with regard to the varieties, the grades, the sizes and the degree of ripeness of the fruit required by such markets. The standards demanded by new markets which are developed, standards which in certain cases are even higher than the high standards which are at present being maintained, are of equal importance, however.

It follows logically therefore that it is desirable to test new methods of packing and/or treatment by means of experimental consignments, for example. Clause 3 (1) of the Bill makes provision for experimental consignments to be exported. Such experimental consignments will naturally also have to comply with certain requirements. These requirements, however, will not be entirely in accordance with the regulations which are applicable to normal consignments.

Clause 3 (2) of the Bill authorizes the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing to grant authority for the export of fruit without the containers having been branded or stamped by an inspector. This provision is being inserted to meet special circumstances.

Clause 4 provides that in the case of experimental consignments the inspector must be satisfied that the relevant conditions have been complied with. Written authority must be granted for the export of fruit in those cases where the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing has given his permission that containers need not be branded.

The aforementioned amendment, which flows from the proposed Clause 3, ensures that all fruit which is exported will be inspected, irrespective of whether the containers are stamped or not. At the same time the word “container” is being substituted for the word “box” because the word “container”, which is also used elsewhere in the Bill, is more appropriate.

Clause 4 (c) proposes the insertion of a new sub-section in the principal Act. The new subsection provides that an inspector may again examine a consignment of fruit, which has already been approved of for export, and that in addition to that he may cancel the brands or withdraw the permission granted for the export of such fruit. That will be done if he finds that the consignment no longer complies with the prescribed standards.

One finds that consignments of fruit, which have already been declared by an inspector to be suitable for export, deteriorate to such an extent before the fruit is exported that it no longer complies with the prescribed standards, or that it is of a lower grade than the grade originally assigned to it. The export of such fruit harms the good name of the Republic’s fruit and it is considered necessary therefore to make provision in the Act for re-inspection.

The proposed new sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the principal Act contains the provisions that exporters whose fruit is turned down or degraded upon reinspection shall have the same rights as far as appeals are concerned and shall be subject to the same obligations as would have applied to them if the fruit had been turned down or degraded at the first inspection.

The principal Act further provides that where an inspector refuses to make a consignment of fruit he must notify the consignor of that fact in writing without delay and furnish him with the reasons for his refusal. Clause 5 (a) of the Bill now extends the same provisions to those cases where an inspector refuses to grant his permission for the fruit to be exported.

Section 7 of the principal Act places an obligation upon consignors of fruit to remove the fruit from the place of inspection where an inspector has refused to brand the containers. Clause 6 of this Bill now extends the same provisions to those cases where an inspector refuses to grant written permission for the fruit to be exported. The proposed new sub-section (3) of Section 5 extends the same provisions to consignors whose fruit is turned down upon reinspection. It is necessary for inspectors to take samples for the purpose of analysis in order to determine the ripeness and the quality of the fruit. We also find that fruit has to be analyzed to determine whether it has been sprayed or treated with poisonous substances in conflict with the health laws of the country of import. Provision is now being made in Clause 7 (c) of the Bill for the promulgation of regulations in connection with the taking or the removal of samples of fruit by an inspector for the purpose of inspection or analysis. This provision already exists in the Export of Agricultural Produce Act (Act 10 of 1959) which relates to produce other than fresh fruit. This amendment therefore remedies a defect in the Act.

At present there is no provision in terms of which the circumstances under which fruit may be degraded, regraded or remarked after inspection by an inspector may be prescribed by regulation. The amendment which is being proposed in Clause 7 (d) is intended to remedy this defect and to place this Act in this respect on the same basis as the Export of Agricultural Produce Act of 1959.

It has become necessary, in order to be able to retain the good quality of our fruit, to be able to prescribe by regulation what methods of treatment may or may not be applied to the various varieties of fruit which are intended for export. For example, certain varieties of apples which have not been sprayed with calcium nitrate tend to develop a bitter core in the course of transit or after delivery overseas. It is essential, since this defect usually only develops after a certain period of time, that we should be able to prescribe for what period, in what way and at what temperature the various varieties of fruit must be stored prior to export. There should also be provision for the granting of exemption from storage in those cases where satisfactory evidence can be adduced that the prescribed treatment has in fact been applied. Provision is being made for this in Clause 7 (e) of the Bill.

The Act does not provide that the promulgated regulations may be applied to certain varieties of fruit according to the purpose for which it is exported, nor does it provide for different regulations in respect of different kinds or classes of fruit or different manners of packing, or in respect of the same variety, grade, manner of packing, size or quantity, according to the country or territory to which or the manner in which the fruit is being exported. Provision is being made in Clause 7 (g) of the Bill to eliminate the problems which may arise in this connection.

Factors such as the inherent qualities of different varieties of fruit, the climatic conditions of the various countries and territories to which the fruit goes; the preferences of the various markets as to varieties and the quality of fruit, the type of container and the method of packing, make it essential that we should be able to promulgate different regulations. Similar provision is contained in the Export of Agricultural Produce Act of 1959.

Section 9 of the principal Act provides that the State President may by regulation prohibit the export of any variety of any kind or class of fruit to specified places and that such regulation may differentiate in respect of a particular variety of fruit on the ground that it was grown in a particular region.

Clause 8 of the Bill provides that the provisions of the relevant section may be extended to any variety, kind or class of fruit of a specified grade, count, weight content or size, or packed in a particular manner.

This amendment has become necessary as the result of various factors which apply to the export of fruit, factors such as the way in which the fruit is exported, the inherent qualities of different varieties of fruit, the preferences and the requirements of the various markets. It is essential, in order to be able to market the Republic’s fruit in the most beneficial way, that due regard should be had to all these various factors, and in order to achieve this end it should be possible to apply this prohibition in certain cases to more than just a variety of a kind or class of fruit.

Mr. Speaker, these amendments have been proposed in order to remedy defects in the principal Act; to make provision to overcome existing problems and to be able to meet the high demands of a strongly competitive overseas market. If these amendments are accepted my Department will be in a position to ensure that the good reputation which the Republic’s fruit has gained on the overseas markets is maintained in the future.

On behalf of this side of the House I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we wholeheartedly support the second reading of this Bill. The hon. the Minister has explained the aims of this Bill very clearly, the most important of which is of course to retain the good name which our South African fruit has on the overseas’ market and to improve on that name. I think that we in South Africa can rightly be proud of the particularly good name which our fruit enjoys on the overseas’ market. The hon. the Minister has explained to us, particularly in regard to Clause 3, that it is now necessary for us to export fruit without the sender’s name or the name of the Republic appearing on the containers. These are experimental consignments in order to enable us to study the reaction of people beyond the borders of South Africa and on the overseas’ markets to the product we send them. I think it is absolutely necessary for us to do this, particularly in the light of world conditions to-day. We may even be compelled to do it. Notwithstanding our political differences it is our task in this House to protect the interests of the farmers and if we can do anything to enhance the sales of the products which the farmer wants to market, we on this side are prepared to do it.

I just want to mention a few figures to indicate how our fruit exports have increased over the past few years, particularly in regard to the fruit under the control of the Deciduous Fruit Board. In 1960-1, according to the latest report of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing, we exported 114,468 tons of apples, pears, grapes, plums, peaches and apricots. In the next year, in 1961-2, we exported 137,256 tons and in 1962-3, we exported 137,563 tons. From 1960-1 to 1961-2 there was an increase of about 20,000 tons. There was a further increase in 1962-3 although it was not as spectacular as in the previous year. This proves, nevertheless, that we are expanding our export market as_ far as fruit is concerned every year. There is a decrease in some markets, particularly on the British market, although this has always been the most important market for our South African fruit. There has been a slight decrease in our exports to the Scandanavian countries but then again there has been a fantastic increase in our fruit exports to countries like Canada. It appears to me that the more people try to boycott our South African products, the more progress we make. It appears to me that the more people talk about boycotting South African products, the more they bring the good quality of our products to the attention of people overseas. The product produced by the South African fruit farmer is of such a high standard that all the efforts of these people who seek to boycott our products will result in failure. That is why we want to assure the hon. the Minister that all the efforts that he may make—and this Bill is an excellent example in this regard—to improve the standard of the South African product even further, to ensure that we obtain more markets overseas and to ensure that our good name is retained, will be supported by this side of the House.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, after having remained unaltered from 1951 to 1961, this is the fourth successive year in which amendments to the Marketing Act are being submitted to the House.

To some extent the necessity to introduce amendments to the Marketing Act after the lapse of such short periods of time, reflects the developments which have taken place, particularly in recent times, in connection with the controlled marketing of agricultural produce.

The application of controlled marketing in terms of the Marketing Act for more than 20 years has resulted in a certain amount of specialization and other developments which require the taking of certain steps which were not formerly envisaged and for which no authority was therefore granted in the Act. Thus, for example, in the case of the fruit boards in particular, the stage has been reached where the foreign marketing of their produce is so intensively organized that various delicate adjustments have become necessary in respect of the control measures concerned. The Citrus Board, for example, finds it necessary to forbid the export of certain sizes of fruit because the oversea market for those particular sizes, generally speaking, is not a payable one, but nevertheless the board receives advantageous orders from time to time for fruit of those particular sizes. Arrangements then have to be made in the interests of the industry to fulfil those particular orders. This calls for a large measure of elasticity as far as control over the export of such fruit is concerned. In the case of deciduous fruit there are certain varieties which are unable to stand up to long sea journeys under refrigerated conditions, and the Deciduous Fruit Board therefore has to limit the export of such fruit to certain countries only. For this purpose it is necessary in practice to allow the control measures to be varied according to the way in which the fruit is transported, that is to say, by land, by sea or by air.

In the case of various schemes it is regarded as adequate to confine the application of the control measures to a product produced or sold in certain areas, although the scheme as such applies throughout the country in respect of the marketing of that product. The collection of a levy on certain quantities of the product which are not directly controlled not only produces administrative problems but is hardly justified as a rule.

The Marketing Act is an enabling measure which grants certain powers, some of which are of a far-reaching nature, to the Minister and the control boards. Since many of these provisions affect the freedom of the individual, the Act is fairly restrictive when it comes to the extent to which one can differentiate in practice between areas, for example, or between classes of a product. With the refinement of the system of control, however, it now appears that certain provisions of the Act are either too restrictive or that they fall short of what has become necessary in practice.

The main object of the Bill therefore is to make certain provisions more elastic, with a view to adapting them to refinements which are brought about in the application of marketing control. By way of illustration let me refer to the clause which provides for the following matters:

1. (a) That a control board will be competent to impose a levy on only certain classes, grades or standards of quality of a product, or only where it is produced or sold in a particular area. Under this power a control board, for example, will be able to exempt from the levy any units of the product which are not sold by the board. Similarly units of the product produced in areas where the production of that product is not of primary importance and where the marketing of that product requires no action by the board may be exempted from the levy. (Clauses 2 (a), 2 (f), and 3);
2. (b) that a control board in imposing a prohibition, for example, on the export of the product, may differentiate between exports by land, by sea or by air. (Clauses 2 (f) and 4 (c));
3. (c) that a control board, when granting exemption to a producer to sell his product without the intervention of the board, may recover a fee from such producer instead of a levy, which in practice cannot be collected with the same ease as a fee. (Clause 4 (1) (a));
4. (d) that a control board may also lay down in the conditions according to which it registers processors or traders, what sort of product may be manufactured or sold;
5. (e) that the State President, in promulgating a proclamation which forbids the sale of a product unless it is packed in the prescribed way or branded according to grade, may exclude experimental consignments from such prohibition.

The extension of the relevant provisions, which contain no new principles, does not represent a departure from the present effect of the Act. It would be more accurate to describe it as an attempt to make provision for administrative problems which have arisen within the framework of the control system, as permitted by the Act, and for which no specific provision is made in the Act at the present time.

The establishment of facilities for the mass handling and storage of cereals and the taking over of the Railways’ grain elevators by the Maize Board, are further developments which have made it necessary to provide for further powers in the Act.

It is in the interests of the industries concerned to ensure that facilities are available for the mass handling and storage of cereals in economic quantities and therefore that such facilities are situated at the right places, otherwise the cost of providing these otherwise valuable facilities would place an unnecessary burden on the industries concerned. The only way in which influence can be exercised at the present time over the establishment of such facilities is by way of State loans through a special committee consisting of representatives of my Department, the Land Bank and the grain boards. It is felt that the time has arrived to obtain legal power to be able to exercise control over the establishment of such facilities, and the Bill accordingly contains a proposal in terms of which the State President will be able to make the establishment of such facilities subject to a permit which may be issued by the Secretary of my Department under conditions laid down by him. (Clause 8.)

With the taking over by the Maize Board of the Railways grain elevators in the hinterland, the Maize Board has also become an agricultural warehouse-keeper in terms of the Agricultural Warehouse Act. This places certain obligations upon the board, obligations which, inter alia, also relate to cereals which are not controlled in terms of the Marketing Act and for which the Marketing Act does not make provision, with the result that it has also become necessary to bring about an appropriate amendment here. (Clause 4 (10).)

Other measures for which provision is made in this Bill are the following:

1. (i) The control over kaffircorn, which is at present exercised by the Maize Board, may, if it appears to be necessary later on, be entrusted to a separate board (Clause 2 (e));
2. (ii) the control board may forbid persons to sell a product abroad at a lower price than that fixed by the board (Clause 4 (b))—here we have in mind canned fruit which at the present time still does not fall under a control board; and
3. (iii) control boards will be exempted from the payment of licence fees in respect of their trading activities. (Clause 4 (a)).

As I have already mentioned, the proposed amendments are designed mainly to make provision for administrative problems which are being experienced by control boards and for actions in respect of which no specific powers are provided for in the Act. In other words, the proposed amendments are designed to enable control boards to implement their schemes with greater efficiency.

We on this side of the House will support this Bill. The hon. the Minister has explained the amendments that are being effected. We believe that they are very sound amendments and that they will improve the Act. But I do want to say that the time has really come when a consolidation measure should be introduced. We hope that this will be done next year because, due to all the amendments that have been effected in the past, it is very difficult to study this measure. I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that I think that he should have provided us with a White Paper because it has been very difficult for us to study this Bill. I want to express my thanks to the Secretary of the Department who explained all the amendments to us.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.