I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

This Bill relates to precious metals, base minerals and natural oil and may be regarded as the second leg of the revisory and consolidatory legislation of the Department of Mines. The first leg, namely the consolidation of the diamond laws, was completed during the 1964 session when a single Precious Stones Act was substituted for 16 earlier laws and enactments, while this Bill contemplates the repeal of a further 47 Acts, parts of Acts and Amendment Acts, which will result in two Acts only being substituted for a total number of more than 60 different enactments.

It is paradoxical that more than half a century since Union, South Africa, a vital young giant amongst the mining countries of the world, still does not have a complete set of modern legislation relating to minerals which is applicable throughout the country. As the largest producer of gold in the world, South Africa at present produces approximately 75 per cent of the free world’s gold and it is also one of the world’s leading producers of gem diamonds. In addition we are the second largest producer of vanadium, vermiculite, metals of the platinum group, antimony, manganese and chromite, and the largest known reserves of chromium and manganese in the world are situated within the borders of the Republic. Also as regards certain other minerals such as uranium, asbestos, lithium and mica we are among the leading producers. South Africa has gained this prominent position in the field of mining really more in spite of than with the aid of its mineral laws, because some of the most important of these laws date from colonial days and many are antiquated and of provincial application only. Most of them have an English version only and in addition some of the laws are out of print, and you will realize that the public is demanding their substitution. This, of course, is a very undesirable state of affairs, particularly in a major mining country such as South Africa. In addition some of these existing old laws are based on principles which are in direct conflict as far as the various provinces are concerned, a position which is not merely illogical but also very confusing. For instance, in the Cape Province, the Transvaal and the Orange Free State the right to prospect for and mine base minerals on private land is vested in the private holder of the mineral rights, while, as far as Natal is concerned, this right has to be acquired from the State in accordance with the provisions of the Natal Mines Act, 1899. On the other hand, as far as precious metals are concerned, the Cape Province is the exception as regards gold, silver and platinum. In this province the holder of the right to precious metals may exploit the precious metals as he deems fit, whereas the right to exploit precious metals in the other three provinces is vested in the State, irrespective of the status of the land on which those metals are present. Then there are also, in spite of amending legislation and patch-work over a period of more than half a century, considerable deficiencies in the present laws. For instance, in the Cape Province there is not even legislation in terms of which control can be exercised over trading in unwrought precious metal. This is a deficiency which is also being rectified now. The legislation before this House to-day required many years of hard work and numerous interested parties were consulted. I want to express my sincere gratitude to the officials of the Department of Mines who undertook this major task as well as to the representatives of the Chamber of Mines and to all other interested parties who exchanged views with the officials and made contributions, and I naturally also want to address a special word of thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister of Justice and to the other members of the Select Committee which was subsequently converted into a commission for the purpose of examining this legislation. What we therefore have before this House to-day is the result of many years of work and consultation and of several years of co-operation between both parties in this House. What we consequently have here to a large extent is legislation about which agreement has been reached and in connection with which a considerable number of technical problems have been smoothed out on the level of this Committee and the Commission. Therefore this Bill is not really so much a consolidating measure but is more specifically aimed at substituting uniform and modern legislation for obsolete and disparate legal provisions. Well-tried principles have been retained as far as possible and have been made applicable throughout the Republic. Where it has been necessary in the process to effect changes in some provinces for the sake of uniformity, principles contained in the more recent and advanced legislation in operation in the Transvaal and/or the Orange Free State have been followed. In terms of the proposed new legislation Bantu will now for the first time be enabled to acquire prospecting and mining rights within their own areas. As yet nothing has been detracted from the competency of Whites to acquire prospecting and mining rights in Bantu areas. But except where such land has been proclaimed as public diggings, the Bill gives the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development the necessary authority to approve applicants for rights on Bantu land. Because the Bill is aimed at uniformity throughout the country it will, from the nature of the case, bring about numerous changes—most of which, however, will not be of a drastic nature—in the existing legal position in the various provinces. A memorandum dealing with all the clauses of the Bill has been drawn up by my Department and copies have already been made available to hon. members on both sides of this House who have made inquiries. In addition many of the clauses are thoroughly discussed and elucidated in the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Bill, which report was tabled on 3rd August, 1966. Therefore I shall confine myself to some of the more important changes contemplated.

In the first place, I want to refer to the new definition of “base mineral” contained in clause 1 of the Bill. In the present Gold Law (Act No. 35 of 1908) of the Transvaal—which is also applicable in the Orange Free State—“base mineral” is defined as “any mineral substance other than precious metals or precious stones … or water”. This definition is very wide and has caused considerable concern amongst land-owners and lessees on settlements who are not also the holders of the mineral rights, because it is not clear to what extent ordinary agricultural land is included in this definition. In the new definition surface soil, inter alia, which can only be used for agricultural purposes and which has no commercial value otherwise, will not be included in the term “base minerals”.

In connection with the term “prospecting” it is at present provided in the Gold Law that “ ‘prospecting’ shall include all work which is necessary for or incidental to the search for precious or base minerals”, which apparently means that virtually any action relating to the search for minerals—however indirect that may be—amounts to prospecting. In terms of the proposed new definition contained in clause 1 of the Bill only prospecting operations which are carried out in such a way that they disturb the surface of the earth will be held to be “prospecting”. Surveys from aircraft or with instruments which do not disturb the earth physically will not be prospecting for the purposes of the new Act and that will generally simplify matters. In terms of section 12 of the present Gold Law the holder of the mineral rights may prospect for precious metals on land in respect of which he holds such rights, without it being necessary for him to take out a prospecting permit. He need only inform the mining commissioner in writing of his intention to prospect. In terms of clause 7 of the Bill all persons who wish to prospect for precious metals will now have to take out a prospecting permit at R2 per annum. The Chamber of Mines did not want any change in the present position to be effected because such a change would have resulted in an additional administrative requirement—the issuing of the prospecting permit—which might give rise to delay. For the sake of uniformity, however, the Department prefers prospecting permits to be taken out in all cases. It will not be possible to refuse permits. The periodic issue of such permits will keep mining commissioners better informed about prospecting for precious metals in their mining districts than the former notices of intention to prospect and, as regards the possibility of delays, my Department gives the assurance that the necessary permit will almost without exception be issued on the same day as that on which the mining commissioner receives the application. The same change was effected by the new Precious Stones Act, 1964, and no difficulty has been experienced up to now and this Act has been in operation for a few years. The Commission of Inquiry regarding the Mining Rights Bill considered this matter thoroughly and was unanimous in its support of the idea that the holder of the right to precious metals, like other prospectors, should also take out a prospecting permit.

In the Transvaal and the Orange Free State non-Whites cannot acquire rights under the Gold Law and for the greater part that is also the position in Natal where the Natal Mines Act, 1899, is applicable. As hon. members will notice from clause 7 of the Bill, it is now the intention to enable Bantu and Coloured persons to acquire prospecting rights in their own areas while it will also be possible for Coloured persons to continue prospecting on State land in the Cape Province. The latter is a right which they already enjoy in the Cape Province. The definition of “Coloured person” in the Bill is wide in order to include any person who is not a White person or a Bantu.

At present prospecting areas are not transferable and they also have to be repegged annually after the holder has obtained a new prospecting permit. This causes considerable inconvenience and may result in the loss of valuable assets, because it has happened that a prospector who wished to peg his area on the day after the date of expiry of his old prospecting permit found that someone else had pegged the area during the previous night. The same thing may happen where, say, A removes his pegs in favour of B for a consideration whereupon C gets in first and pegs the area. These occurrences will be eliminated by making provision for the renewal of prospecting permits and for the transfer of prospecting areas, as is envisaged in clause 9.

In terms of existing legislation the State itself may investigate the possible presence of base minerals and natural oil on any land. In clause 11 this power is extended to include precious metals as well. In this connection I should like to give the assurance that it is not the intention at all that the State itself should join the ranks of gold producers, but only that it should have the power to make its own contribution to prospecting for precious metals, for instance in cases where private concerns are not able to do so, or where they do not regard the prospects as being sufficiently promising.

Because prospecting for natural oil requires large monetary investments as a rule, the necessity of giving the prospective prospector assurance at an early stage as regards his rights and obligations in case he should make a paying discovery of natural oil is generally recognized. It is the practice in other countries to give such an assurance, and prospective prospectors make it a requirement that we should do so too. On the recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry a provision has therefore been included in the Bill—it appears in clause 14 (3) of the Bill—in terms of which the most important terms and conditions to which oil mining will be subject may already be embodied in the prospecting lease. The assurances which the large oil prospecting companies want, however, do not relate only to matters which are normally governed by the mineral laws, but also to matters such as tax obligations, customs and excise concessions, the marketing of oil, etc. Consequently it is provided that such terms and conditions may include terms and conditions agreed upon in consultation with any other Minister on matters falling within the purview of a Department of State administered by such other Minister, and in addition it is provided that all such terms and conditions shall notwithstanding anything in any law contained be binding upon the State.

Another departure from our customary pattern of mining leases as far as natural oil is concerned—as is evident from clause 30—is that no provision will be made in natural oil mining leases for the payment to the State, in addition to income-tax, of a share in the profits, royalties or other form of compensation in respect of mining leases, but that all payments which are due to the State in terms of such a mining lease will be collected in the form of income-tax so that all payments to the Republic by overseas companies may be claimed as deductions as far as the payment of taxes by them in their homelands is concerned. Because it is in the interests of the country that the proposed agreements with regard to natural oil be finalized as soon as practicable it is provided in clause 189 of the Bill that the provisions which are applicable to natural oil shall immediately come into operation on the date of promulgation of the Act and need not, as will otherwise be the case with the Act, be put into operation formally.

There are often cases where the mineral rights in respect of land are held by a number of persons in undivided shares and where some of them cannot be traced. The result is that the co-holders of the mineral rights who want to exploit their mineral rights are prevented from doing so. Clause 15 (2) of the Bill now contains provisions in terms of which the Minister will be able to come to the assistance of such persons. Then there are also cases where the State and other persons hold mineral rights in undivided shares. Existing legislation does not make any provision at all in terms of which prospecting operations may be carried out on such land even if both the State and those other persons want prospecting operations to be carried out on that land. Clause 16 of the Bill now empowers the Minister to grant prospecting leases to the co-holder of the mineral rights or, with his consent, to other bodies and persons.

Act No. 55 of 1926—and now also the proposed new Act—grants the owners of land held with a reservation of mineral rights to the State the sole right to prospect or cause to prospect for those minerals and to receive mining leases. Notarial deeds whereby such owners transfer those rights to other persons —often companies—are registered in the office of the Registrar of Mining Titles, Johannesburg. It often happens, however, that owners demand such a high compensation from nominees that the State, the real holder of the mineral rights, has to be satisfied with a paltry compensation from mining leases when mining leases are granted to the nominees, because if the State should claim its rightful share in such cases, it would simply not be possible to exploit the lease sites at a profit. In order to prevent the State from suffering losses in this way clause 19 (2) of the Bill now provides that the Registrar of Mining Titles should refuse registration of the notarial deeds if the Government Mining Engineer has expressed the opinion that the terms and conditions contained in the deeds are to the detriment of the State’s interests.

It often requires prospecting operations over a period of years before the presence of minerals in paying quantities is proved and provision is now being made in clause 21 of the Bill—particularly to accommodate persons or bodies who are not well-provided with capital—to grant permission to prospectors to dispose of minerals lawfully recovered by them in the course of prospecting operations upon payment to the State, where deemed necessary, of the share of profits, royalty or other consideration determined by the Minister.

As you have most probably noticed from the report of the Commission of Inquiry one of the major, initial points of difference between my Department and the Chamber of Mines was the fact that the old mijnpacht principle was not embodied in the Bill again and that in its stead provision was made for the direct granting of mining leases to the holders of mineral rights. This matter was thoroughly investigated and I am pleased that I am able to say that the Chamber of Mines is no longer opposed to the proposed change. However, I do not want to elaborate about this matter at this stage because my colleague, who was the chairman of the said Commission, will have more to say about the matter.

In terms of the existing Act No. 55 of 1926 lessees of land on settlements in respect of which the State holds the mineral rights, and who have exercised the option of buying the land, also have, like the owners of such land, the exclusive right to prospect or cause to be prospected on the land but they do not have any claim to the mining leases until such time as they obtain the title deed, something which may take many years in many cases. In terms of the Bill such lessees will now also have a claim to mining rights but it is provided in clause 28 that the mining lease shall lapse if the lease under the Land Settlement Act lapses before the land has been paid in full and also that the lessee of the holding may not cede or transfer the mining lease if he has not yet paid the purchase price of the land in full. This precautionary measure is necessary to prevent a lessee on a settlement terminating his lease under the Land Settlement Act and possibly retaining a valuable right, namely the mining lease, over the land.

In terms of section 31 of the Gold Law, land which has been proclaimed a public diggings for precious metals may only be deproclaimed if the Government Mining Engineer has certified that precious metals were no longer being found on such land and that in his opinion there were no reasonable prospects that such metals would be found in paying quantities on such land. In practice it is often impossible—particularly on account of the second requirement—to issue such a certificate and as a result land which is urgently required for other purposes is sometimes locked up even if it no longer is in the interests of the mining industry. In terms of clause 44 mineralization or lack of mineralization in itself will no longer be the only or decisive factor as regards deproclamation but it will be possible to recommend and effect deproclamation if it is considered in the public interests to take such a step. The responsibility of making a recommendation in this connection will no longer rest on the Government Mining Engineer but will be entrusted to a committee consisting of the Secretary for Mines, the Government Mining Engineer and the Director of Geological Survey.

Under section 32 of the existing Gold Law only Whites can obtain claim licences to peg claims on proclaimed public diggings. In terms of clause 48 of the Bill Bantu and Coloured persons can now also obtain such licences in respect of land situated in their own areas, and as far as Coloured persons are concerned, also in respect of State land situated in the Cape Province. As has already been stated, the term “Coloured person” in the Bill includes any person who is not a White person or a Bantu.

For those of you who represent constituencies on the Witwatersrand and vicinity, the new provision in the Bill relating to trading on the mines will be of particular interest. A great deal of close attention was given to all representations received from the various organizations promoting the interests of dealers on mines and we found it feasible to make quite a number of concessions to them. In this connection legislation which is at present in operation in the Orange Free State and which is much more modern has been followed to a large extent. The chairman of the Commission will try to give an indication here what the points of difference were, but agreement has been reached.

In terms of section 41 of the Gold Law exemption from the payment of the State’s share of claim licence moneys must be granted to the holder of a mining title if, since the previous payment of those moneys, the holder has carried out work in connection with the mining or development of his land which, in the Mining Commissioner’s opinion, was necessary or sufficient. This exemption may be claimed even if the undertaking concerned is yielding large profits. Under the proposed new clause 178 of the Bill, the mining commissioners will have wider discretionary powers, as regards new mining undertakings, to grant exemption only in cases where assistance of this nature is really necessary. As a result of representations received from the Barberton Mining Association and on the recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry it has been decided, however, not to deprive existing mining interests of any exemptions or privileges to which they have been entitled up to the present time by virtue of the provisions of the Gold Law and in this respect clause 178 has been amended in a way which meets with the approval of the Barberton Mining Association and which will most probably also be acceptable to other interested parties.

Mr. Speaker, I have tried to explain the most important amendments which will be effected to the present Gold Law and mineral legislation as well as to the Natural Oil Act. They cover a wide field but general consent has been obtained and I trust that when this Bill has been placed on the Statute Book it will assist in bringing legislation into agreement with the mining practice of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, may I firstly take this opportunity of expressing the profound regret of this House at the death of nine mineworkers on the E.R.P.M. Mine over the week-end. I am sure that all hon. members will join with me in extending our sympathies to those people who were affected by this terrible disaster.

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the efforts of the Minister to explain this very heavy piece of legislation which has been placed before us to-day. This Bill which has only three words in its title, namely the Mining Rights Bill is probably one of the largest Bills ever to be tabled in this House. It is a document of 223 pages. It has 189 clauses. It has four schedules which alone cover ten pages. It is consolidating and amending. It repeals 43 laws totally and four laws are partially repealed. It has 17 chapters and covers a great variety of subjects, such as pegging, prospecting, mynpachten, mining leases, surface rights, water rights, trading and industrial sites and dealing in precious wrought metals. It deals with matters dating as far back as the Precious Minerals Act of 1898 and matters as recent as the Base Minerals Act Amendment Bill of 1966. This Bill was originally introduced in 1965 and even to-day we find that this Bill is the third edition of the Bill which came before us in 1965. It is substantially the same Bill but one or two minor alterations have been brought about. The Commission of Inquiry which followed the Select Committee studied the Bill very carefully over a long period of time and adopted it as an agreed measure. We on this side of the House will give it our blessing and we wish it well.

The history of the discovery of minerals and the subsequent development of our great mining industry over the last 100 years has also in a large measure been the history of South Africa. When one turns to page 212 of the Bill now before us, one can almost see mirrored in the formidable list of laws mentioned in the Third Schedule, the long and difficult road travelled by us over the past century in the way of mining legislation in this country. It is a fascinating history. What we have gone through in the past century in mining presents itself as a vast panorama of activity and progress upon which South Africa has been able to build, bolster and sustain its economy. We hope that what has been the result of development in the past will continue in the future. We pass from the days of the lone prospector, always adventurous, always optimistic and very often disappointed, who travelled the country with his pan, his pick and his hammer. He was very often disappointed but was always persevering and always hoping for better things. We pass from those days to the present day when we have the financial giants with all their help and everything that science can give in assisting them in the search for whichever precious or base metals or precious stones they are after. They have geologists, physicists, chemists and the latest and best scientific equipment. But even so these people, with all the help they have available, are still very often in the same position as the lone prospector, and they also have their disappointments, as we have seen recently in the search for oil.

Order! I am sorry, but I cannot allow hon. members to converse at the top of their voices.

The days of the pick and shovel are virtually gone and to-day we have the days of the bulldozer and the giant rigs taking the place of these people who worked so hard to build the foundations of this vast industry of which South Africa is so very proud. From the few ounces of gold that were originally found and used for trading purposes, we find to-day that we measure production by millions of tons of crushed ore and millions of ounces of gold—almost the lifeblood of our country. We have passed from the scratching of base metals in remote areas to the vast undertakings of Phalaborwa. That has been a wonderful experience for people interested in mining in South Africa and I think what we have learnt here we have passed on to the rest of the world and many countries to-day seek our assistance in the development of their mining industries. At this stage I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister, and his Department, and especially, if I may be permitted to mention their names, Mr. Viljoen, Mr. Uys and Mr. Coertze for the long trek that they had undertaken to bring this legislation to us here. It has been an immense task and I think that they have done it well. I feel that all of us must compliment them on their efforts.

Mr. Speaker, even as it is placed before us to-day, this Bill is not one of the gems of lucidity. It is clearer than many Bills that have gone before but it is not an easy Bill to understand. It is still a very complicated measure and it requires careful study by those who wish to become fully acquainted with all its provisions and their ramifications. One cannot, of course, consolidate and modernize so many laws and provide for the protection of so many existing types of rights, as is being done in this case, and at the same time produce a simple and uncomplicated consolidated mining law. As existing rights are replaced by or converted into rights under the new Mining Rights Act, however, the position I hope will gradually become simplified and it may therefore take a few years, as I see it, before the real value of this big step forward which we are taking to-day will be fully appreciated. An example of the complication has been briefly mentioned by the Minister but I would like to read paragraph 3 of chapter 1 of the Report of the Commission to show how complicated and interwoven and at times at cross-purposes the laws have been—

That is just one example of how these laws have been complicated in the past, and I am certain, even though I have read this passage, that most hon. members are still unaware of how difficult it is to interpret that type of law from province to province.

There are difficulties with the mynpachten. One of the other hon. members on this side of the House who is going to speak will deal with that subject.

Mineral exploitation is a terminatory activity, and we have already come so far on the road of mining development that one is inclined to wonder whether this piece of legislation has not come too late to be of much benefit to our country, and we may well ask why it was not introduced decades ago. I know, however, that some earnest attempts were made in the past in this direction, but these were nullified and set back for two main reasons, namely, firstly the last war that we passed through, and secondly, since then we have had this great shortage of manpower, and perhaps, also because of lack of the will to undertake this type of work. There had to be a driving force and there had to be people who could be found to do this arduous task, and I am pleased to say that it has to-day been carried out successfully.

Moreover, I am not one of the prophets of doom; I am not a pessimist. As we have found great deposits of a variety of metals, both base and precious, in the past, so do I think that the future holds great things for us. When one mine closes, we will find another one to open up. To me, Sir, South Africa has only had the surface scratched so far as its riches are concerned. I hope that this Bill will be of great use to us, and that we will be able to use it from time to time, as the years go on. There is sure to be conflict of opinion about what is going to happen in future and, in all probability, after this legislation has been in existence for a year or two, it will have to be amended again. But we will be prepared for that and I am sure that we will be able to overcome the difficulties that are going to be presented to us.

I now want to refer to one or two specific provisions in this Bill, as the hon. the Minister did, and I want to say that we on this side of the House, after studying the Bill, are not going to oppose any of the clauses contained in the Bill. One of the provisions in which I have taken an interest is clause 15, which prescribes the steps that may be taken when land can be conveniently exploited by an adjacent existing mine, but the holder of the mineral rights in respect of the land concerned is not prepared to agree to such an arrangement, and yet does not avail himself of the right to exploit his own minerals. I have taken a special interest in this clause because, while I agree in principle that in such cases it should be possible for alternative steps to be taken in the national interest, as provided for in this clause, great care should also be taken to ensure that the holder of the mineral rights, although he is unco-operative at the time, is nevertheless treated as fairly as possible. I am glad to say that I am satisfied that this will indeed be the case if we follow the provisions of the Bill. He will first have to be called upon to prospect his land, or cause it to be prospected. He must be given at least three months’ notice and an opportunity to make representations, and, if after that, a prospecting lease is granted to another person, he, the holder of the mineral rights, will be entitled to a rent to be fixed by the Minister on the recommendation of the Mining Leases Board, made after having considered any representations by the holder of the mineral rights. If a payable discovery is made, and mining rights exercised under clause 25 (1) (e), the holder of the mineral rights will, under clause 31 (1), be entitled to an amount equal to one-quarter of the moneys received by the State as lease consideration. He will receive one-quarter of the moneys received by the state as lease consideration, that is the share of the profits, royalties, or other considerations. This must be regarded as quite generous, after having regard to the fact that no expenditure will be incurred or capital risked, by the holder of the mineral rights in question.

As the Minister said, we on the Witwatersrand are indeed concerned about the provisions of the Bill in regard to trading on mining ground, as embodied in clause 139, and we feel that, on the whole, they are fairly satisfactory from everybody’s point of view. I personally welcome the abolition of the form of prohibition against the mine trader having an interest in more than one mine trading store. Some of these traders are facing difficult times, and I feel that this relaxation in their favour is fully warranted.

With the disappearance of activity at some of the mines—and some of these mines I have visited myself—one finds that housing on mining property has become derelict. They have become an eyesore. I feel that, in view of the fact that there are very many of these houses on mine property, they should not be allowed to deteriorate and with the shortage of housing that we find to-day, I feel that mining concerns ought to be made to keep their houses in good repair, so that those people who wish to hire them will have the chance to go into them if they so wish.

On one mine particularly there is a large housing scheme, and this mine is what is termed to-day a marginal mine. I wonder whether the Minister, in conjunction with the Minister of Social Welfare and the Minister in charge of housing, cannot see whether it is not possible to convert one of these housing schemes on one of the marginal mines into an area where we can house those elderly people especially those who are being hounded out of their small rooms and flats in the centre of town, because the buildings in most cases are coming down, or, alternatively, where the rents have gone up to such an extent that they have been unable to pay the rentals demanded. Steps should be taken to see if they cannot be accommodated in these houses which at times stand empty on mine property. It is something which is well worth going into. The ground is available and a shopping centre could be built around these houses, and these elderly people, especially pensioners, could be given the opportunity of staying there. There will be a community of interest. You will find all the elderly people living there having some interest in one another and I am sure they will be very happy if such a scheme can be developed.

The same applies to the demolition of the mine compounds for Natives. I think before we knock any property down which can house people we should see whether it cannot be converted to more suitable accommodation. Rather than destroy the existing homes, I think we should rather clean them up and use them for Bantu homes there.

I am a little perturbed about what is going to happen in the Bantu homelands as far as mining activity is concerned. The Minister has touched on it, but these are points I would like the Minister to explain to us in his reply. The Bantu Trust would probably be asked to undertake the development of a possible mining area in one of the homelands. If that is the case, how will the Trust go about it, with this talk of separate development, and the opposition by the Government to our statement that in this type of development you cannot help but have economic integration? How is it possible for the Minister to develop any of these possible mining areas without White capital and White “know-how” and White technicians, and where are these White people going to live? Will they live in the homeland, or will they be put in the border areas and become virtually migratory labour in the homelands? That is the sort of thing I would like to know. [Interjection.] This is a simple question and I just want to know how it will work. The Minister probably has the reply to that. There is a strong possibility that oil may be discovered on the continental shelf and it may be round about the Zululand coast or the Transkei coast. If that happens, could I please have an explanation of how the White man is going to help the Black man to develop that without White capital; and remember how much the mining houses have to put in to start a mine and how much the oil companies have to put in before they find oil. It is a simple matter for the Minister to explain to us how it will work and I look forward with interest to his reply.

Those, briefly, are the matters that I wanted to bring to the notice of the House. Once again, my congratulations to those responsible for this Bill. We will not oppose it and we wish it well.

As chairman of the Commission which examined the Mining Rights Bill I should like to express a few thoughts at the Second Reading, but before doing so you will allow me, Sir, to express my appreciation towards the members of the Commission who had to perform a very difficult task under very difficult circumstances. I am saying the task was a difficult one, but the circumstances were even more difficult in fact because, as it will appear from the report, the Commission had to carry out its task on the eve of a general election; but more than that, it was also a general election which was preceded by a number of party nominations in which various members of the Commission were involved and which made their task so much more difficult. As a matter of fact, one of the members of the Commission was eliminated at such a party nomination. Another one of the members was eliminated in the election itself. In this way it came about that all three hon. members who were nominated by the Opposition to serve on the Commission fell by the wayside in the election and the preceding nominations. From a party political point of view, of course, I cannot deplore that fact, but I want to say at this juncture that from the point of view of the Commission I am very sorry that Messrs. Ross, Taurog and Gorshel are not here this afternoon to share in the discussion of this measure. I want to pay them the compliment of stating that they were very zealous members and that their cooperation with us was most cordial.

The task allotted to the Commission itself was equally difficult. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that with the exception of a few officials from the Department of Mines and a few experts from the Chamber of Mines there were few people who really had a proper and thorough knowledge of this subject. For that reason one can imagine how difficult it was for the Commission, how much time the members had to devote to it and how much preparation they had to do in order to acquaint themselves to some extent with the subject with which they had been charged. Fortunately they had the guidance and support of the officials of the Department, and I am thinking here in particular of Mr. Uys, who was mainly responsible for the drafting of the Bill. I am also thinking of Mr. Coetzer, the Secretary, of Mr. Viljoen and Mr. Marais and Mr. Van der Walt, as well as various other people who were a very great help to the Commission. I want to convey my appreciation to them across the floor of the House.

To a very large extent the measure is an agreed measure, on which all the parties have been consulted over the years, the Department of Mines itself, the Chamber of Mines, the S.A. Agricultural Union and various other bodies. It is to a very large extent an agreed measure. However, it then came about that a number of items remained which could not be agreed upon. It was chiefly with a view to these items that the Bill was referred to the Commission in order to take evidence and ultimately give finality.

I should like to refer to a few of these matters. The first one is the question of mynpachten. The Department of Mines felt that mynpachten were part of an obsolete mining rights system; the Chamber of Mines, however, felt that they would very much like to retain the mynpach, because, as they put it, it gave the owner intrinsic mineral rights. The history of mynpachten is a very interesting one. It dates from the previous century and the days of the Transvaal Republic, which adopted the attitude that the owner of the mineral rights was and remained the owner of the precious metals but that at the same time it was only the State which had the right to exploit those precious metals. As compensation for this curtailment of his rights it was then decided to allow him to mark off for himself a so-called mining right which was originally one-tenth of the surface area. In those days it was one-tenth of a farm—and in those days farms were large, large enough to accommodate a self-supporting mine. But as sub-division took place with the passage of time it occasionally became necessary to increase the mynpacht and where it had initially been one-tenth it was increased to one-fifth by the passing in 1908 of the Transvaal Gold Act, which was also made applicable to the Free State. By 1934, also as a result of further sub-division, the farms were so small that it was decided to increase it still further from one-fifth to one-quarter of the mineralized area. Subsequently it was found that even this was not enough; that a further additional area had to be given to the mynpacht holder in terms of mining leases. That was subsequently done and it took place on condition that he had to surrender and forfeit his mynpacht. Since it has become very clear that the matter is a complicated one and that the mynpacht no longer functions effectively to-day, the Department has come forward with the proposal that it would be much better and much more effective if one were rather to give the owner of the mineral rights the absolute right to a mynpacht, which is what is being included in this measure now on the recommendation of the Commission. The owner of the mineral rights is granted an absolute right in regard to mining leases on condition that a paying quantity of precious metal is found on condition that the Minister is satisfied with his plan of exploitation and on condition that he has the necessary pecuniary resources at his disposal. I am glad to be able to say—this was one of the key issues between the Department on the one hand and the Chamber of Mines on the other —that the Commission (including hon. members on the opposite side of the House, such as Messrs. Ross, Gorshel, Taurog) recommended unanimously that the mynpacht be done away with and that we accept this new mining right, i.e. that an absolute right to mining leases be granted to the owner of mineral rights.

I then come to the second matter in regard to which there was a considerable difference of opinion. Strangely enough the Chamber of Mines and the Department of Mines were in agreement on this but they encountered strong opposition from the mine traders. The Chamber of Mines and the Department proposed that the mine owners be allowed to maintain what they called a dry goods canteen in the compounds in order to sell food, toilet articles and various other commodities to the Bantu. There was another proposal, i.e. that the owners, occupiers or lessees of land should be allowed to sell their wares, including livestock, on proclaimed land. There was fierce opposition on the part of the mine dealers and various other bodies, such as the concessionary shop owners, to these particular provisions which were being inserted at the suggestion of both the Department and the Chamber of Mines. The Commission acknowledged that the mine traders and the concessionary shops were right. The Commission’s major consideration was the fact that the concessionary shop owners had paid an expensive price for their rights and that the mine traders had over the years built up businesses where they relied on the patronage of the compound Bantu. Consequently Section 139 was amended and accepted in its present form.

The hon. the Minister referred to prospecting mining leases. The previous legislation made provision for a prospecting mining lease. It is a prospecting agreement which one enters into and in which one includes in final form what the terms and conditions will be of the mining lease to follow upon that agreement. It was a reasonable absurdity because, as one can understand, a mining lease is based in the first place on whether or not the discovery will be a paying one and, in the second place, on the depth of the excavations which have to be made and, in the third place, on the expected life of the mine. It requires little imagination to realize that it is an impossible task for the mining lease board to determine in advance, perhaps even before a single borehole has been sunk, what all these conditions would be. Strangely enough the Chamber of Mines were eager to retain this right although little use had been made of this Section. The Commission found against it, but the Commission with a view to the search for oil and with a view to the fact, as the hon. the Minister has already said, that people want to know in advance precisely what the terms will be, subsequently saw fit to recommend that the prospecting mining lease should continue to exist, and it was then included in clause 14. I am grateful for the fact that the hon. the Minister has further seen fit to extend this particular clause in order to give better effect to the Commission’s intention.

The Commission also paid very particular attention to another matter which was concerned with two requests made by the Chamber of Mines—questions which arise when a mining right lapses or when land is deproclaimed. It had become customary for a mining right owner to surrender the major part of his mining right, retaining only a small portion thereof. In that connection he then retained all his surface rights intact. The Chamber of Mines intimated that they would like this state of affairs to continue. They would like their surface rights to remain intact in case the gold price should be increased. They would then be ready and waiting and would be able to continue operations immediately because the installation would still be there. After hearing evidence the Commission came to the conclusion that it would be very unfair towards the surface right owners. Their land has perhaps been occupied for the best of 30 or even 40 years and now it has to be occupied for an even longer period as a result of the retention of his surface rights. He then pays only this small amount in respect of the mining right which he retains. We felt that it was unfair and I think the House will agree with us in our recommendations. The Commission consequently recommended that whether a portion was surrendered or whether the entire mining right was retained, the mineral right owner would pay the surface right owner his 30 cents per morgen per month over the whole of the mining right. That remains a written provision. It is a tested provision and the Commission has approved of it as such.

There was another objection on the part of the Commission to this request. I want hon. members to follow this point very carefully. If a particular mining company is in possession of all the surface rights and a small portion of the mining rights and the gold price were in fact to be increased, with the result that a new mining lease would have to be negotiated for the rest of the property, that mine owner would be in a particularly favourable position. He would practically be able to enforce the mining lease on his own terms, for another company wishing to enter the picture would simply not have the opportunity to do so because there would be no surface right possibilities. There would be no room for the other company for housing, slime dumps, etc. It was then felt that, since he would be in such a strong position, the provision would have to remain as it was in the previous Act. There was a further request to which the hon. member for Rosettenville referred. The request was to the effect that with the deproclamation or cancellation of the mining rights the holder of mineral rights be allowed, in respect of as much of the surface area as he needed in order to maintain houses and ensure their occupation, to expropriate that land at the value it would have had had it been unimproved land. The Commission gave this matter its very careful attention for the very same reason the hon. member for Rosettenville mentioned. There is a shortage of housing and one wants to maintain as much housing as it is possible to maintain. Once again, however, it became apparent how unfair this would be to the owner of the surface area. His land had already been occupied for many years. Now, after it had already been occupied for 30 or 40 years, he was being compelled by means of expropriation to give up that land at its unimproved value to the holder of the surface rights permit. Fortunately it is a problem which exists only on the Rand, i.e. on the old mines. In respect of the new mines in the Free State and those which have been developed in the Klerksdorp and the Kinross areas, the mining companies have adopted another attitude. They first purchase the land and subsequently erect houses instead of merely obtaining a surface right permit in order to carry on with their housing schemes.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to create the impression that everything proposed by the Chamber of Mines was simply pushed to one side by the Commission. The fact of the matter is that the preparation of this legislation took place over a long period of time. During the preparatory period the Chamber of Mines was continually consulted and many concessions were made to them at their own request.

The Department felt that in regard to these few cases which I have mentioned they could make no further concessions. After the commission had considered it and gone into the matter very thoroughly it also conceded that the Department was right. There are various other provisions, I do not want to refer to all of them, but there is one which is very interesting and I nevertheless want to mention it.

Representations were received from the Association of Building Societies in respect of damage to mortgaged properties during prospecting work or during mining operations. On their representations the Commission decided to recommend—and this has been inserted in the Bill, I think it is in Clauses 17 and 33—that any compensation arising from any suit for damages to a property as a result of prospecting work or as a result of mining operations would constitute a first liability against any mortgage on such property. I think that this was a very useful and fair provision. Where a building society or any private person holds a mortgage on a property and that property is damaged by prospecting work or mining operations then his claim has priority in respect of the property in question.

Sir, that is more or less the subject in regard to which there was a difference of opinion and on which the Commission gave finality. I have mentioned to the House the reasons why they did so. In conclusion I merely want to say that I think that the legal profession will welcome this measure very cordially. In the past when a client had to be advised in regard to one of these matters…

Are you not making it easier now for the client?

It makes it easier for the lawyers. Mr. Speaker, in the past when a lawyer or any member of the legal profession had to advise his client in regard to a mining right, he had to pick his way through 30 or 40 acts, some of which were not even available. He was taking a big chance if he advised his client without first consulting the mining commissioner for the area. That has been the case in the past and we can readily admit to it. In future the Mining Rights Act will be available in one document. It will be available in both official languages. I think the legal profession will welcome it. I want to appeal to the legal profession to make an immediate study of this Act when it is placed on the Statute Book in order to acquaint themselves with its provisions. I do not agree with the hon. member for Rosettenville where he has stated that it is still very obscure. I believe that anybody consulting this Act in order to determine what a particular provision is will in fact find it very thoroughly set out in this measure. I am very grateful for the work which the Department has done. The Commission was only able to add a small amount to what had already been done. I am therefore very grateful for the work which the Department has done in this connection.

Mr. Speaker, I should first of all like to thank the hon. the Minister of Justice for the words of appreciation in respect of the three members of the Commission who are no longer members of this House, Messrs. Taurog, Gorshel and Ross. I am sure that they will feel the same satisfaction as the other members of the Commission and the other people who have taken part in the preparation of this Bill when this Bill is finally passed by this House and becomes an Act.

The Bill as such will certainly be welcomed by all those who are engaged in the seeking for and winning of our natural underground wealth. One wonders why it has been so long before a Bill of this nature was introduced because if one reads the Report of the Commission, one finds that it says that:

It is almost unbelievable in the context of remarks such as this and the fact that some of the legislation was out of print and some of it was in high Dutch and not understood by many people to-day, that the mining industry managed to make such fantastic progress in the past. This Bill is partly consolidating and partly consists of a number of improved procedures and some of the changes do give rise to a certain amount of nostalgia. The hon. the Minister of Justice dealt at great length with mynpachte and I am glad that he did so because the term mynpacht in itself has a sentimental attachment for a lot of people who were interested in mining in the early days. I myself can remember hearing as a youngster uncles who were interested in mining talking about the mynpacht. This was the cornerstone on which the family wealth was going to be established. This was something which was dear to everybody. It was a right which belonged to the owner of the mineral rights. But its use has disappeared over the years and during the past nine years only 25 mynpachte were registered. It is one of the historical things of the past, which has got to make way for modernization. Although this Bill was unanimously adopted within the Commission, it was certainly not a completely agreed measure amongst the parties who were interested in it. Those interested parties however did not have ample opportunity, as the Minister of Justice has told us, for presenting their views and being heard. I think one can say when one reads the Report of the Commission and tries to read the Bill intelligently, because it is still a very difficult Bill to understand, that the Commission did, to a large extent, maintain the balance between the divergent points of view and helped to produce a Bill which was realistic and fair.

The Bill covers an enormous amount of ground. It is a sort of “cradle to the grave” of mining. Every aspect of mining from prospecting and leasing to trading rights and the protecting of trading concessions and the eventual termination of the mine is dealt with in the Bill. Of course those parties who had different interests quite naturally tried to see that their point of view was upheld in the discussions that took place. I think that the Bill as it finally appeared as a Bill which is fair. Some of the new provisions will I think be more welcome than others. The old provision that only a certain number of claims could be pegged, as is rightly said in the Report, had become a farce. One could in effect peg as many claims as one wanted and the position has now been treated realistically by giving a person the right to do so. Another good provision is the one that provides that the Minister can ask for additional claim licences if claims in his opinion are not being adequately worked. We do not want the mineral wealth of this country to lie fallow; we want it to be used for the benefit of the country. Particularly interesting is of course the inclusion in a mining district of any portion of the sea as defined in the Seashore Act and the inclusion of the continental shelf. The sea and the continental shelf are areas which are going to concern us more and more as time goes by. I think that it is fairly generally accepted today, perhaps wrongly, that if there is a possibility of oil wealth in this country, it is likely to come from our continental shelf. It is something in which we have been able to interest people from abroad and some of the biggest organizations in the world are coming to South Africa to help in the search for oil.

The new clause 14 (c) is, I think, a realistic clause. I think that we have had to take cognizance of the fact that international financing and international development take place in a pattern of their own. People from abroad, when they have to invest millions of rand in possibilities and not probabilities, want an adequate reward, a safeguard and assistance before they get started. As the hon. the Minister told us this afternoon it was necessary for him to deal with such matters as customs, taxation, repatriation of funds and other items such as immigration and labour, as they are all factors which have to be dealt with in international agreements where large amounts of capital are being spent on possible potential. I was also glad to hear from the hon. Minister that although the Government is now given power to mine for precious metals, it is not the intention of the Government to do so except under very exceptional circumstances. I suppose one can infer from the remarks of the hon. the Minister as a natural corollary that despite some remarks one hears from National Party benches, there is no intention of nationalizing the gold mines.

I think I must add my congratulations to those already voiced in respect of the Department of Mines. I do not think that this Bill could have seen the light of day without the work of these officials. They are the experts and the people with the necessary experience. They have associated themselves in producing this Bill with the other side of the picture, viz. the Chamber of Mines and those interested in mining, and so we have a Bill which is going to make it easier for people to operate mines. It is a Bill which is going to make it easier for people who want to continue or start exploring the potential of our underground wealth and it is going to make it easier for the natural resources of this country to be developed. We look forward to the continued development of our mining industry and we wish this Bill well.

Mr. Speaker, there is quite a good deal of unanimity as far as the provisions of this Bill are concerned. The most important points of unanimity are of course that this Bill is a comprehensive measure and is also one which is very complicated. That is why it is of course difficult for anybody who does not have the necessary legal background to understand all the implications of this measure. An attempt is here being made to introduce modern and uniform, and perhaps I should also say, simplified legislation for the obtaining of prospecting and mining rights in the Republic and to provide for the many matters incidental thereto. Nevertheless when studying the Bill one finds oneself time and again in a maze. However, there are a few aspects of the Bill which have stimulated my interest and which I should like to bring to the attention of the House.

We find that there is a lot of ground in the Republic, the surface and mineral rights of which belong to different persons. This state of affairs usually leads to a conflict of interests and can also be conducive to much dissatisfaction.

Now it is the case that in order to be able to mine effectively the mining company must acquire the right to be able to utilize the surface area of the land for a variety of purposes. The State must see to it that the mining company acquires those rights and it is in the interests of the company as well as of the State that it acquires those rights, otherwise the exploiting of minerals or gold can be made difficult or even impossible.

On the other hand the land-owner also has rights which cannot be given away summarily. In this Bill an attempt is being made to strike a sound balance between the various interest groups. An attempt is being made here to ensure, and to a certain extent to entrench the rights of every interest group. In this regard I should like to refer to the fact that where ground is held under mining title in the Transvaal the State as it were appropriates to itself the trading rights on that particular land and then sells it by public auction.

In the Free State again another system is in force. It has been applied since 1936 and presents no problem. In the Orange Free State the owners of proclaimed private land have the sole right to trade on that land. The Department of Mines is only concerned in reserving in its favour the trading site.

In this Bill the Free State system is now being made applicable throughout the entire Republic, but it is being done in such a way that existing rights in the Transvaal which have been bought from the State are protected. This amendment will eliminate a great deal of confusion and ensure the rights of the landowners.

In the second place further important amendments are also being proposed in regard to owners’ reservations. The owners’ reservations are being insured and entrenched in the provisions of clause 47 of the Bill. It reads as follows—

(There shall,) subject to the provisions of this section, be reserved to the owner or lessee of the land concerned and his successors in title the use—

1. (a) of any homestead on the land and its curtilage;
2. (b) of all buildings capable of beneficial use, cemeteries, silos, threshing sites, dipping tanks, reservoirs, watering troughs and kraals situated outside any such homestead and its curtilage…
3. (c) for agricultural purposes or purposes incidental thereto, of all land which has been under bona fide cultivation for the two years immediately preceding the date of the notice given to the owner or lessee in terms of section 46, or which was placed under bona fide cultivation not less than two years immediately prior to such date but which has been rested or allowed to lie fallow during the whole or part of the first-mentioned period of two years as part of a recognized system of cultivation followed in the area in which the land is situated…

The provisions contained in this clause are of major importance to the land-owner. It happens quite frequently that when a land-owner sells his mineral rights he also relinquishes certain surface rights which as owners’ reservations could have been of great value to him.

On the other hand provision must also be made for the mining companies to acquire the essential surface rights. Provision is made for that in clause 90. For these surface rights—those in connection with mining and allied rights—the mining company pays nothing. The land-owner receives compensation out of the rent paid by the mining company to the State, rent which is paid in respect of mining rights. This rent amounts to 30c per morgen per month.

Under the existing Act, which we now hope is going to be replaced, this rent was payable with effect from the date on which the leasehold was signed. This provision sometimes caused the land-owner much discomfort and damage because, for understandable reasons, it could sometimes happen that a very long period of time elapsed before a mine-lease was signed. In the meantime the mining company had wanted to make preparations on the land so that working operations could be proceeded with as quickly as possible. A start could be made with shaft-sinking, roads could be made, compounds erected and so on. The land-owner had to experience all the inconvenience. He no longer had the use of those portions of his land but he did not as yet receive any rental because there had been a delay in signing the mining lease and payment of that rent was only compulsory when the mining lease had been registered.

In this respect this Bill offers the land-owner a greater degree of protection because it is now being provided that the date of commencement of payment of rent be stipulated by the Minister. In order to protect the mining company this date may not be earlier than the date on which the company is notified in writing that its application has been successful. What it amounts to is that the land-owner is compensated from the moment that mining activities on his farm commence. That is why one welcomes the change envisaged in clause 26 (1) (a) and (4) in terms of which the Minister will be able to lay down an earlier date of commencement for the payment of rent.

In addition the rights of settlers are also taken into consideration thoroughly in this clause. Reference has already been made to this by the hon. the Minister in the speech he made here.

In clause 26 (1) (b) (ii) it is provided that the rent shall be paid over by the mining commissioner—

That is a right which the settlers do not have in terms of existing legislation.

This measure affords sound protection of the interests of the land-owner as well as of the interests of the mining company or of the exploiter. An effort has been made to strike a sound balance, and, in view of the scope and the complicated nature of the Bill, the Minister and the Department of Mines is deserving of praise and appreciation for the Herculean task which they have accomplished.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill, which has been a long time in its making, appears to meet with the approval of both sides of the House. My contribution to-day is to inquire into the thinking at the back of the hon. the Minister’s mind as to why the perpetuation of discrimination against the Coloured man is going to be carried on in terms of this Bill.

We are dealing to-day with mining rights. This Bill claims to regulate prospecting and mining for precious metals, base minerals and natural oil. I cannot understand why, in the year 1967, where this measure is supposed to be a consolidation of old Acts, some of which were in a language which is now a dead language and which could only be followed by persons in the department with long and varied experience, why these discriminatory clauses were not abandoned.

I refer particularly to clause 7, which says that a prospecting licence cannot be given to a person under 18, nor to Coloured persons or to Bantu, except in the case of Bantu in their own areas and in the case of Coloured persons in their own areas and on Crown or State land in the Cape Province. Now that sounds a nice and happy thought, and when this particular clause was drafted I think there were people who thought that things should just be left as they are. But, with the experience the Coloured people have had in connection with prospecting for diamonds, I am beginning to wonder what sort of a deal the Coloured people are going to get in terms of this Bill which deals with the prospecting for minerals and precious metals. I see also that we are dealing here with the discovery of oil or natural gas. The Minister knows that in Namaqualand no Coloured persons were permitted to go in there to prospect, although it was their own area, and that White persons got the prospecting rights, the concessions. I do not want to cover all this ground again or to rake over old embers, but I can assure the Minister that this type of legislation fills the Coloured person with alarm. Not only is he unaware of the fact that it existed in the old legislation in the Transvaal and the Free State, where they were absolutely excluded, and in Natal where they were partially excluded from anything of this type but he now sees himself excluded again. The fact remains that Coloured persons to-day are intelligent. They have ideas and the same ambitions. Without any doubt they would make discoveries themselves. I went to the trouble of ascertaining what would be the procedure if a Coloured man made a discovery of anything which is of any value to the country, and I discovered—and I should like the Minister to confirm or deny it—that the best he can expect, if he is not in a Coloured area or in an area which has already been given away by way of concessions, to White consortiums or companies, would be to get a discoverer’s right. When one goes back in the history of this country, one realizes that many discoveries of precious stones, minerals and metals have been made by Coloured persons. I can give the famous example of the Kimberley Mine, where the Colesberg party led by Rawstone were sitting on top of the mine but did not know it was there. It was a Black man or a Coloured man who came along on a Sunday morning and pointed out what there was there. As a result we have the great Kimberley Mine, which was the making of South Africa.

Will the hon. member please confine himself to the Bill?

I am drawing the parallel. I am trying to say that the legislation precludes all Coloured persons. The section says that no prospecting permit shall be issued under subsection (2) to any person under 18 or any Coloured person or any corporate body or company in which Coloured persons hold the controlling interest except in respect of State land in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope or private land the ownership of which is vested in a Coloured person, or an association of Coloured persons or a corporate body or company in which Coloured persons hold the controlling interest.

What is wrong with that?

Everything is wrong with it. That is my whole plea, and I can quote examples to show that other discoveries have been made by persons who were not White. That is the whole theme of my remarks. Now, I believe that this Bill is a good one. I have read it through from cover to cover and I have read the Blue Book which explains it clause by clause. I know what is in here, but it just simply makes provision for White persons and White corporate bodies and White associations of people.

And White areas.

What is the White area? I went to “White South Africa” last evening and I was surprised to see that nine out of ten there were Coloureds. However, I do not want to introduce a controversial note, I would just like the Minister to give us some indication of the thinking behind this provision that Coloured persons should be so excluded. Who are the people who go round to make these discoveries and who sit on the koppies and in the dongas and see these formations and wonder what they are? The discovery at Bells-bank was made by a Coloured person, as we know. Under this Bill, if a Coloured man discovers anything, that is the limit of his interest. He then has to go to some White man and ask him to see what he can do. I feel this is a mistake in this modern age when the country is doing its level best in every possible direction and spending millions, to exclude a whole section of the people from looking for wealth, the material we need so badly. Who is to know that every goldfield has already been discovered? Who is to know that every diamond discovery has been made? Who can say that every other precious metal has already been discovered? Who is to say that a hole in the middle of Athlone cannot produce oil or gas? In my humble opinion, that is the most likely site to look for it, because it was once under the sea. I do not in any way disparage anything in this Bill, because I have gone to the trouble of finding out the background to it and I know the people involved in it. It is a good piece of legislation for one group of people, but for the other section it is thoroughly bad. For 3 million Whites there can be nothing better; it can win an Oscar.

You are just trying to make a little political propaganda.

I am establishing the fact that 1½ million Coloured people are excluded from the discovery of mineral wealth in this country. The other point I wish to make is that in the unlikely event of a Coloured group or consortium getting the right to do something, it can only be in Coloured areas, and then it is subject to the approval of the Minister of Coloured Affairs.

On State land.

The hon. member should investigate what is happening on State land in regard to the diamond concessions. Then he would not talk so much. Those of us who work among the Coloured people look at all this type of legislation with a microscopic eye, but one does not have to use a microscope to see the trends of thinking. I can well understand that before Union the Free State and the Transvaal particularly excluded Coloured people by legislation, but why do we perpetuate this ancient idea? Why do we humiliate these people by specifically saying that they should be excluded? Because that is what we are doing. I appeal to the Minister to accept an amendment at the appropriate stage where we can delete references to Coloured persons. If a Coloured person is sufficiently enterprising and can raise the money—and many of them can—to conduct prospecting operations, and he makes a discovery, let him have the benefit of it. I can tell you this, Sir, that many farmers are only too glad when Coloured prospectors say: “I think there is such-and-such a thing on your land; may I have a look”. That has happened before, and it will continue to happen. But now we are going to legislate them out, finally and conclusively. In the past I do not think the position was very serious because we had not got ourselves into the position where it was so essential and so necessary to make every possible discovery that we could.

To conclude my remarks, I would just like to say to the hon. the Minister that I do hope he will use his influence to persuade his colleagues in the Cabinet to forget this compartmentalized thinking and to leave the Coloured man alone and to stop mentioning his name on every possible occasion in order to have him excluded from this, that or the other thing. That type of thinking is out of date. The hon. the Minister may have a good reason. I would like to hear it. Finally, I would like to say this to the hon. the Minister: Will he please accept an amendment to delete the references to Coloureds. If he does delete them, this will be a first-class piece of legislation which can be a credit to him and all those associated with him.

I do not want to reply at once to the hon. member who has just sat down, because I do not think it is necessary to reply to him. He tried to create the impression that he had made out a grand case. But I shall leave it at that. I want to confine myself to this legislation, which I regard as a measure of tremendous value to South Africa. It is an exceptional bit of legislation, or should I rather say, chunk of legislation. It deals with the largest single industry in the country, i.e. the mining industry, which is of decisive value in our economy. In the past century the development of mining has reached unprecedented heights, and it actually goes without saying that the legislation regulating it should keep pace with it, and I may therefore associate myself with those who have expressed their surprise at the fact that there were so many laws regulating these matters in South Africa and that uniform legislation in all the Provinces had not been placed on the Statute Book long ago.

South Africa’s common law derives from the countries of our origin, and in those countries of origin there was virtually no noteworthy mining industry. Holland. the country from which our common law derives, Roman-Dutch Law, mined some coal on a small scale. Rome, the other part from which our common law, Roman-Dutch Law. derives. had quarries where marble was extracted, and silver was also mined on a small scale. The bit of law relating to minerals which is contained in all the various sources of Roman-Dutch Law can be written down on one sheet. But fortunately Roman-Dutch Law laid down certain basic principles in respect of ownership and its system of proprietary laws, which provided a sound foundation on which we could continue building our legislation in South Africa in order to formulate laws relating to minerals. The present measure will offer a rich source of study to law students who want to determine how the old Roman-Dutch Law with its system of proprietary laws and personal laws has penetrated in the regulation of our law relating to minerals, as contained in this measure. This measure is not so much a consolidating measure; nor is it a measure consolidating the legislation of all the different Provinces. In point of fact it is legislation which merely substitutes laws already in existence. In the Cape Province there is legislation, the Mining Leases Act of 1865, which is still in existence, and then there is the Precious Minerals Act of 1898; these are the two principal Acts relating to mineral law in the Cape Province, but both of them are Acts formulated in correspondence with the English Law system. In Natal there was the Natal Mines Act of 1899—the principal Act in that Province—which was also in accordance with the English laws. But in the Transvaal we had the Precious and Base Metals Act of 1908, and that Act is still in force to-day, in the Orange Free State as well. All those Acts laid down divergent regulations on the subject, and it goes without saying that the various Acts of the different Provinces were conflicting in many respects; they were not founded on the same basis at all, but the basis of this Bill—and I should like to emphasize that—is the Transvaal Precious and Base Metals Act of 1908. It is also of great significance that our legislation will now be founded on that old Transvaal Act, because in that Province the development of mining and the mining industry reached the greatest heights, and it goes without saying that the experience gained as a result of that legislation must be decisive in laying the foundation for this measure, which will now be of application to the entire Republic of South Africa. But the Precious and Base Metals Act of 1908 of the Transvaal, which is now also in force in the Orange Free State, was in turn based on two Acts of the old Transvaal Republic, i.e. the “Wet op Onedele Metale” of 1897, and the old Transvaal “Goudwet” of 1898. If one studies the provisions of those two republican Acts, one is astonished at the skill of the old legislators of the previous century in incorporating the principles of Roman-Dutch Law as soundly as it was in fact done in that legislation. I want to pay tribute to their wisdom and their knowledge of Roman-Dutch Law, which formed the basis for the old Transvaal “Goudwet”, as it was taken over in 1908. In the present measure the Select Committee endeavoured to give the spirit and value of that inheritance unadulterated to posterity, and I was honoured to be a member of that Select Committee. I should like to give one small example of that. In terms of the proprietary law of Roman-Dutch Law the land-owner is the owner of everything on the surface of his land, up into the sky into infinity and down below as deep as he could dig. That right of land-owners is recognized in the measure we are discussing to-day because he also remains the owner of the minerals under his land. But gold, for example, is a precious metal; oil is a strategic mineral, and in terms of this legislation mining rights are conferred upon the State. Ownership had to be reconciled with the State’s control over that precious metal and that strategic mineral. How does this Bill do that? I shall try to set out the position in ordinary everyday language. It does it in a quite simple fashion: The private law proprietary right to property is left unabrogated in the hands of the owner, and the public law right is conferred upon the State in order that it may have control over mining. In other words, no private law right is conferred upon the State; what the State gets is the right of control, like any public concern. It has no right to my motor car, but it has a right of control over the way in which I shall drive my motor car on the road. The State gets no right to my minerals, but it tells me how I can and may mine my minerals. I want to emphasize that concept because it is basic to this measure. In order to understand this measure one must have a proper grasp of that concept.

In this regard I want to refer to a second basic principle of the present measure, i.e. the principle of undivided ownership or the ownership concept of Roman-Dutch Law. Under our common law the ownership of a person is sole and indivisible. I cannot have ownership in a business while my neighbour has ownership in the same business. We do not have that concept of English Law by which ownership can be split. Ownership is sole and indivisible, but we do have the concept of Roman-Dutch Law that ownership can be restricted by a proprietary law. Those other rights relating to the restriction of the proprietary laws is a legal pattern which is also found in the measure under discussion to-day. There are many people who think that the owner of the land is the owner of the surface only, and the holder of the mineral rights the owner of the minerals under the land. That is not the case at all, nor is it stated like that anywhere in this Bill. That same principle of our common law is also incorporated in the legislation under discussion this afternoon. The land owner who is the owner of the surface, is also the owner of the minerals under that land, but the holder of the mineral rights receives a right which entitles him to prospect for minerals and to extract the minerals under that land although the minerals remain the property of the owner. As soon as he has separated those minerals from the land in terms of his right to extract them then, and then only, does he become the owner of those minerals. That is the concept contained in our Roman-Dutch Law and it is a basic concept incorporated in this legislation. That brings me to the dispute that arose with the Chamber of Mines and which the Select Committee had to deal with, i.e. the abolition of the mynpacht. The Committee resolved that the mynpacht was to be abolished and that it was to be substituted by a system of mining leases only, and that that was to apply in future. The Committee may perhaps be accused of violating the principle of Roman-Dutch Law by the abolition of the mynpacht because it has abrogated a very important proprietary law of the old Transvaal “Goudwet”. But actually that is not the case, because a mynpacht, as its Dutch name indicates, is also only a lease. The word “pacht” in Dutch means “lease”. The Dutch name is therefore also merely a kind of mining lease. If we bear that concept in mind, we shall also see that where the mynpacht is now substituted by mining leases, the old principle in Roman-Dutch Law is not violated. A mynpacht in terms of the Transvaal “Goudwet” implies that the holder of the mineral rights at the proclamation of public diggings has the exclusive right to exploit one-quarter of the mineralized area as a mynpacht. In terms of the old “Goudwet” of the Transvaal, as the hon. the Minister of Justice pointed out, it was then one-tenth, because at that time the farms were very large and the mining industry only a small undertaking. Under the system of mining which was in force at that time a sound mining proposition could be developed on one-tenth of a large farm, but later, when the farms became smaller and mining as such expanded and underwent a gigantic and phenomenal development, one-tenth was too small. In 1934 this Parliament increased that one-tenth to one-fifth and later even further, to one-quarter. In South Africa the development as such caused the system of the mynpacht, in terms of which only a certain portion of the mineralized area could be exploited, to become outdated. As a result of that development we have to substitute it by something larger. After the development in the Free State it so happened that the mynpacht was not allocated at any of those mines in the Free State. That indicates that all those companies applied for mining leases and not for mynpachten. It is a clear indication that the mynpacht has served its use in South Africa. The Chamber of Mines wanted the mynpacht to be retained. They think it gave them a more substantial right, but the crux of the matter is that by doing so they wanted to get a tail with which they could later wag the dog. What is the difference between the mynpacht and the ordinary mining lease of to-day? The difference is merely that the mynpacht lays down a specific area as a right which the mineral holder can claim, whereas his right under the mining lease merely means that the mineral holder can claim a contract to lease and exploit an area which is an economic proposition, according to a determination by the Mining Lease Board. The legal pattern is the same in both cases. In both cases it is in actual fact merely a proprietary right which is obtained to the ownership, and one is smaller in scope than the other. Apart from the fact that history has proved the mynpacht institution to be redundant, as the past 25 years have shown, the Registrar of Mining Titles made certain comments as long ago as 1937 which I want to read here, because they are significant as far as the abolition of the mynpacht is concerned. Even at that time he wrote—

1. (i) the need for a definition of the unit of area of a mineral right holder’s land for purposes of determining the size of the mijnpacht to be granted;
2. (ii) a definition of the moment when a mijnpacht accrues.
   He then refers to a case which was heard in the Transvaal in this connection
3. (iii) when the full extent of the mineralized areas has not yet been determined, can more than one mijnpacht be granted? If so must additional mijnpachten be contiguous to the first one, or most it be situated on that portion of the mineralized area in respect of which it was granted?;
4. (iv) must adjoining farms, the mineral rights of which are held by the same person but by separate titles be treated as one or separate areas of land?;
5. (v) may a lessee of mineral rights be granted a mijnpacht?;
6. (vi) must the mineralized area be beaconed off and a diagram thereof be submitted so as to enable the Surveyor-General to approve or confirm a mijnpacht diagram?

You will therefore see that quite a few other difficulties arose from the existence of the mynpacht as we came to know it, in its present form. In fact, the past years have shown that it is a redundant system.

Mr. Speaker, I now want to deal with some other points. Unfortunately I cannot elaborate too much on points in this Bill, because one can elaborate very far on this Bill. One can only touch on certain principles here and there. I may refer to the question raised by previous speakers as well, that the owner of the land should also get a prospecting permit. It strikes one at once that it appears as though the owner is now no longer the master of his own farm because he has to go to the authorities to get a permit to go prospecting. At first glance it appears as though the Government is in fact infringing his ownership in that respect. But this is actually not so, because his ownership keeps that control in his hands. He can decide whether he wants to prospect and whether someone else can prospect on his farm. He merely has to obtain a permit from the authorities, and there is a very good reason for that, because the Department of Mines must know what is happening in the mining industry. In such a large and vital industry as the mining industry it is essential that the Department and also the Minister of Mines should know what is happening in the country and where development is taking place and where prospecting will be undertaken. Mr. Speaker, in terms of this provision, if an owner cannot exercise his prospecting rights or his exploitation rights, the State can appoint someone to do the necessary. He retains his rights as owner because he will still reap the benefits of that exploitation or prospecting, which is preserved for him in the Bill. But, Sir, the mining industry is so important to South Africa that the State must be able to take a hand in such cases.

I want to mention a further question, and that is the position if the existing surface rights lapse. If the mining title lapses through the deproclamation of the land, what will the position be then? In the Committee various suggestions were made in this regard. The Chamber of Mines made two proposals. The first related to mining plant. Obviously their proposal would have suited them very well. If land is deproclaimed because its surface is no longer exploited, they retain a small portion of the land in terms of their mining title. They relinquish up the rest. But then they still retain all the surface rights attached to the mining title. They then retain surface rights to which they should actually not be entitled. They actually pay nothing for those rights. They do not pay the owner for the plant erected there. In my opinion the Committee made a very sound arrangement in this connection. The Committee said that they will have to compensate for all land occupied by such plant, and that the owner of the land shall be protected during the term of their activities.

Their second proposal related to houses erected by mining companies. When the land is deproclaimed the structures, i.e. the houses, must be removed within six months. If the houses are not removed within six months they accrue to the surface owner. The situation that arose then was that there was a head-on collision, a stalemate. One concern would not give way to the other. They wanted to retain ownership of their houses, and the landowner naturally wanted the right to his land. It was proposed by the Chamber of Mines that those people should be compensated only for the value of the land. They would then retain and sell the houses as a township. Then the poor landowner, who for all those years enjoyed virtually no benefits because the surface owner enjoyed the benefits, would ultimately have to forfeit his land as well. They went even further. They proposed: If the surface owner cannot expropriate the land within three months at that price, it should be possible for the landowner to buy them out at the value of the buildings on that land. That means that the small man, the landowner, simply cannot compensate for all those houses, because they cost a lot of money. That would simply have meant that the surface owner would ultimately have gained the advantage in that regard as well. Consequently the Committee considered this matter at great length and then decided that the status quo should be maintained. If they insist on keeping the houses they will have to come to an equitable agreement with the landowner, and if they cannot come to such an agreement, they will have to remove the houses as provided by the present legislation.

I now come to the last point I want to raise this afternoon. It is a point which was raised by two previous speakers, i.e. the hon. member for Rosettenville and the hon. member for Karoo. It relates to the rights of Bantu and Coloureds in terms of this legislation. As far as the hon. member for Rosettenville is concerned, what he raised was a matter of policy; in point of fact, a matter which has nothing whatsoever to do with this legislation. This legislation is quite clear. It is making a very big change, and a very big concession to the Bantu in South Africa. He referred to the Bantu only, and I therefore want to deal with the position as regards the Bantu only. To them it means a very great privilege and very great progress. Under the existing legislation a Bantu could obtain no prospecting rights in South Africa; neither in his own area nor outside his area. Nor could he obtain mining rights inside or outside his area. Now this Bill entitles him to obtain those rights inside his area. There he can prospect and exploit.

Now that hon. member went somewhat further and said: But they are ignorant and they have no money. They are not strong in capital. He wanted to know from the Minister how that exploitation would take place within the framework of the Government’s present policy that no White capital may be utilized in the Bantu areas. Our policy in this matter was formulated very clearly in the course of past years by the previous Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, who said that such exploitation would be done by way of agency. The agent could be anybody appointed by the State. He mentioned the Bantu Trust, which would undertake the exploitation. Let me tell him that the Bantu Trust is nothing but a Native in terms of our legislation. If the Native had not been able to exercise those powers previously, he would not have been able to do so now. But now we are making this change. Is it desirable that the Trust itself should exploit? I do not think so, Sir. I think it is in accordance with the policy formulated by the late Dr. Verwoerd that such exploitation should not be undertaken by the Trust or by the State but by way of agency. We know that mining demands a great deal of capital. Only an undertaking that is strong in capital can venture into mining nowadays. Therefore mining in the Bantu areas will now also be undertaken for the Bantu and to his benefit by an agency. We shall have to decide on a later occasion who that agent will be. These are matters of policy, however, and have nothing to do with a consolidating measure such as this one. It is a matter we can discuss in open debate on the relevant Vote. It has nothing to do with this legislation.

Then I want to reply to the hon. member for Karoo, who spoke about Coloureds. I am surprised and astonished that any man can be as ungrateful as the hon. member for Karoo. He made all kinds of allegations and statements, as though he owned all the wisdom in the world, as though he is the only man who knows what is right and just on God’s earth. We are becoming rather tired of the hon. member for Karoo, of the things he says and the allegations he makes across the floor of the House. It is time the hon. member reconsidered and cultivated a sense of balance. They say old age mellows, but it seems to me as though that will never be the case as far as he is concerned. Perhaps it has happened to me. The Bill before us at present grants important rights to the Coloureds. They receive the same rights as the Bantu and somewhat more. They receive somewhat more, because the Bantu cannot go prospecting on State-owned land. He may go prospecting only in his own area, whereas the Coloured is given that right. He may prospect on State-owned land. He may exploit on State-owned land. Now the hon. member would have it that the Coloureds were the only prospectors in South Africa, for according to him the Coloureds discovered diamonds. According to him the Coloureds discovered gold. History taught me that it was a little boy—a White boy—who picked up the glittering stone and showed it to other people. Now he would have it that it was the Coloureds who discovered it. Mr. Speaker, those people may prospect in their own areas. They may do all the prospecting they like in their own areas. They will get those rights and when there is State-owned land on which prospecting can be done, they may also apply and they will also be allowed to prospect there. They will also get the mining rights there, because in terms of this legislation, if a prospecting right is allocated to a person then, as the hon. the Minister of Justice said, that person gets an inalienable right to get the mining lease as well in respect of the place to which he held his prospecting rights. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parktown has stated here that one may well wonder why such a comprehensive piece of legislation as the one we are dealing with here to-day was not introduced much sooner. It is a fact that it would have been of great value if the hon. the Minister and the Department could have come forward with such a comprehensive piece of legislation sooner. However, it is such a tremendously great task which has now been accomplished that one would rather see the Bill completed at a later stage in order to ensure a sound piece of legislation than to have had it appear sooner in a half-baked and ill-considered form.

The writer-philosopher Aesop told of a man who was a little worried about the lack of diligence and industry on the part of his sons. On his death-bed he called them in and told them of a treasure buried somewhere on his farm, a treasure of, let us say, precious metals, with which incidentally this Bill is concerned. However, he deliberately omitted to say precisely where this treasure was buried. After his death his sons began diligently to search for the treasure and in the process they dug up the soil on the farm very thoroughly. The result was that the crops which they planted grew very well and yielded good harvests. The writer tells us that the sons never found the treasure but as a result of their diligent searching they reaped good crops and thus became rich. But another important result of the sons’ inability to find the treasure was that, because there was no dispute over the treasure, they did not fall out with one another over the farm.

This measure which we now see before us is an attempt to divide the treasures which lie hidden beneath the soil of the Republic of South Africa so fairly that there can be no dispute over it. That then is the reason, in reply to what the hon. member for Parktown said, why this Bill could not be introduced earlier. Great care had to be taken to ensure that the treasures beneath our soil were divided fairly amongst those who were interested in it. Dividing these precious metals and other treasures fairly is a tremendous task. This measure, of course, only deals with certain of those treasures. It does not deal with diamonds, etc., but only with precious metals, semi-precious minerals and natural oil. Over the years a long list of minor Acts have been placed on the Statute Book with the purpose of dividing up these treasures as fairly as possible. According to the Schedule of the Bill there are 47 Acts which are now wholly or in part being replaced by this Bill. Laws have been made on this subject since as far back as 1865, that is for more than 100 years. This measure is a consolidation of all these laws, but it is more than just that. It also attempts to eliminate inconsistencies and keep pace with changing ideas and customs of our time. To do all that was a tremendous task and I, as an uninitiated member of the Commission, was very soon impressed by the tremendous scope of this task.

That is why. together with the hon. the Minister of Justice, I want to pay tribute to the officials in the Department of Mines who performed this task for us. Everywhere one encounters conflicting interests which have to be reconciled with one another. Yet the Department has succeeded in reconciling almost all these conflicting interests with one another, and it speaks volumes for the Job-like patience and Solomon-like wisdom of the officials. I want to pay this tribute to the dedication, patience and wisdom with which these officials have completed such a tremendous task. This brilliant work considerably facilitated the Commission’s task, but it was nevertheless a comprehensive task for the members of the Commission as well. Since the Commission could ultimately give unanimous decisions on almost all the points at issue, this fact again speaks volumes for the chairman of the Commission. That is why we are not at all astonished to find, so soon after the completion of this task, that he has been called upon to assume greater responsibility.

Throughout the negotiations of the Department and the consultations of the Commission, the principle of private ownership was strictly adhered to. The two exceptions which I have just referred to are in fact concerned with the question of private ownership. In both cases there was only one member of the Commission who differed from the rest of the Commission. Let me at once associate myself with what the hon. the Minister of Justice said—he was chairman of the Commission—where he also pays tribute to the three members of the Commission who are no longer present in this House. The three members were nominated by the United Party to serve on the Commission. These three members not only lost their seats at the election; some of them had already been eliminated at the Party nominations. A person sometimes wonders whether hon. members on the opposite side do not commit errors in their nominations, because it appears to me that the best members have not returned. Nevertheless those three ex-members really performed valuable work on that Commission.

As I have said, Mr. Speaker, one of the Commission members differed from the rest of the Commission on two points in particular, and both these points relate to private ownership. The Commission as well as the Department adopted the attitude that private ownership would in fact be respected. We are thinking here, for example, of the request from the Chamber of Mines to the effect that the owner of the mineral rights should have the right to acquire the land on which the houses are standing. As the hon. member for Heilbron indicated very clearly, it is a principle of Roman-Dutch law that the owner should retain those rights. The Commission therefore conceded the point made by the Commission member in question, namely Mr. Taurog.

The other point on which Mr. Taurog differed from the rest of the Commission was in connection with the disclosure of borehole results. When a prospecting company obtains borehole results and does not subsequently proceed to exploitation, he wanted that prospector to be compelled, after a certain period of time, to disclose those results so that when that prospector did not himself want to undertake exploitation, a smaller company which would in fact be prepared to do so could proceed to undertake exploitation.

But here too the Commission acknowledged that the Chamber of Mines, which raised objections to the request, was right because one does not readily tamper with the rights of someone who has obtained those rights at great cost. That is why I want once more to associate myself with the hon. Chairman of that Commission and pay tribute to those officials of the Department who have presented us with such a colossal piece of work, a piece of work which will in fact stand as a monument to their Job-like patience and Solomon-like wisdom.

I want to express my appreciation to the hon. members who participated in this debate, to the hon. members who served on the Commission as well as to hon. members opposite. They have had to make a study of this Bill and the report. They have not had the opportunity of sitting on the Commission, but have made a very thorough study and have acquainted themselves with the merits of the matter.

The hon. member for Rosettenville referred to a number of matters. One of these was the case of an existing mining lease where it was economically feasible to extend such a mining lease to adjoining land and where problems arose because the owner was unwilling to transfer his rights to the mining company. He said that such a party should be treated fairly. That is correct. This legislation makes provision for that. Notice will be given to such a party, etc. The Mining Leases Board may then determine what compensation should be paid to such a party. Throughout the legislation the important role played by the Mining Leases Board since the existence of laws relating to mining leases, has been retained and I think that we can only say that this Board, in the form in which it has existed over the years, has fulfilled a very important function in allocating the royalties or compensation accruing to the owners or to the holders of rights or to the State. The Board consists of the Government Mining Engineer, the Secretary for Finance, the Secretary for Inland Revenue and the Registrar of Mining Titles. I think that in the course of years the Board has gained sufficient experience to enable it to know approximately what amount will constitute a reasonable compensation, and in this case too it can see to it that the proper compensation will be paid.

The hon. member also referred to White housing which may exist in the case of mines which were closing-down and also to compounds. This is a real problem because one would not like to see valuable housing being lost in a country where there is still a large demand for housing. I notice from section 80 of the report that the Commission too gave attention to this aspect. Basically the problem is that a large percentage of the housing erected by mining companies does not stand on the companies’ own land. They only have a right to erect houses on such land. The owner of the land is not usually the owner of the mine as well. The mine effects improvements with its capital on another man’s land. Common law provides that the rights and privileges are of a person who effects improvements on another man’s land. He has to remove such improvements before the expiry date of the lease and if he fails to do so such improvements will pass to the owner. This is a real problem and it often happens that the parties fail to reach an agreement. Such property cannot be expropriated without difficulty. The Commission investigated the aspect of whether there should be a right of expropriation but decided against it because it would have resulted in the valuable part of mining land, the housing part, being expropriated while the owner would have been left with the mine dumps or the shafts and the silt dams after the valuable part had been expropriated. The best thing, of course, is when the mining company and the owner can come to an agreement. There are cases, such as that of Dominion Reefs, which are of a similar nature. I can tell you that when it was decided to transfer that property to the State, Government Departments, Defence as well as Community Development, thoroughly investigated whether it was possible to take it over but did not see their way clear to do so and the property was eventually taken over by a private company. There is also another problem and that is that mining companies usually erect the buildings on the land without having to make sub-divisions or declaring such land a township. Therefore, if the property has to be sold I think that it will be necessary to survey the land, declare it a township and to make provision for water, lights, etc., which is not always such an easy thing to do. However, even the Commission felt that further attention may be given to the matter and I think we shall all agree that it will be the right thing if that housing could be preserved. But we shall have to leave that to private initiative which will perhaps be able to find the best solution.

The hon. member for Rosettenville also referred to what the position was in the Bantu homelands, on land which belongs to the Bantu Trust or is tribal land or private Bantu land. As far as those rights are concerned, this Bill effects no amendment to the existing legislation. The present position is that there are 30 mining leases in respect of land belonging to the Bantu Trust, 46 mining leases in respect of tribal land and 13 in respect of private Bantu land. There are also 82 prospecting rights in respect of those lands. Therefore the position there is not being affected and no changes are being effected as regards the future and the policy which will be implemented there. A Commission of Inquiry, under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Heilbron, investigated this matter and if there is to be any change of policy it will depend on the Minister of Bantu Administration. As far as this legislation is concerned the position therefore remains unchanged. In Bantu areas Bantu companies may apply and such applications will be considered.

The hon. member for Parktown referred to the provisions relating to prospecting for oil contained in this legislation. I think we all agree that it is important that they should be contained in this legislation. For that reason provision is being made for the provisions relating to oil to come into operation as soon as this legislation is passed. I can only tell the hon. member that at this moment contracts are ready and waiting, contracts to be entered into with companies in respect of prospecting on the continental shelf, something on which many millions of rand will be spent. As soon as this legislation is passed, those contracts will be entered into immediately.

The hon. member for Karoo referred to discrimination against Coloured Persons and asked why that was necessary. It is true that there is a certain measure of discrimination. As far as Bantu are concerned, they can only obtain prospecting rights in Bantu areas. As regards Coloured persons, they can obtain those rights on State land in the Cape Province, as well as on private land where Coloured persons have a controlling interest. In the first place, I want to point out that this is an extension as far as Coloured persons are concerned. In the past Coloured persons could only obtain such a right in the Cape Province in respect of private property in which they had a controlling interest. That restriction has been removed and they can now obtain that right in all provinces. Therefore, as far as that right is concerned, this is an extension.

I also want to point out that there is another type of land. Apart from State land and private land there is alienated State land and as far as alienated State land is concerned the position is that the owner of alienated State land may for a consideration cede the prospecting rights to any person. As far as alienated State land is concerned it is possible for a Coloured person, like any other party, to obtain prospecting rights in respect of such land upon payment of a consideration. There is no restriction as far as that is concerned. I also want to point out that as regards State land Coloured persons cannot prospect on such land in other parts of the country but in the Cape Province there are 1,872,000 morgen of State land. When Coloured land is added to that there are more than 2 million morgen of land, mainly in the North-Western Cape, on which Coloured persons may in fact prospect. This is a large area. The hon. member nevertheless asked why there was discrimination in respect of other land. I can only say that I find it a pity that the hon. member raised this matter at this stage. This legislation was first introduced in 1965, was on the Table in 1966 but that matter was never brought to the attention of the Minister in charge of the Bill. The Bill was referred to a Select Committee and was investigated by a Commission and invitations were extended to submit evidence but the hon. member, who is a representative of the Coloureds, never submitted any evidence to the Commission to the effect that there was discrimination and that it should be eliminated. If the hon. member felt so strongly about the matter he most certainly has had many opportunities for making representations to which consideration could then have been given as such representations would have had certain implications. Just consider the definition of a “Coloured person” in the legislation. A Coloured person is someone who is not a White person or a Bantu. That means that for the purposes of this legislation such a person may also be an Indian or a Chinese. The question is whether you wish to grant that right in certain areas. There are questions of principle about which no decision has been taken or which have not even been considered. However, a principle which has never been departed from in our mining legislation is that the person who obtains a prospecting right also obtains the mining lease. That means that if this discrimination did not exist Coloured persons could prospect anywhere and would be granted mining leases in White areas when they made discoveries. You will realize that this too has certain implications which must be considered. For those reasons I am sorry that the hon. member raised this question at this late stage whereas there had been many opportunities to do so during the past number of years after the legislation had been announced.

I think I have now replied to the most important points, and I move the Second Reading.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The object of this Bill is not so much to introduce a new dispensation in regard to the registration of mining titles, but to adapt existing legislation to present-day circumstances in the best interests of the interested parties, and to make provision for the requirements relating to registration which will arise at the commencement of the Mining Rights Bill which has just been disposed of. It will make applicable uniform registration provisions, modelled to a large extent on the principles of the Deeds Registries Act, No. 47 of 1937, as amended, in all the provinces. Similarly this Bill does not envisage establishing a new registry office, but adaptating the present office of the Registrar of Mining Titles in Johannesburg to changed circumstances. Initially the Mining Titles Office, to which reference is made in clause 2 and which was established by section 3 of Act No. 25 of 1909, of the Transvaal, only had jurisdiction in the Transvaal. However, the registration powers of the office in question were extended gradually by subsequent Union legislation so that certain rights originating in other provinces may at present also be registered in the office in question. Examples of such subsequent legislation are: (a) Act No. 55 of 1926, which is applicable to land in respect of which the State has reserved to itself the mineral rights; (b) the Orange Free State Mining Metal Act, No. 13 of 1936; (c) the Base Minerals Amendment Act, No. 39 of 1942, and (d) the Natural Oil Act, No. 46 of 1942.

However, in spite of these adaptations, valuable rights still exist and orginate at present, particularly in terms of the older mineral legislation which cannot be registered in the Mining Titles Office, and such a state of affairs is, of course, undesirable. Apart from this the present Registration Act, which has been in existence for more than half a century, presents certain administrative problems and no longer meets present-day needs. Simultaneously with the commencement of the new mining rights legislation in substitution, inter alia, for the above-mentioned mineral legislation, it is also the intention, in order to surmount all these problems, to put into operation a new registration Act which will grant the Mining Titles Office the required greater registration powers and which will bring about uniformity in all the provinces.

The Bill, which provides how and where the Mining Titles Office will operate, what rights will be registerable in that office and how registration will take place, is, as I have said, based on the existing and well-tried principles of the Deeds Act, with the necessary adaptations to provide in the particular needs which exist in respect of the registration of mining titles and allied rights connected with prospecting and mining. Holders of mining rights and experienced conveyancers with an intimate knowledge of the registration of the sort of right involved in this Bill, plainly intimated that the Bill met with approval and expressed the hope that it would be placed on the Statute Book soon. Use was made of proposals received from the Association of Law Societies of Southern Africa, and it may therefore be accepted that the Bill will also enjoy the support of that body.

The interpretation of terms in Chapter I is self-explanatory and does not require separate motivation, but I should like to point out that the interpretation of the concepts “notary public” and “conveyancer” is such that for the purposes of this Bill it eliminates the provincial jurisdictional limits which obtain under the Deeds Act. This is being done to obviate inconvenience and to prevent Transvaal notaries public and conveyancers from being favoured above those in other provinces, in view of the fact that in this case there will only be one central Mining Titles Office. This step is being welcomed by interested parties; as a matter of fact, the Association of Law Societies made representations to this effect.

As regards Chapter II, it is merely being provided that the office of the Registrar of Mining Titles will remain in existence, the required greater registration powers and duties being added. However, it is appropriate to point out that, in order to remove any doubt which may have existed previously as regards the possible registration of mining titles in both the Mining Titles and Deeds Offices, it is being provided now in subsection (3) of clause 2 that a right to mine which is capable of being registered in the Mining Titles Office, will not be deemed to be a lease of a right to minerals for the purposes of the Deeds Registries Act and will therefore not be registerable in the Deeds Office. It is also necessary to point out that, just as in the case of the Deeds Act, provision is also being made now in clause 9 for the establishment of a Regulations Board on which two conveyancers, recommended by the Association of Law Societies, will hold office. The regulations made by the board in regard to matters over which it is being granted jurisdiction in clause 10, will be subject to the approval of the State President.

Chapters III to X contain the more general registration provisions which will be applicable in the Mining Titles Office. The clauses are self-explanatory and the chapters, just as in the case of the previous chapters, adhere, with the necessary adaptations, to the general principles and even the appropriate wording, where practicable, of the Deeds Act. In our country the Deeds Act is the basis of registration and serves as proof of registration to the rest of the world. It is a well-tried measure, and in the main the provisions of that Act are now also made to apply to the registration of mining titles.

The 1967 edition of this Bill is a great improvement on the 1966 edition which we had before us a year ago, and we on this side of the House are prepared to support the Bill as now introduced by the hon. the Minister. It is quite clear that in the interim the Minister has had the opportunity of receiving representations and suggestions, both from the Association of Law Societies and from the Chamber of Mines, and to the extent that these have been included in the Bill now before us, the measure has been considerably improved.

Sir, while dealing with this aspect of the matter, I might once again draw attention to the fact that the Minister in this instance might have been saved considerable time and worry had this Bill been published a little earlier so that there would be an opportunity for professional and other bodies to consider the draft before it was actually presented in this House. Sir, there are still some matters under this Bill as we now have it before us which would appear to need further consideration, and I merely raise them at this stage so that they can receive the consideration of the Department. I refer first of all to the definition of “prospecting contract” in clause 1. While the definition which appeared in the first edition of this Bill has been amended by the addition of the words “or tribute” in line 59, it still does not conform to the definition of “prospecting contract” as contained in the Deeds Office Registries Act. Although it is correct that under section 2 (3) of the Bill to which the hon. the Minister made reference prospecting contracts, if they fall within this definition, would appear to be registerable only in the one office, there may still be prospecting contracts which fall under the old definition which may still be registered in the Deeds Registry. It seems that there is a possibility of some confusion arising if this position is not corrected.

Then the second point is the possibility that registration in the Central Registry may lead to some considerable delays in the actual registration of agreements or contracts which are registerable under this particular Bill. I refer to the fact that the Central Titles Office which is presented with a title deed and, for instance, a prospecting contract for registration, is then obliged to send the title deed with the prospecting contract to the Deeds Registry in which the property is situate. For instance, if there were to be a prospecting contract registerable over a property in the Cape area, the Registrar in the Mining Titles Office is now obliged to send a copy of the contract which he is registering, together with the title deeds of the property, to the Registrar in Cape Town in order that an endorsement can be made on the Deeds Office copy of the title deed in Cape Town. I understand from those who deal with this type of registration that in practice it takes an inordinate length of time before the title deeds are returned from the second registry office. It may be that this procedure is followed as a precaution in case the copy which is presented to the Registrar of the Titles Office is perhaps a mutilated one, one which has been altered in some respect or other and should be collated with the copy in the Deeds Office in the other centre. But it is a matter which gives practitioners a good deal of trouble and leads to a good deal of delay.

The third point is that under this particular Bill there is no possibility of registration of participation bonds which have been brought into operation under the 1964 Act. Participation bonds cannot be registered under this particular Act and I think that is a defect. It may well be that participation bonds might have to be registered in relation to the various mining titles which will be registered under this particular Bill.

Then finally, Sir, this Registration Bill is linked to the Administration of Estates Act of 1965 which, as the hon. the Minister will be aware, is not yet operative and one wonders what arrangements are being made to ensure that when the Mining Titles Bill is promulgated, the new Administration of Estates Act will be brought into operation contemporaneously, otherwise it may well be that persons looking at this Bill when promulgated as an Act, will then have to take cognisance of the fact that the 1965 Administration of Estates Act has not been promulgated and look for some corresponding provision in the old Administration of Estates Act which is still applicable. I know that these are administrative matters and I realize that the hon. the Minister may not be able at this stage to react to the suggestions which I have put forward, but I put them forward as matters which could well be considered by the Department. In the meantime this Bill meets with the approval of this side of the House.

It is to a large extent a natural tendency and because of administrative endeavour that we have before us to-day this Bill in its improved form. It facilitates the administration of this matter considerably for the Department. It is strange or paradoxical rather, as the hon. the Minister said in regard to other legislation, that the legislation under discussion has not been smartened up since 1909, but I think that in this case it is attributable to the lengthy processing which any good legislation has to undergo before it can be introduced in this House.

I understand that this Bill was circulated amongst those taking an interest in the matter, people in various practices, in the mining industry and particularly in legal firms connected with it. Comments and suggestions were obtained by the Department from all legal firms in Johannesburg and elsewhere, firms which for the most part do legal work for the mining companies, and where their suggestions were practicable, they were incorporated in the legislation. It was encouraging to hear that this Bill was received very well. I obtained from the Department of Mines the following excerpts taken from the comments received from various firms—

1. (a) The draft Bill is comprehensively drafted;
2. (b) We consider the measure long overdue and hope that it will become law;
3. (c) We have perused the draft Bill with great interest and venture to express our approval and appreciation of same. We hope that the Bill will become law.

These few quotations indicate very clearly that a need existed for more modern legislation of this nature, legislation which will be applicable on a uniform basis throughout the Republic, and that it is welcomed by notaries public and conveyancers everywhere. It is really a miracle to think that we in the Republic of South Africa have different legislative measures for the same item with which notaries public and conveyancers throughout South Africa have had to work. One finds that the legislation in the Transvaal, Natal, the Free State and the Cape differs slightly, and for that reason this Bill will, of course, make it so much easier for our officials in the various Departments as well to deal with mining titles. It is a wrong and probably also dangerous state of affairs that many important mining rights granted in the Cape Province and in Natal in terms of the existing Mineral Legislation, cannot be registered in a central registry-office. It was gladdening to see in the Mining Rights Bill, which has already been dealt with, that provision was being made for retrospective registration—that is, in accordance with the Registration of Mining Titles Bill—of the numerous base mineral leases and mining claims granted in the Cape and Natal respectively during the past decade. Just as in the Transvaal and in the Orange Free State, it will be possible to mortgage such rights, and for this reason, too, proper registration is essential. This is the very point I do not quite understand, the point raised by the hon. member for Green Point, because here the mortgaging of these leases are specifically taken into account. As regards the general provisions of the Bill, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that we are not dealing here with new principles, but that, as the hon. the Minister has already indicated, the relevant provisions in the Deeds Registries Act, 1937, were followed virtually throughout. Therefore, on glancing through the Bill, one finds that, as the provisions read at present, a large number of them follow exactly the same wording as those of the corresponding sections in the Deeds Act. To summarize therefore, one can say that one finds relatively few provisions in the Bill which do not already appear in the Deeds Act of 1937, and for this reason there seems to be no necessity for going into the individual clauses. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that this legislation, just as the sounds of a new mine, is sound which comes from and has its origins in the native soil of our Fatherland. It fits in with and it is in the spirit of new developments in other spheres of national life and in the sphere of our legal practices which are connected with the mining industry, and I believe that the hon. the Minister and his Department can be very proud of this, the fruits of their labour.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that this supplementary legislation also enjoys the support of the entire House. The hon. member for Green Point pointed out that it would perhaps have helped a great deal if this legislation had been published earlier. I can only say that the very reason behind the introduction of this Bill at an earlier stage last year, was with a view to publication; otherwise it would have entailed double publication. It would have had to be published in the Government Gazette and once again later, when it was introduced in the House. As you know, it appeared on the Order Paper for the best part of the year but it was not dealt with further at that time. The hon. member made reference here to the definitions of mining lease. It is correct that the prospecting rights are not the same in the two laws. But I think that they are in fact intended to be two separate registrations. The requirements laid down for both of them are not equally severe, if I may put it that way. However, there cannot be a confusion because of the provisions of the Deeds Office. It is a pity that the same requirements are apparently not laid down, but I think this is more as a result of practical problems which exist. The hon. member referred to delays which took place when deeds had to be sent to and fro. I think it is an administrative matter which may perhaps be improved upon, and the Department will follow up the suggestion made by the hon. member for Green Point to see whether the process cannot be expedited. As regards the registration of participation bonds, I want to say this: Initially there was an attempt to make them registerable as well, but it was particularly the Chief Registrar of Deeds who had misgivings and objections to such a step. As regards that aspect, it was subsequently decided to act on his suggestion by not making provision in this Bill for such bonds. The hon. member also referred to the fact that the Administration of Estates Act of 1965 had not yet come into operation. Well, it will only be possible to apply this Act, the Registration Act, after this new Mining Act, in respect of which the Second Reading has just been agreed to, comes into force. A considerable number of regulations have to be drafted still to supplement the Mining Rights Act. It will therefore take a considerable time before that part of the Act comes into operation. However, it is a good thing that the hon. member pointed that out. By that time the Administration of Estates Act will probably be in operation. Then the problem will not exist. However, we shall consider that matter thoroughly when this Act comes into operation and see to it that no confusion will arise.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Now that the Maintenance Act, 1963, has been in operation for some time and there has been an opportunity of observing the application thereof, it would appear that the provisions in terms of which action is taken against absent and recalcitrant witnesses in maintenance courts are cumbersome and ineffective. As hon. members of the House are apparently aware, persons against whom maintenance orders are required are summoned in the same way as witnesses and a maintenance court cannot itself take action against absent or recalcitrant witnesses and consequently also it cannot do so against fathers who try to evade their responsibilities by disregarding summonses. Separate criminal proceedings must in every, case be instituted against such persons if action is to be taken against them. In the meantime of course the inquiry by the maintenance court in question cannot be proceeded with, with the result that those whose maintenance is the subject of the entire matter, often have to endure great hardships.

But what is more, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the institution of criminal proceedings owing to failure to be present at a maintenance inquiry, does not necessarily ensure the presence of the person in question at a later session of the maintenance court. When the criminal proceedings against him have been disposed of, he can, as does in fact happen in practice, continue to remain absent from the sessions of the maintenance court in spite of any punishment imposed upon him. Neither are there any statutory provisions in terms of which he can be arrested and brought before the maintenance court. The proceedings of the maintenance court in question may therefore be deliberately delayed, to the detriment and discomfort of those persons requiring maintenance. Another aspect I want to touch upon here is the case of recalcitrant witness. As you know, a person who is responsible for another person’s maintenance, can be summoned to give evidence at an inquiry into his obligation to maintain that person. It is particularly necessary that the person who has to pay the maintenance should be called as witness in those cases where he, as often happens, is the only person who can give evidence as to his ability to maintain his dependants. However, it does happen that such a person sometimes refuses at the inquiry to furnish details of his financial means, with the result that the proceedings of the maintenance court are thereby obstructed.

The fact that summary action by the maintenance court in question cannot be taken against such recalcitrant witnesses strengthens the latter in their irresponsible behaviour and leads to the proceedings of maintenance courts not being regarded with the necessary respect. Mr. Speaker, hon. members will understand that I cannot allow the administration of justice to be thwarted in so flagrant a fashion or that young children should be exposed to starvation as a result. As it appears to me, short shrift should be given to those who deliberately obstruct the proceedings of maintenance courts, and it ought to be made possible for maintenance courts, as in the case of other courts of justice, to institute a summary inquiry into the failure of a person to be present at, remain at or reply to questions at the proceedings of a maintenance court. Hon. members will also note that in clause 1 of the Bill which is now before the House it is the intention to make the provisions of section 211 and 212 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1955, apply mutatis mutandis in relation to persons summoned under the maintenance act to appear before a maintenance court, and to endow the maintenance court with the necessary powers in this connection. I believe that the acceptance of the proposed amendments will mean the end of our problem in this connection.

Mr. Speaker, when a person fails to comply with a maintenance order, criminal proceedings can be instituted against him in terms of section 11 of the Maintenance Act. At the hearing of such a person, however, it is necessary that the particulars of the maintenance order made against him be proved. The only legal way in which that can be done at present is to call an officer of the maintenance court where the order has been issued as witness to hand the order in question in to the court. The maintenance court which issued the order and the criminal court which is trying the person in question in terms of section 11 are not necessarily always situated at the same place, with the result that officers have from time to time to undertake long journeys at Government expense, and at the cost of considerable disruption in their offices, in order to hand in such orders. The particulars of maintenance orders are seldom, if ever, disputed and there seems to be no sound reason why the handing in of certified copies cannot serve as prima facie proof in the said criminal cases. Such an arrangement will also to a large extent eliminate the delay experienced with the hearing of those criminal cases, and clause 2 of the measure makes provision for this.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill has the wholehearted support of this side of the House, and those of us who practise in the courts will bear out what the hon. the Minister has said that the situation in the maintenance courts has become somewhat absurd in that the courts do not have the powers that an ordinary court has to ensure that they can get down to the job of discovering what the facts are. I am sure, Sir, that the fact that the loopholes in this Act are now closed, will be welcomed by the whole community. As the hon. the Minister said, in the interests of those persons who are involved, who are usually small children, the extension of the operation of sections 211 and 212 of the Criminal Procedure Act, will provide a smoother, quicker and much more efficient method of enforcing maintenance. These courts, after all, Sir, are courts in the sense that they are there to decide what the facts in dispute are and as to what judgment the court may give as to what amount of money should be paid, and when, and how. It does seem rather extraordinary, Mr. Speaker, that these tribunals are somewhat emasculated in that firstly they could not, up to now, ensure that they obtained the evidence that was called for, and in the second place that when the witness who was to give evidence, was there, it did not have the power to force him to give evidence. And so, Sir, the application of section 212, which provides that a recalcitrant witness can be imprisoned if he does not give the information required, is also to be welcomed. One is just surprised perhaps that these provisions were not put into the Maintenance Act of 1963, but we are glad that they are being put in now, and we do hope that this Bill and the extension of these powers will produce a much happier state of affairs than those which exist in the unfortunate circumstances of these courts.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Opposition for supporting the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The Bill now before the hon. House is, I believe, a measure on which hon. members will not differ with me. Nevertheless, I want to discuss briefly with hon. members the considerations which gave rise to it. As you know, magisterial districts are divided, in terms of the existing legal provisions, in as many justice of the peace wards as the Minister of Justice may deem fit. The number of justice of the peace wards into which a district is divided is usually determined by practical considerations, and there is no uniform formula of application to all districts. There are certain urban areas, for example, where the entire district is demarcated as one ward, whereas certain rural areas are divided into quite a few wards.

The system under which justice of the peace wards are established dates from before 1914, when the Cape Province, for example, was divided into 80 wards as against the present 109 magisterial districts. Division of districts into justice of the peace wards serves no actual purpose, and because they are no longer announced in the Gazette, particulars concerning such wards are not known to the public either. What is more, however, is that, in the entire magisterial district in which the ward of a justice of the peace is situated, he holds all the powers and performs all the duties conferred or imposed upon justices of the peace by any law which is in force in that particular district. In exercising his powers and performing his duties he is therefore not restricted to his ward. Every time a new magisterial district is established, the boundaries of the justice of the peace wards in the particular district or districts from which the new district is constituted must be demarcated anew, as also those of the justice of the peace wards of the new district. For the Department of Justice and for the Surveyor-General this entails a considerable deal of work which actually serves no useful purpose.

In particular I want to bring it to the attention of the hon. members that the number of justices of the peace who may be appointed in respect of a magisterial district is not restricted, although it has been endeavoured until now to appoint no more than six justices of the peace in respect of any ward. This policy lends itself to anomalies, however, for in terms of the existing policy 60 justices of the peace may be appointed in respect of a rural district such as Vryburg, with its ten wards and a relatively small population, whereas only six justices of the peace may be appointed in respect of an urban district such as Germiston, for example, which consists of only one ward and has a much higher population figure than Vryburg. The number of justices of the peace required in respect of a district and the areas in which their services are required, can be determined with equal ease without the division of districts into wards. Consequently the provisions in terms of which magisterial districts are divided into wards and justices of the peace are appointed for wards, are now repealed in clauses 1 and 2.

Hon. members may want to know why the provisions relating to field-cornets are being repealed. In this regard I may just mention that as far as could be ascertained there are no longer any legal provisions, except in the case of shipwrecks, in terms of which powers and duties are conferred or imposed upon field-cornets or assistant field-cornets. The provisions relating to shipwrecks are obsolete and are no longer enforced. Consequently the reference to the powers and duties of field-cornets, etc., in section 3 of the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths Act, 1963, is now deleted by clause 3. For the rest, clauses 3 and 4 contain certain consequential amendments which have become necessary with a view to the provisions of clauses 1 and 2.

Another matter with which I want to deal for a moment is the list of offices the holders of which are ex officio justices of the peace. It appears that the list is incomplete in certain respects, because it makes no provision for the holders of posts in the section of the Chief Law Adviser or in the section of the Attorney-General. Furthermore, the offices held by officers of the Prisons Service are not included in it either. The holders of the offices in question occupy the same position and enjoy the same standing as the holders of the offices included in the list at present and by virtue of the offices held by them they are preeminently fit to perform and exercise the duties and powers of justices of the peace. In view of all these circumstances the relevant list is therefore amplified accordingly. Hon. members should not, however, be misled by the fact that the entire proposed list is underlined. I can give them the assurance that clause 5 contains only the existing list plus the additions to which I have referred. It was considered advisable to underline the entire list because the order in which the offices are mentioned in the list has been changed considerably.

The provisions of clause 6 are essential with a view to the amendments proposed in clauses 1 and 2 and therefore need no further explanation.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is necessary that I should mention to the House that there is a number of legal provisions contained in pre-Union laws which relate to justices of the peace. Inter alia, those provisions affect the following:

1. (a) the duties and powers of justices of the peace to maintain public order;
2. (b) the terms of notice to be given to justices of the peace of the institution of actions against them, and the terms within which such actions shall be instituted;
3. (c) indemnity of certain persons against claims which may arise from actions taken during the execution of a warrant signed by a justice of the peace;
4. (d) evidence and awarding costs in civil actions instituted against justices of the peace.

The matters regulated by the provisions concerned are at present either regulated by other legislation or are unserviceable and therefore redundant. The relevant provisions are consequently now repealed in clause 7.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has said that he believed that we would not differ from him. Indeed we do not and accordingly we shall support this measure. In doing so, I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for the careful exposition he gave of the limited number of clauses there are, and indeed for giving us explanations on one or two points which were quite interesting but which he might conceivably have thought not necessary to do. We are glad for these explanations. They have thrown a good deal of light on what might be regarded as small and unimportant aspects.

We were glad to have his reasons for this change. We can see the good sense of it ourselves. It seems to accord with the present-day situation. One can imagine that in the old times, when it was difficult to have transport, it was necessary to have smaller sub-divisions of magisterial districts.

The hon. the Minister mentioned the inequality in the numbers of justices of the peace in the different magisterial districts, and we ourselves are, naturally, concerned about that. He will now, in terms of this measure, have complete power to appoint as many justices of the peace as he wishes in any magisterial district. We imagine that he will inevitably appoint far more in a very populous area than in a sparsely populated area. There are these various duties that justices of the peace have in connection with the maintenance of law and order, and other tasks, and clearly in a very populous area it is necessary to have more justices of the peace to take care of these duties.

It was interesting to have the hon. the Minister’s comment on the very minor duties still left to a field-cornet. I had personally not been able to discover that it was only in connection with shipwreck that they had their great function. It is a good thing that it has been recorded and brought to our attention to-day. When one is reminded by the hon. the Minister of this interesting old duty of the field-comet, it is interesting, perhaps, for our public to know that justices of the peace have quite considerable powers and duties, particularly in connection with arrests. These powers are set out in section 22 of our code of criminal procedure. As set out there, there are 13 instances where he may arrest without warrant. To enlighten the House I propose to refer to some of them. He may arrest—

1. (a) any person who commits any offence in his presence;
2. (b) any person whom he has reasonable grounds to suspect of having committed an offence mentioned in the First Schedule;
3. (c) any person being or loitering in any place by night under such circumstances as to afford reasonable grounds for believing that he has committed or is about to commit an offence;
4. (d) any person found in any gambling house or at any gambling table, the keeping or visiting whereof is in contravention of any law for the prevention or suppression of gambling or games of chance.

Those are four examples of instances where a justice of the peace, like any other peace officer, has a power and, indeed, a duty and a discretion to arrest without warrant.

Other powers of justices of the peace can also be gleaned from certain regulations made in regard to them. I think that some of these, too, will be of interest—and perhaps amusement—to the House. From the regulations made under the 1963 Act we can see that they had duties in regard to births and deaths registration. Incidentally, for each form that they complete in this regard, they receive five cents. They also have duties in regard to parliamentary elections and registration. The position in regard to their transport is most interesting in this present time. Their transport can vary from bicycle, to animal transport, to a motor car. It is interesting to note that for every mile done by bicycle the justice of the peace is entitled to charge 2c. On the other hand, for every mile done by him by means of animal transport, he can charge 3½c. For every mile completed by him in a motor-car of ten horse power and under he can charge 2½c, whilst for every mile done in a motor-car of over ten horse power he can charge 6c. If he goes by motor cycle he can charge 2½c per mile.

What about a rickshaw?

For a rickshaw tariff I think we have to refer to the Natal members.

What happens if he walks?

Mr. J. O. N. THOMPSON: Nobody walks nowadays; so there is no need for any tariff of that kind.

We can thus see, Mr. Speaker, that this is still an office of considerable honour and esteem. We can see from the passages which I have cited, and which the Minister also cited, in regard to the field cornet, that these are offices of considerable antiquity.

An HON. MEMBER. And well paid!

Well, their pay is on the scale mentioned.

Also antiquated.

Lastly there is the aspect which the hon. the Minister mentioned, namely the extension of the number of posts whose incumbents are ex officio justices of the peace. We are grateful for the Minister’s explanation that in fact only three categories are added, notwithstanding the indication on the Bill before us. These, as he said, are fully justified, because they are offices of at least as high honour as the others which are at present ex officio justice of the peace offices. We accordingly also support this aspect of the Bill.

In conclusion I should like to say that I would be glad if the Minister could in reply perhaps give us some indication of the criteria which he uses in the appointment of justices of the peace at the present time. I would also be glad if he would confirm that, where the quality of the men justified it, he would favourably consider appointing far more justices of the peace in the case of a populous city area, particularly in a magisterial district where there is a very vast population.

With these few words, Sir, we on this side of the House support the measure.

The hon. member for Pinelands has given us some interesting information in regard to the power and duties of justices of the peace. I want to direct the hon. the Minister’s attention to the part that Coloured men can play in filling this very important office. I know of no Coloured justice of the peace. The Minister might say that I have not been able to trace them all, if there are any at all; I can find none. I notice that the Minister now intends to amend the Act so as to appoint justices of the peace for a magisterial district. I can tell the Minister that from my experience Coloured people who have to have documents attested by a justice of the peace find it very difficult indeed, due to many factors, like the distance they have to travel, and probably they do not even know where to find the justice of the peace and so they go to the police station. I notice now that in the amended Schedule on page 4 the Minister has included a commissioned officer of the S.A. Police, but I would like to suggest that in the Coloured areas the Minister should consider somebody of a lesser rank than that.

But my main point is to plead with the Minister to consider the appointment of Coloured justices of the peace in areas which are predominantly Coloured. Let us take the magisterial area of Wynberg. That is a tremendously large area. Athlone, which is a completely Coloured area, falls within that magisterial area. It is a long distance away from the main Court and probably it is also a long way away from any justice of the peace who may be appointed for that area. But it is a predominantly Coloured area and I do believe that there are sufficient Coloured people learned enough to occupy that position. I am fortified in my appeal to the Minister by clause 3 (c), where it says “to render all assistance possible in suppressing disorder or disturbance in such magisterial areas”. Where would it be more proper for a Coloured justice of the peace to render assistance in time of disturbance than in Coloured areas?

I do not think it is intended that the White justice of the peace should act in that area when you can have people within that area, belonging to that group, who can render that service. I make a very strong appeal to the hon. the Minister that in view of the Government’s policy to create these areas completely populated by Coloured people, this should be done. Here I want to refer also to the magisterial area of Stellenbosch. It stretches very far. You have areas like Firgrove and other places which are 90 per cent occupied by Coloureds, if not completely. I believe that the Minister can appoint Coloured persons, and I think he would be doing a great service to the Coloured community if he does so. I do not think I need stress my point. I think the Minister knows what I am trying to get at. I feel this is a glorious opportunity for the Government to show its bona fides to the Coloured people and not to exclude them in the areas where they can best serve the Coloured people, which I think is the intention. I hope the Minister will consider it and see what he can do about it. I have read the Act of 1957 and I find that in the Schedule there is no reference to the Department of Coloured Affairs, and I do not see any reference to it in this Bill. It may be that it has been amended, but I see no reference to it at all in this book of mine which may not be annotated. I do not think there is a law at present which includes the Department of Coloured Affairs, and I think the Minister should do so in this amending legislation. I think the Minister might also consider an amendment to appoint justices of the peace where the Coloured Affairs Department have their regional offices. They have one in Bellville and the Coloured people have to go there. That also applies to areas like Genadendal and Pniel. If the people of Genadendal, which is a completely Coloured area, require the services of a justice of the peace, they must go all the way to Caledon and I can assure the Minister that it is not easy for them to travel that long distance. I believe that where the Coloured Affairs Department have established their offices, the Minister might consider the appointment of a justice of the peace. I know that some of them are commissioners of oaths, but they do not have the power of a justice of the peace, nor the higher status. There are certain documents which only a justice of the peace can sign and not a commissioner of oaths. I think the duties carried out by a justice of the peace should be extended to Coloured persons particularly in the Coloured areas. I feel sure that my appeal will not fall on deaf ears and I look forward with happy anticipation to the Minister’s reply.

I want to thank hon. members on the opposite side for the way in which they received this measure. I just want to tell the hon. member for Pinelands that at present, under the system of the demarcation of wards, the Minister may of course appoint as many justices of the peace as he likes. It is merely a cumbersome method, and I have pointed out the anomalies to which it may give rise. He asked me what the position would be in future. I cannot tell him exactly at the present moment, except that I shall have to see to it that where there is a thickly populated region an adequate number of justices of the peace will be appointed to be able to serve the public properly. But at the same time I shall also have to take the surface area into consideration. In sparsely populated regions with long distances I shall be compelled to appoint a justice of the peace in respect of a smaller number of people. In other words, I shall have to take into consideration the density of the population as well as the surface area. Field-cornets and shipwrecks, such as the recent wreck of the Seafarer, have been mentioned. In the past it would have been the work of a field-cornet to stand guard there. At the moment the police do that.

Concerning the plea of the hon. member for Boland, it is my information that Coloureds have in fact been appointed as justices of the peace, although not many of them. It is of course an office which enjoys a very high standing and therefore in future, as in the past, there will be discrimination in the favourable sense of the word when such appointments are made. The hon. member made a plea for the appointment of Coloureds as justices of the peace in thickly populated Coloured residential areas. If there are Coloureds of outstanding quality and good character in a place such as Athlone, there is nothing that prevents them from being appointed as justices of the peace.

The hon. member also referred to column 2 of the schedule. I believe that under the various amendments made from time to time the Secretary for Coloured Affairs is in fact already a justice of the peace, but if he is not, the hon. member should actually plead with the Secretary for the Interior that he be appointed a justice of the peace, because this is an Act which is administered by the Minister of the Interior.

He is excluded.

No, the Act implies that he is included, but the appointment has to be made by the Minister of the Interior.

In these few words I think I have complied with the request of the hon. member, and have also replied to the hon. member for Pinelands.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

There is an old Afrikaans saying that death must have a cause, and if there is no clarity about the cause of a death, then in terms of the legislation of virtually all civilized countries the authorities have to investigate until that cause has been determined. If the cause has been determined and it appears that the deceased person died as a result of natural causes, particulars of the death are recorded in official registers and all interested persons can then obtain a certificate indicating the relevant particulars, including the cause of the death.

In the Republic our legislation provides that it is the duty of every person present at a death to give notice of the particulars of that death, including the cause of the death, in the prescribed manner to the district registrar or assistant registrar of births and deaths, who shall register the death if he is satisfied that it was due to natural causes. If the officer concerned is not satisfied that the death was due to natural causes, it is his duty to report forthwith to the magistrate such facts concerning the death as are known to him, and he may not register the death until the magistrate has authorized it, which is frequently done only after protracted investigations. In addition, cases frequently occur where the police investigate the death of a person who presumably died of unnatural causes. In such cases, too, a death may not be registered until the investigations, which are sometimes very lengthy, have been completed.

As a result of these inquests there can, firstly, be no registration of the death, and, secondly, no death certificate may be issued. In terms of the existing legislation, i.e. the Registration of Births, Marriages and Deaths Act, 1963, no official proof other than a death certificate may be issued in proof of the fact that a person has actually died. As a result it is frequently not possible to administer estates until the inquests and eventual prosecutions have been disposed of, and as a result the dependants left behind by the deceased person frequently suffer want of bread. Pursuant to thorough consultation between the Department of Justice and the Association of Law Societies of Southern Africa, it is proposed in this Bill that provisional death certificates shall be issued in cases where the cause of the death is not indicated. Such provisional death certificates may then be used purely as proof that the person concerned is in fact dead. The Association of Law Societies, the Department of Justice and also my Department are satisfied that such provisional death certificates will not give rise to malpractices which cannot be eliminated. A magistrate will give provisional notification of death to the district registrar of births and deaths of the district in which the death occurred, only when he has been satisfied in respect of the identity of the deceased person and the date of the death. That officer will record the relevant particulars and issue provisional death certificates to interested persons until such time as the inquests have been disposed of and the death registered.

The proposals contained in this Bill are, therefore, intended to meet persons who are in difficult circumstances through no cause of their own and to spare them undue hardship at a time when they already have a great deal to endure.

We on this side of the House accept this Bill because we believe that this measure, whilst not absolutely necessary for the winding up of an estate, will most certainly expedite it by ensuring that claims are settled, insurance policies paid and the like. We feel that anything that can hurry the settling of estates will be a good thing. In most cases the person affected is perhaps a widow who is probably dependent upon the money from her husband’s estate to be able to carry on the ordinary business of living. On that basis we believe that the establishment of the principle of a provisional death certificate will be of benefit. However, there are one or two queries that do arise in my own mind; they might not be very serious but I think this is the time to put them forward. Sir, this Bill is very simple and very straightforward but one wonders whether perhaps one or two consequential amendments should not have been made. I have not gone into this matter very thoroughly but let me mention to the hon. the Minister the sort of thing that I mean. Section 5 of the Act prescribes the duties of a district registrar and the assistant district registrar on receipt of notice of a birth or a death. The section provides for only one notice. It is obvious that in the case of an inquest the registrar is going to receive two notices. He is first of all going to receive the notice on which he will issue a provisional death certificate; then when the inquest proceedings have been completed and the cause of death has been determined he is going to get certain extra details from the official who conducted the inquest. I do not know whether provision has been made here or not for the handling of those extra details and whether in fact the provisional certificates will tend to be in fact the only registration of a death for a considerable period. I should like the hon. the Minister to go into the matter. If he cannot give us the answer now he can do so at the Committee Stage. This would be a good thing for us to have.

The other matter which comes to mind is whether—it is a minor thing but I feel that we should also have this assurance from the hon. the Minister—this procedure of issuing a provisional death certificate will not tend to stall the holding or the completion of inquests. I think that the hon. Minister might give us his assurance about this point. When once you have taken away the necessity to give a death certificate quickly for winding up and dealing with estates or perhaps the payment of an insurance policy, will not the urgency disappear? That is now all dealt with by granting a provisional certificate. But what about the procedure of holding an inquest for determining the cause of death? The urgency is then to a large extent taken away. I believe that the hon. Minister will have to keep his eye on this because if he does not do so I think there might be a tendency, under pressure of work, for these proceedings to be lengthened, to be shelved or to drag on for a period which would be far too long. We would therefore like the assurance of the hon. the Minister in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there are any grounds for the hon. member’s fears in respect of the question asked by him i.e., whether this temporary notification of registration—it is not registration but a document issued to the effect that the person is in fact dead, in cases where the cause of death is not clearly apparent and known—will eliminate the inquest, because that is not so in all cases. The amendment provides explicitly that the magistrate shall issue the provisional certificate only in those cases in respect of which he is satisfied that it is not sufficiently clear and if an investigation has to be instituted. But I want to assure the hon. member that it is also issued on the understanding that the actual permanent certificate must follow and must be issued later, when the causes of death are known after all the particulars and factual circumstances have been determined. It will then have to be registered. This provisional document is not registered as such and does not obviate the other. The other one, following the inquest, must be issued even if the registration has to be duplicated. That is absolutely essential. It is not intended to have it substituted.

The second point relates to that possible consequential amendment. I shall go into that matter with the assistance of the legal advisers, and see whether it is essential.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the object of the Animal Diseases and Parasites Act is to safeguard our country’s livestock against diseases being brought into the country from beyond our borders. For that reason it is probably one of the most important Acts to our farming community, and to the stockfarmers in particular. Although the provisions of that Act impose numerous obligations on the farmers, it has enabled the Veterinary Services Section of my Department to exercise the necessary control over animals coming into the country, and in so doing to act as the guardians of our livestock. The success these officials have had in combating animal diseases is well known, and one can only pay tribute to them for the unselfish manner in which they are rendering and have in the past rendered this great service to the Republic. The measure which is before the House for discussion now, contains only two principles, and they are two very briefly-worded principles.

The first principle is to make provision for the payment in advance of the remuneration in respect of the tending or feeding of animals which have to be detained at quarantine stations, and to extend the powers of the Minister so that he may dispose of animals in quarantine stations in cases where the owner or importer fails to pay the relevant remuneration in advance. All animals which are imported are subject to being detained at a quarantine station for a certain period to prevent them from bringing animal diseases into the country. The owner of such animals is compelled to compensate the State for expenses incurred in connection with the tending or feeding of such animals while they are detained in quarantine. It often happens that importers fail to compensate the State for the tending or feeing of the animals after the prescribed period of quarantine has expired, or that they even leave the animals, usually pets, at the quarantine stations and that one never hears from them again. By making it compulsory to pay in advance one will not only eliminate quite a number of administrative problems but also avoid fruitless expenditure being incurred by the State in respect of costs in connection with the tending or feeding of the animals or the tracing of owners. As explained, if an owner or importer fails to meet his obligations the animal will remain in the possession of the State, and the Minister will have the power to decide how the animal will be disposed of.

The second principle is to increase the fines payable in terms of section 28 of the principal Act. The fines prescribed in the Act at present, are still precisely the same as those prescribed in the Diseases of Stock Act, 1911. As a result of the decrease in the value of money since 1911 it means that the fines which may be imposed in terms of the 1956 Act are extremely small and do not serve their purpose because they no longer serve as a deterrent for those who contravene the Act. In view of the foregoing it is now proposed that the amounts of the relevant fines be increased to the amounts proposed in order to make them more realistic, and also to serve as deterrent so that the provisions of the Act will be complied with more meticulously.

I have already said that although this is a short Bill, it is one of the most important Bills because it deals with the protection of our livestock in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, this side of the House takes pleasure in supporting this Bill, but I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to what may be regarded as anomalies in the Act at this stage. Dealing with Clause 2, I want to say that it is almost customary for the clearing agents to pay the cost of the quarantine of the animals on behalf of the importer. It will not make much difference whether he pays it at the end of the month or at the beginning of the month; consequently we gladly support the Bill. I just want to point out to the hon. the Minister that in most cases the feed is provided by the clearing agents themselves and that the compensation is based more on the daily cost of keeping the animal in quarantine, that is to say, for watering and tending the animal. For the information of the hon. the Minister I may just mention that it sometimes does happen that animals are imported into this country without their being accompanied by an export permit and a health certificate issued by the country exporting the animals. It happened in Durban recently that a herd of Hereford cattle remained in quarantine long after the quarantine period had expired because they were not accompanied by a veterinary certificate issued by the country of export. In such cases the importer is faced with great problems in this connection and has no means of recourse.

I now come to clause 3 of the Bill and I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that in the existing legislation the wording is not the same in the English and Afrikaans texts. The English text reads as follows, and I read section 28 (a) (3) of the principal Act—

The amendment in clause 3 refers to this section 28. The Afrikaans text reads as follows—

What is the word in the English text?

In the English text the word “move” is used, in other words, “beweeg”. In the Afrikaans text the word “verwyder” is used, i.e. “remove”.

English does not have such a wealth of fine words as Afrikaans has.

Sir, I just wanted to draw the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to that. If the interpretation is that the animal should be moved, we have no objection to the penalty clause, but it is particularly severe, because if the owner of an animal removed from quarantine or infected with an infectious disease, such as lumpy-skin disease or foot-and-mouth disease, should merely “move” such an animal he would be guilty of an offence. He would be subject to a fine, and I am sure that the Minister will go into this at a later stage, perhaps during the Committee Stage of the Bill, so that we may have clarity in this connection and may know whether it should be interpreted as “remove” or “move”, because in the English text the word “move” is used while in the Afrikaans text the word “verwyder” is used. I have drawn attention to a few points, and I declare that this side of the House is prepared to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, while I agree that there should be increases in the penalties, I do think that the penalties appear in this case to be rather vicious and severe. In respect of clause 28, dealing with pedigreed animals lawfully brought into the Republic, and which have been through quarantine stations, a problem is brought to mind, and that is what happens when those animals break out in some infectious disease which happens to have been brought in from outside? I have in mind a particular breed of pedigreed sheep. I should like to mention as an example the Hampshire Down fat lamb sheep. We know that many of those sheep were brought in not recently, but many years ago, from Hampshire, a county in the United Kingdom. Farmers bred pedigreed stock for fatlamb production, but now discover through our veterinary surgeons that these sheep have in fact been carrying a disease imported with the stock, a disease which we in this country call “scrapies”.

The hon. the Deputy Minister may possibly know about it. My question is: Does the Department reimburse these farmers who had to destroy their flocks and have suffered severe losses? Does the Department only reimburse on a percentage basis, or is the whole flock reimbursed according to the valuation of that flock made by a veterinary surgeon? This is something which is worrying many of us and I would be grateful if the hon. the Deputy Minister could give us an answer in regard to this problem. I have been through the Act and I do not see a solution, nor do I see anything relating to this particular aspect.

I should now like to deal with the quarantine stations. Many years ago, Sir, we had a quarantine station serving the North-Eastern Cape area in East London. It was during the Second World War that that station was done away with for various reasons.

Order! That has nothing to do with the Bill.

I am referring to clause 18, which deals with quarantine stations. To-day we only have two quarantine stations serving the whole country, namely in Cape Town and Durban. There is no station between Cape Town and Durban.

The hon. member must raise this matter on another occasion. He must deal with the Bill now.

I just wanted to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if he did not think it was time that we had a quarantine station in East London to serve the Native territories, the Transkei, the Ciskei, in fact the whole of the Eastern Cape and the Border areas.

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the clearing agent provides feed, but sometimes one finds that the clearing agent provided no feed and then the Department has to feed the animals. We are making provision for that now. In the second place, the hon. member wanted to know what the position was in the case of stock which entered the country without a clearance certificate issued by the country of origin, stock which are subject to a veterinary certificate. Stock falling in that group usually enter the country illegally. For that reason they will have to remain in the quarantine station for a longer period and until such time as we are sure that they may indeed be cleared under a veterinary certificate. The importer will have to pay for that longer period of detention as well.

The hon. member also raised the question of the words “verwyder” and “move”. If he will read the English text, he will see that the word “move” refers to animals being removed from the quarantine station. If, however, he fears that the wrong word was used in this case, I shall have the matter investigated.

“Move” is the correct word.,

I know it is the correct word, but the hon. member for East London (City) says it is not.

No, the hon. member says it is the correct word.

“Verwyder” is also correct. Another hon. member said that the penalties were too severe. I repeat: This legislation is one of the most important pieces of legislation for protecting the livestock of South Africa against, for example, “scrapies”. For that reason the penalties can hardly be too heavy, because the penalties are there for the protection of the entire stock-farming industry in South Africa. Secondly, the hon. member asked whether the Department would compensate people whose stock had to be destroyed as a result of diseases which had broken out, including stock which became ill after they had already been released from detention. This is not a law relating to production. It is a stock protection law. People who import stock suffering from these diseases do not do so at the recommendation or at the request of the Department. They do so entirely on their own responsibility. For that reason this Government cannot compensate people in respect of animals which may possibly be infected with diseases. We simply cannot do that. As regards diseases which break out afterwards, for example “scrapies”, the disease the hon. member has mentioned, this is the very reason why we are so strict and why we also require the health certificate issued by the other country. The other question asked by the hon. member is not relevant here. He may put the question during the Budget debate.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.