In connection with this clause I yesterday drew the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that in terms of the objects of the Act, as defined, the fund was only set aside for wool stabilization, and that it would not seem to us as though the stabilization of the price of wool sacks was one of the objects that could be included under “wool stabilization”. The hon. the Minister said in his reply that the “stabilization” of the price of wool sacks might perhaps be interpreted as being part of “wool stabilization”. I do not want to go into the matter much further, because it seems to me as if it is a wild flight of the imagination to think that, whereas the fund was established solely for wool stabilization, the acquisition or financing or manufacturing of the containers can have anything to do with “wool stabilization”. However, I want to accept the hon. the Minister’s assurance where he said that the acquisition and the manufacturing of sacks have all along been subject to the approval of the Minister. By way of repetition I want to remind the hon. the Minister that I have gone into the matter again and that the representations of the British Wool Commission were made without the consent of the woolgrowers, to whom the promise was made originally that this Fund would be used solely for “wool stabilization” and the marketing of wool, and that the representations made by the Wool Commission that the interest earned by the Fund may be used for the promotion of the marketing of wool were refused. While the Woolgrowers’ Organization has not approved of the representations, I want to accept the assurance of the hon. the Minister on behalf of this side of the House that he will take the utmost care to ensure that this money will be used only in exceptional circumstances and that such use will be restricted to the minimum, because it can so easily happen that considerable amounts of this reserve fund will have to be used to purchase or manufacture wool sacks or to keep them in stock with a view to eventualities that may arise.

I want to bring one more point to the notice of the hon. the Minister. Nowhere in the Wool Commission Act is it laid down that sacks may be handled by woolbrokers only. Any organization who handles containers or bags will be allowed to handle these sacks, and as far as this side of the House is concerned we have no assurance at all that any organization who handles sacks at this stage is so financially sound that the farmer would run no risk of losing part of these amounts. If the hon. the Minister can give us this assurance we shall accept it in that spirit.

The Act provides that the Wool Commission may purchase containers and sacks, which in its turn it may sell to brokers or other organizations that want to make sacks available to the wool farmer. It goes without saying, of course, that the Wool Commission will have to satisfy itself that it will be able to recover the money from the person who buys the sacks. The Wool Commission may lay down the conditions of sale to the buyer. I therefore do not think there is any danger that they will lose money on the sale of sacks. After all, there are enough organizations which distribute wool sacks and which are in a sufficiently sound financial position to pay the Wool Commission the purchase price.

The hon. member also raised another point, on which I just want to give him this assurance: The hon. member will remember that in the years when he was still chairman of the Wool Board, I insisted that the Wool Commission should be a separate commission under the jurisdiction of the Wool Board, for the important reason that one could not always distinguish between the finances of the Wool Board and those of the Wool Commission. At that time one could not say precisely what the administrative costs of each of those two bodies were, and it could very easily happen that some of the administrative costs of the Wool Commission were debited against the Wool Board, or vice versa, and for that reason we introduced legislation to establish a separate commission. The idea is, of course, that these funds should be used for this purpose only and that if the Wool Board wants funds for its own purposes, it should obtain such funds by increasing its levies. They cannot use interest, and so forth, earned by the Wool Commission for their own purposes; that is assurance that this aspect will be watched closely.

The hon. member said that it was very difficult to see how one could relate one’s stabilization scheme to this function which is now being entrusted to the Wool Commission. What is the purpose of the stabilization scheme? The purpose of the stabilization scheme is to support the wool market and to ensure that the producer receives the best price in case the price drops too low. If circumstances are such that one has to supply the sacks or containers through other organizations, which would make it more expensive for the producer to get those sacks, and if the Wool Commission, by carrying out this function, can supply the producer with the wool sacks at a price lower than that at which any other organization can supply them, one can regard it as a function that is performed to ensure that the farmer gets a higher price, because, after all, that forms part of his production costs. If one wants to carry out the aims of the Act meticulously this speaks for itself, of course, and the very reason why we are coming to Parliament is to amend the Act so as to provide for this additional function. The Marketing Act provides that in certain instances where this situation arises, certain boards may be granted additional powers. What we are doing now is, therefore, not inconsistent with the spirit of the Marketing Act. I have merely mentioned the fact that if under such circumstances one can get one’s container at a cheaper price than that at which it can be had through the normal channels of trade, the wool farmer must benefit by it, because it actually increases his price and in that respect one may to a certain extent regard this as a stabilizing function. I do not want to go into the matter any further; I think the hon. member is satisfied. Furthermore, I want to give him the assurance that the Wool Commission has to obtain the approval of the Minister for any money it spends and that all recommendations are investigated by the Marketing Council as far as the utilization of funds is concerned. As far as the question of control is concerned, the hon. member need have no fear. I think the hon. member himself has had the experience in his time that he was sometimes rather dissatisfied because the control of the Minister was somewhat too strict.

Mr. Chairman, I do not have any misgivings about the acquisition of woolsacks by means of money being provided to the Wool Commission. I am concerned about one thing, however, and that is the quality of the woolsacks. If a large amount of money is made available and if a large quantity of sacks is purchased, it is just possible that it may eventually prove to be a waste of money, because the quality of the woolsacks supplied to farmers at present is such that the sacks are virtually useless. I recently had the experience of finding it quite impossible to use woolsack grips on such sacks. One cannot use woolsack grips on the sacks for fear of tearing the sacks to pieces. Until such time as we have carried out sufficient research in order to get a proper sack which serves its purpose, it will perhaps not be advisable to buy large quantities of woolsacks, even though they may be obtained at a cheaper price. They may pile up in great quantities later due to the fact that there is no market for them. It is for that reason that I want to ask the Minister not to give his consent for something like that until he has seen to it that a proper sack is manufactured which will be able to withstand handling. It happens so often that wool is loaded onto railway-trucks, and despite the fact that all precautions are taken to clean the trucks, there remains sufficient dirt to dirty the wool if the woolsack is torn. The wool then reaches the port and a certain quantity is thrown aside by the broker or the buyer, which means a loss to the farmer. This is a very important matter. The jute bags are not used at present. We cannot continue with the existing sacks until such time as sufficient research has been carried out to make it possible to provide the farmers with a proper sack for baling their wool.

I just want to point out that the present discussion is actually proper to a Second or Third Reading debate. This is not a discussion for the Committee Stage.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Colesberg made the point which had been made by the hon. member for East London (City).

Yes, but I have ruled that point out of order.

The point made by the hon. member was that the wool growers in the Cape thought originally that when money became available for this purpose it would only be for the purpose of carrying out research to find the best type of container for the farmer. The Wool Commission is, of course, financially able to spend an enormous amount of money on the stock-piling of sack material.

Order! I want to ask the hon. member to raise this matter during the Third Reading debate. It really is not proper to the Committee Stage.

Mr. Chairman, may I refer to the other point made by the hon. the Minister, namely that the reason why we have this here, is to help and indirectly to stabilize the wool farmer in that there is now…

That is a question of principle in any case. The hon. member may raise it at the Third Reading.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, in this clause it is provided that the State President will have the power to appoint an additional member from the ranks of the National Wool Growers’ Association. In the original legislation it is laid down that the Council shall consist of five members, and in subsequent clauses it is stipulated how and in which order they are to retire and how members are to be appointed. In this addition to the section provision is made for an additional member who may be appointed by the State President and who shall be nominated by the National Wool Growers’ Association, but this legislation does not give any indication as to how long he will serve on the Board and in what manner he will retire. I shall be glad if the Minister will be kind enough to tell us whether this is not a flaw in this legislation.

He will, of course, be appointed for the same period and retire in the same way as all the other members. The period for which he will be elected and his term of office will be the same as that of the other members.

Clause put and agreed to.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, in order to facilitate reference to pre-Union legislation it was decided recently to make a survey of all the legislation passed prior to 1910 which is still in force in the Republic and to incorporate such legislation in a fitting manner into existing legislation, or to re-draft it in Act form as independent measures.

Section 23 of the South African Public Library Act of 1893 of the Cape of Good Hope is such a provision, and it stipulated that the Dessinian Collection was to be kept in the South African Public Library in Cape Town. This collection, together with approximately R200 for its gradual expansion, was bequeathed by Joachim Nicholas von Dessin, Secretary of the Orphan Chamber, in 1761, with the object that it should form a basis for a public library for the benefit of the community. Originally the collection consisted of 4,565 books, mainly on statutes, theology and the classics, as well as a considerable number of other papers, including one of the two extant duplicate copies of the diary of Adam Tas. In 1820 the Dessinian Collection was transferred to the South African Public Library established by Lord Charles Somerset in 1818. In 1821 a catalogue was published and an agreement was entered into with the Dutch Reformed Church as regards control of the collection, which consists of nearly 5,000 books at present. Mr. Speaker, this is briefly the history of the collection concerned, and in this legislation we are now providing for its continued existence. The other provisions of the South African Public Library Act of 1893 were repealed as far back as 1954, and the section relating to the Dessinian Collection has been embodied in the present Bill, which also provides for the final repeal of that Act.

Mr. Speaker, the motion by the hon. the Minister that we should accept the Second Reading of this Bill will be accepted unanimously. There will not be a dissident voice. The Dessinian Collection is one of the great national treasures of South Africa and it must be a great source of pride to the consistory and congregation of the Dutch Reformed Church in Cape Town, Die Groote Kerk, that they have been entrusted with the preservation of this great treasure. It does not belong only to a church or a congregation; it is the possession of all of us and it could not be preserved in better hands. The Bill makes mention of the collection being kept in a proper and commodious part of the library building. That is of course being done. I should say that the manner in which it is being preserved better than at any time in its South Africa, and as modern as in any part of the world. This remarkable collection is now being preserved better than at any time in its history. It is remarkable when one thinks of these national treasures, these great collections, that three come to mind, namely one in the eighteenth century, the Dessinian Collection, presented to the church by Von Dessin. Then in the nineteenth century we had the great national treasure, the Sir George Grey Collection, which is also in the South African Library and now we in this House have our collection, the Mendelssohn Collection. I should like to say if I may be permitted to wander from the Bill that you, Mr. Speaker, in your capacity as chairman of our Library Committee have pressed for many years to obtain better housing for this great Mendelssohn Collection of ours. If we could preserve our collection in a similar manner to the Dessinian Collection, we in this House would be as proud of our collection as the congregation and the consistory of Die Groote Kerk are of theirs. I have great pleasure in supporting the motion

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, since the passing of the principal Act in 1934 and the first Amendment Act in 1937, conditions in the country have changed to such a great extent as a result of rapid development that our conservation legislation has become somewhat obsolete. It has become necessary to streamline the legislation and in this way, too, eliminate problems which the Historical Monuments Commission have encountered in the implementation of the principal Act.

To enable the Commission to take faster and more effective action, provision is being made in the Bill for the Commission to be able to act through an Executive Committee and such other committees as the Commission may decide to nominate. As matters stand at present the Commission meets only twice a year, and all matters laid before the Commission have to stand over for the meetings. Special meetings are held from time to time but such meetings are a strain on the Commission’s funds which could be more effectively utilized if it could act through an Executive Committee and other committees. In terms of the Amendment Bill the full Commission will determine policy and the Executive Committee and other committees will then implement that policy. The Commission is authorized to assign certain of its powers and functions to the Executive Committee, and the Executive Committee, which will be able to act on the recommendation of the various committees, will be an effective body to take action in emergencies. Of course it is not the intention that the Commission and its committees should take action only in emergencies. It must, for example, not wait until a building is in danger of being torn down before it takes action. On the contrary, the Commission must tackle its work systematically, but where an emergency has arisen, it must be able to act immediately and expeditiously.

The Bill contains quite a number of finer details in regard to the appointment of a Chairman of the Commission, the election of a Vice-Chairman and the powers of both the Chairman and Vice-Chairman.

Hon. members will in fact recall that criticism has in the past been forthcoming when I, in accordance with my Department’s policy, made statutory provision for my being able, as responsible Minister, to appoint the chairmen of standing committees and commissions. In this regard I am thinking of the chairmen of the Archives Commission, the Heraldry Council and the National Film Board.

The idea is now to apply the same principle to the Monuments Commission. In terms of this Amendment Bill the present elected Chairman is regarded as having been appointed by me. The present Commission must serve until 1970 so that the present Chairman will act as Chairman at least until that date.

There are important reasons why the Minister should appoint the Chairman of the Historical Monuments Commission. This Amendment Bill also invests the Commission with wider powers. It may now also make over any of its properties in trust. It may borrow money, effect mortgages and make recommendations to the State to make contributions towards the restoration of old buildings. I am of the opinion that since the Commission is now going to be invested with these powers, it will greatly facilitate matters and bring about smoother co-operation between my Department and the Commission if I, as the Minister of Education, Arts and Science, were to appoint the Chairman as well as the members.

There is another important point in connection with the appointment of the Commission to which I wish to refer. It is namely that the committees of the Commission, with the exception of the Executive Committee, may co-opt persons who have not been appointed by me onto the committees. Naturally the membership of the Commission must be kept small—at present 13 persons are serving on it—but in order to be able to obtain the best counsel and advice, it is desirable that the services of authorities not serving on the Commission be utilized. Although, just as in the case of the members of the Commission itself, no remuneration is to be paid to such co-opted members, such members may nevertheless claim reasonable travelling and subsistence expenses from the Commission.

Members who have visited our monuments will have noticed that the Commission has erected tablets at some of them on which details of the events which took place on that spot are recorded. The information is supplied in both the official languages, as the Commission is in fact empowered to do under existing legislation. However, the Commission has, in one or two cases, made use of another language. For example it has made use of Portuguese at the Customs Gates at Komatipoort where the journey in 1725 of a company of Dutchmen from the present Lourenço Marques to what is known to-day as the South-Eastern Transvaal, is commemorated. Quite rightly, however, doubt arose as to whether, in terms of existing legislation, the Commission could make use of another language on its tablets. In terms of the Bill which is now being dealt with, the Commission will in future be able to make use of any language on its tablets which it deems fit.

Many monuments which have been declared to be such are situated off the beaten track and in such cases it is necessary for the Commission to have the power to construct and maintain roads where necessary. However, the Commission will be obliged to negotiate with the owners in question and to obtain their consent before they proceed to make such a road. I want to emphasize that with the building of such roads there is no attendant expropriation of land. I am convinced that we will receive whole-hearted co-operation on the part of the owners since they will be protected against trespassers by means of fences and gates which the Commission will be required to erect.

In the past the Commission has published writings on the proclaimed monuments of South Africa. The first publication appeared in 1941 and the second in 1949—unfortunately both publications are now out of print. The Commission also published a very interesting pamphlet on the Dingaan’s Kraal, and are at present preparing a third major publication on our monuments. In terms of existing legislation the Commission is not explicitly empowered to publish such publications, and in order to establish beyond doubt its functions in this regard the necessary provision is now being included in the Bill.

I have already said that the Commission may make over any of its property in trust and in this connection in particular it is being envisaged that the Commission will make over such property to the Simon van der Stel Foundation in trust. The Foundation is a company which, on a non-profit basis, makes the conservation and restoration of historical buildings its task. The Foundation is therefore dependent in the first instance upon contributions from the public in order to carry out its restoration function. But the Government is sympathetic towards the aims of the Foundation and gives tangible proof of this by making an annual contribution of R4,000 in order to enable the Foundation to cover its administrative costs. But more than that, the Government will also be prepared, at the request of the Foundation, to make contributions towards the restoration costs of buildings of sufficiently historic, aesthetic or architectural value to be preserved for posterity. However, it is no more than fair that the Government should refer such applications to a body of experts for recommendation, and the Historical Monuments Commission will, in terms of the Amendment Bill, consequently be instructed by me to examine all such requests and to submit to me their report and recommendations.

A few years ago the Commission experienced a grave disappointment. They wished to recommend the proclamation of the house of David Lindley to the Minister, and as it was compelled to do, the Commission notified the owner of the house of its intentions. As the owner had the right to do, he objected to the proposed proclamation, but did not let the matter rest there. No, he immediately had the house broken down before the Minister had had an opportunity of considering the recommendation of the Commission. Not only the Commission and the Minister, but also the people of South Africa, must be protected against such irresponsible behaviour. Consequently the Bill provides that when the Commission notifies an owner of its intention to recommend a proclamation, such owner may not, for a period of three months calculated from the day on which the Commission gave him such notice, alter or destroy that property. This period of three months will afford the Commission the opportunity of making its recommendation to me, and if I am convinced that the Commission has sound reasons for the proclamation, I can then proclaim it. If not, the temporary servitude lapses after three months. This is no unnecessary encumbrance which is being imposed on such owners; it is merely a fair precautionary measure against any possible vandalism.

It cannot be argued away that owners are in many cases opposed to the proclamation of their properties and that the reason for this is to be sought particularly in the fear which arises that a proclaimed property will become the property of the Commission. Nothing is further from the truth, for all that such proclamation implies is that such property may not be altered or destroyed without the permission of the Commission.

However there is a justified complaint which owners of proclaimed houses have, and that is that the public regards such a proclaimed property as a public place to which and through which they can proceed unhindered. That is a misconception on the part of the public because the fact that a property has been proclaimed does not make it a public place. The rights and privileges of the owner to privacy remain, and access to such property can only be obtained if the owner gives his explicit permission.

As has already been said, the Commission must obtain the owner’s permission when it wishes to proclaim a property. Now it sometimes happens that the Commission wishes to enlarge the proclaimed site, but in terms of existing legislation, the Commission is not obliged to obtain the owner’s permission for such enlargement. That obligation is now specifically stated in the Bill and the Commission will in future also have to obtain the owner’s permission when proposing that the area of a proclaimed monument be enlarged.

A further small change contained in the Bill, is that the owner of a proclaimed antique may not alter it without the written permission of the Commission.

The amendments already mentioned make it necessary that the powers of the Minister to make regulations should also be altered. In this way the Minister is now also being empowered to make regulations in regard to the procedure and quorum of the committees of the Commission, as well as to determine the travelling and subsistence allowances of the members of the committees.

Wherever the noun “Union” occurs in the principal Act it is now being replaced by the noun “Republic”, except in section 1 because in that section the word “Union” is used to indicate a historical condition.

Mr. Speaker, in this Bill too we are concerned with the preservation of the treasures of South Africa, these historical monuments, as the poet T. E. Brown expressed it, “to preserve whate’er is left to us of ancient heritage”. In this Bill the Historical Committee is given higher status. Their functions are extended, their activities will now be greater than they were before, and the creation of these sub-committees will make it possible for them to carry out their work more efficiently, and, possibly at greater expense. There will not be much expense, but there will be greater expense.

There are two points that occurred to me. The first one is—and I should like the hon. the Minister’s assurance on this—that subsistence and travelling allowances granted to members of the sub-committees that may be formed, will be subject to the provisions of section 12 of the Act. I am assuming it will be so, but I should like the Minister’s assurance.

The second point which I should like to mention is this. As I said, this Bill raises the status of the Historical Monuments Commission, and if that is the case, then I cannot understand why the Minister is withdrawing the gazetting of the names of members of the Commission. I believe that this point has been raised in Another Place. I should like to see the names of members of this Commission gazetted, especially this Commission, which is a very important one. There are commissions which are not as important as this one, and then it does not matter very much whether or not the members’ names appear in the Gazette. But I should like to see the names of these members appear in the Gazette. Clause 1 (1) (b) proposes the following substitution for subsection (6) of the Act—

and the following words are, in terms of this clause, deleted from the corresponding section in the Act—”and he shall notify every such appointment in the Gazette”. I accept that the Minister has the explanation that there are so many commissions and committees in South Africa to-day that it is not always desirable to mention their names in the Gazette, but this is an important one and I should like him to give us his views on this. If he does not regard it as a very important commission, I can understand it, but we on this side regard this Historical Monuments Commission as a very important one. If we could have that assurance we will support the Second Reading.

I am very pleased that the principle which one would automatically expect, namely that where tablets with information in regard to places of historic interest or national monuments are erected, it will be done in both official languages. But no provision is made here for the official languages to be given preference. I have read inscriptions on tablets where our two official languages were not given preference, and where it is now being added that, if the Commission deems it desirable, any other language may be used as well, I just feel that one will assume that the Commission will give preference to the two official languages. However, I wonder whether it would not be a good thing to include it in this measure that the two official languages will in fact be given preference. I just want to say that I have myself seen inscriptions on tablets where the two official languages were not given preference and where the Afrikaans language was relegated to third place in the inscription on the tablet.

The other matter I am merely raising in order to receive an explanation from the hon. the Minister. I want to put this question. It seems to me that the Afrikaans long title of the Bill is not as comprehensive as the English long title. The Afrikaans long title refers to the amendment of the “Wet op Nauurlike en Historiese Gedenkwaardighede en Oudhede”, and the word “monumente” has not been introduced here, while in the English long title the word “monuments” features prominently.

As far as the few remarks made by the hon. member for Koedoespoort are concerned, I merely want to say the following. In the first place, where the other language will be used, it will only be done in those cases which I have mentioned; perhaps it will be a Bantu language in cases where something of importance happened near our borders as in the recent case where the Portuguese language was used. What the hon. member said here, i.e. that preference was not given to the two official languages on tablets which were erected, is news to me. I should very much like to hear more details from him about that matter. I do not know when it happened. I hope it did not happen in the period for which I have been responsible.

Great care is taken that the official languages should receive preference. It varies, and sometimes we use first the one and then the other, and vice versa. We try to act as fairly as possible in that regard. I know the hon. member is a language expert, but as far as the long title of the Bill is concerned I am of the opinion that “gedenkwaardigheid” is such a comprehensive word in the Afrikaans language that it thoroughly embraces the concept of monuments. I do not think that the English language has a homonym for “gedenkwaardigheid”. I do not want to interfere with these things, but if it is so that the Afrikaans is less comprehensive then I want to say that we are of course dealing here with the original long title of the original Act of 1934 which we have retained because this measure is merely an Amendment Bill. We have retained it because it is indicated thus in all documents.

I have already given the hon. member for Kensington the assurance that it is in terms of section 12 that those fees are paid. In fact, there is an amendment in clause 2 on the Order Paper which the Senate could not accept owing to financial implications. It is definitely mentioned in the amendment that the tariff will, in terms of section 12, be laid down by proclamation. Then there are the names in the Government Gazette. There are literally hundreds of commissions which the Government has to deal with.

But this is a very important one.

Yes, I accept that, but every commission thinks that it is the most important one. Each commission appointed by the Government is given wide publicity through the S.A.B.C., through the Department of Information and through the Press. To-day the Government Gazette is full to the brim of the announcements of all kinds of commissions, and the Government has decided to be sparing with these kind of publications. For that reason we did not do so, and we cannot really see that it will serve any purpose, for this Commission is not one to which representations can be made. There is an office, but it is mainly a Commission which has to examine the representations which are received. The wide publicity which will already have been given it by the Press and by other bodies we deem to be sufficient to inform the entire nation in regard to the people who are doing that work.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The purpose of the Bill is to make the provisions of the Protection of Names, Uniforms and Badges Act, 1935 (Act No. 23 of 1935) applicable to the Territory of South-West Africa as well, and also to extend to that Territory the provisions of regulations which have already been promulgated or will in future be promulgated in terms of the Act.

In 1962 the Heraldry Act (Act No. 18 of 1962) was placed on the Statute Book, and in terms of that Act persons and associations in South-West Africa can now have badges registered, and such registrations are valid in both the Republic and South-West Africa.

The anomalous position has now arisen that an association, which is registered in South-West, may register its badge in order to prevent another association from using it, but it receives no protection whatsoever in respect of its name. It is essential that the Protection of Names, Uniforms and Badges Act, 1935, should now be extended to South-West Africa so that associations there will also be protected as far as their names are concerned. The amendment is being effected with the approval of the Administration of South-West Africa.

This Bill is really just a formality, assuming, of course, that hon. members for South-West Africa are satisfied. In those circumstances we on this side would support South-West Africa. It depends on what they think. If they are satisfied then we are completely satisfied.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The introduction of this Bill arises from a request received from the board of the South African Bureau of Standards and is purely administrative and domestic in nature, as hon. members have probably noticed. It purports, namely, to change the designation of the head of the South African Bureau of Standards from director to director-general.

I may explain briefly that in the field of scientific research it is customary to associate the title of director with the head of a laboratory who enters a specific scientific field. Thus the C.S.I.R., for example, has Directors of Building Research, Chemical Research, etc., and outside it the Director of the Fuel Research Institute, the State Metallurgical Laboratory, etc.

In contrast with the last-mentioned organizations the S.A.B.S. is constituted of various laboratories, each of which is just as big if not bigger than most of the above-mentioned laboratories, which all come under full directors whereas the S.A.B.S. as a whole, with the number of laboratories falling under it, is also under the management of a director. In actual fact, therefore, this state of affairs reduces the status of the Director of the S.A.B.S. as well as that of the officers in charge of the Bureau’s various laboratories, who are now of necessity designated assistant-directors. The designation director-general is in fairly common use at scientific and standards bodies in other countries. Locally we have, for example, the Director-General of the A.E.B., i.e. the Atomic Energy Board. The Bureau’s request appears to be quite reasonable, and as far as the change in the designation of its head is concerned, he will get the correct status.

That amendment is proposed in clause 1 of the Bill, whereas clauses 2 and 3, respectively, provide for the continued validity of the appointment of the present Director of the S.A.B.S. and of any steps taken in the past on behalf of or by the Director, who upon promulgation of this Bill will become the Director-General.

We on this side have no objection to the Second Reading of this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, by the introduction of this Bill in Parliament, South Africa has gone a further step in putting into legal effect the principles to which she has agreed by participating as a signatory to the Rome Convention of 1961 for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations.

Hon. members will probably call to mind that this Bill was originally introduced into Parliament during 1965 when it was referred to a Select Committee for consideration. The Select Committee finalized its deliberations before the end of that session, but unfortunately time did not permit the final adoption of the Bill by Parliament. It was re-introduced last year and had an easy passage through all its stages in the Other Place. Although an explanatory memorandum on the Bill was also tabled in 1965 for the information of hon. members, I consider it advisable, due to the time that has passed since then, to give this House a short resumé of the general background to this Bill and also to deal briefly with the more important principles involved therein.

The Republic of South Africa is a member of an international organization, generally known as the Berne Convention, which fixes the conditions subject to which copyright in literary and artistic works is accorded to the various members of the organization, numbering some 52 countries. During 1961 this Convention was supplemented by the Rome Convention, to which I have already referred in my introductory remarks.

While the Copyright Act, adopted by Parliament during the 1965 Session of Parliament, deals purely with matters relating to copyright of authors and the producers of phonograms of literary, musical, dramatic and artistic works, the Bill now before the House deals with the rights of the performers of these works.

This Bill has been drafted in consultation with the legal adviser of the European Broadcasting Union, the S.A.B.C. and a number of other organizations, amongst which were the South African Phonographic Industry, the South African Association of Authors, Composers and Music Distributors, the South African Recording Rights Association, the various Boards for Performing Arts of the Republic, etc., and judging from their reactions, all of them signified their agreement with the proposed measure.

Being a signatory to the Rome Convention does not yet entitle South Africa to participate in the material advantage of that Convention. It is encumbent upon every member country to cater by way of legislation for the terms of that Convention, and for this reason Parliament is now being asked to approve of this Bill.

Turning more specifically to the Bill itself, it will be noted that its main objective is to provide for the protection of the rights of performers of musical and other artistic works, as distinct from the protection of copyright which may exist in respect of the original works performed by them and in regard to which separate provision has been made in the Copyright Act. These rights are fully set out in clause 5, which forms the crux of this measure. In simple language they are: No person may without the consent of the performer (a) broadcast or perform in public the performer’s performances; (b) make a fixation of the unfixed performances. That means put it on a record, tape, television, etc.; and (c) make a reproduction of a fixation if that fixation was made without the performer’s consent or for purposes not included in such consent.

Clauses 3 and 4 are closely related to clause 5. While clause 5. as I have just explained, prescribes the rights of performers, clause 3 stipulates that performers will enjoy these rights provided their performances take place in the Republic. Clause 4 in its turn confers these rights on local performers in other countries which are members of the Convention, on condition that those countries provide reciprocal rights for performances which take place in the Republic.

I now come to clause 8. which corresponds with the provisions of section 7 of the Copyright Act. In this clause provision is made for general exceptions from protection in terms of the measure before the House. In short the clause provides that no infringement is being made on a performer’s rights if in terms of (a) sub-clause (1) the performer has consented to his performances being recorded in a fixation or film; (b) sub-clause (2) a performance, in whatever form, is merely used for private study, criticism or review, reporting on current events, education, research, judicial proceedings or for the demonstration of a recording, magnifying or similar instrument; and (c) subclause (3) the S.A.B.C. makes recordings or re-production without the performer’s prior consent, provided that the Corporation pays to the performer equitable remuneration, subject to arbitration or in accordance with an order of the Copyright Tribunal, if necessary. Furthermore, such recording or reproduction may be used by the S.A.B.C. only and may not be kept longer than six months unless it is of exceptional documentary value in which case the recording or reproduction must be kept in the S.A.B.C.’s archives.

I should mention that the Select Committee experienced some difficulty with the wording of subsection (3), more specifically sub-paragraph (a) (iii) thereof, and eventually agreed to an amendment which unfortunately I cannot accept after serious consideration and lengthy discussions with the Government law advisers. I, therefore, had this sub-paragraph redrafted in its original form, and also had a further provision added to it allowing for redress to the Copyright Tribunal. The difficulty experienced by the Select Committee revolved around the stipulation in clause 8 (3) (a) (iii), in terms of which the S.A.B.C. must pay “equitable” remuneration to the performer subject to arbitration, if necessary. The amendment adopted by them provides for the payment of “agreed” remuneration and drops the right to resort to arbitration, if necessary. My reason for not being able to accept the Select Committee’s amendment is the fact that the S.A.B.C. very often and at very short notice have to make broadcasts in which the performances of some or other performer are used. The performers concerned or even their addresses are not always readily available, with the result that if the Select Committee’s recommendation were to be accepted, the S.A.B.C. would be in an individious position and the clause in its entirety would be of very little value to them, and obviously also not in the interests of performers. If the S.A.B.C. must pay “agreed” remuneration it is quite clear that negotiations with the performer concerned must take place before a particular broadcast is made. Apart from this, the amendment proposed by the Select Committee will be in conflict with an already accepted principle in the Copyright Act, 1965, namely section 7 (5) (a), which permits the payment of “equitable” remuneration for the use of an author’s work.

There is yet another problem in connection with the Select Committee’s recommendation. The substitution of “equitable” by “agreed” will, if the S.A.B.C. should make use of a performance of a performer without his prior consent, subject the Corporation to court proceedings by that performer in order to have remuneration fixed which the performer considers reasonable. In other words, resort will in any event have to be taken to our courts if agreement cannot be reached. On the other hand in cases such as this it can be argued that if the S.A.B.C. uses a performance without prior agreement as to remuneration, such action amounts to infringement on the rights of the performer in terms of clause 10. The result will be that the S.A.B.C. will continually run the risk of prosecutions for infringement of the rights of performers. It is abundantly clear that the Select Committee’s amendment will cause many unnecessary court actions to the embarrassment of the S.A.B.C., while to my mind the original wording cannot be to the detriment of either the S.A.B.C. or the performer. I trust, therefore, that the House will agree with my reversion to the original wording of this sub-paragraph.

As is customary with legislation of this nature, provision is also made for penalties and the payment of damages for infringement of rights (see clause 9 of the Bill).

There is only one more clause which I wish to mention at this stage and that is clause 12. In this clause protection is given to a person who makes a recording, film or broadcast of a performance with the consent of another person who purports to have the necessary authority to give such consent. Where it is found that the consent in question has been given without the authority of the performer concerned, the maker of the recording, broadcast, or film, etc., shall not be guilty of an offence. The person who acted without such authority shall, however, be liable to a fine or imprisonment or both.

In summarizing, the Bill aims at the prevention of the exploitation of a performer’s talents without his consent. Apart from fulfilling South Africa’s international obligations in this regard, it will certainly meet a long-felt want on the part of performers, and should, if accepted by Parliament, do much to encourage and promote local talent.

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister pointed out, this is really a Bill which is complementary to the Copyright Bill which was passed by this House a few years ago in that it seeks to protect the rights of the performers, whereas the Copyright Bill protected the rights of composers and authors. This Bill therefore is in line with the legislation we have previously passed and conforms with the requirements of our membership of the Berne Convention. The Deputy Minister has assured us that all interested parties have been consulted, and that they are satisfied with the measure. Therefore, whilst there may be some comment on one or two clauses in the Committee Stage—the Minister has told us for instance that there is one clause in regard to which he had not been able to accept the Select Committee’s recommendation—we have no objection to the Second Reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of constant research and scientific progress both overseas and in the Republic it is now possible to mix explosives consisting of a mixture of ammonium nitrate and non-explosive component parts at the blasting place where they are needed, for immediate use, with the result that it is no longer necessary in all cases to convey the explosives to the blasting place by rail or by road, or whatever the case may be. These modern techniques are actually safer, therefore, and in many cases people prefer them to the conventional methods. But in section 4 the Explosives Act provides only for the manufacture of authorized explosives in a licensed factory, and it has therefore become necessary to amend the Act in order that the modern techniques which I have just explained may be used.

We have no objection to the Second Reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments contained in this Bill are aimed mainly at bringing the provisions in the principal Act that relate to security by auctioneers, agents and factors who sell livestock or agricultural produce, into line with the corresponding provisions in the Perishable Agricultural Produce Sales Act, 1961 (Act No. 2 of 1961), which relate to commission agents. In terms of section 6 (1) of the principal Act a registered co-operative agricultural society or company is, inter alia, exempted altogether from giving security. All other concerns which do not enjoy such exemption are required to give security to the satisfaction of the Minister for the fulfilment of their obligations as auctioneers, agents or factors in respect of any person from whom they have received livestock or agricultural produce for sale. It is now proposed to provide that co-operative agricultural societies and co-operative agricultural companies which are auctioneers, agents or factors for the purposes of the principal Act, will be exempted from security only in respect of the sale of livestock and agricultural produce on behalf of their members. Where such business is undertaken on behalf of non-members, co-operative agricultural societies and companies will be required to give security in respect of that business. The same principles are already of application in the case of the Perishable Agricultural Produce Sales Act, 1961. In view of the fact that farmers’ special co-operative companies do business on the same basis as co-operative agricultural societies and co-operative agricultural companies, it is further proposed that these provisions should also apply to farmers’ special co-operative companies, as in the case of the Perishable Agricultural Produce Sales Act. It is also provided that the required security be given to the satisfaction of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing or an officer designated by him, instead of to the satisfaction of the Minister, as at present. This proposed amendment will also bring the relevant provision into line with the corresponding provision in the Perishable Agricultural Produce Sales Act. As far as the maximum amount of the required security is concerned, it is felt that increasing it is justified at this stage. The present maximum is fixed at R5,000 and it is proposed that it be increased to R 15,000, which is regarded as adequate.

The wording of section 6 of the principal Act has also been revised to set out more clearly the purpose for which security is given, but this does not bring about any change in the present position. It is now stated specifically, for example, that the taxed costs of any action for the recovery of the proceeds of livestock and produce may be paid from the security. In accordance with the notice with regard to security published in terms of the principal Act, such taxed costs have always been allowed as a claim against the security. On the other hand it has never been the intention that interest on the proceeds of livestock and produce which an auctioneer, agent or factor may owe the seller, should be payable from the security. It would in any event give rise to almost insurmountable administrative problems if such interest were also allowed as a claim against the security.

For the rest, only consequential and formal amendments are made to the definitions in the Act, and provision is made for the decimalization of the amounts mentioned therein. The Federation of Livestock Auctioneers of South Africa, which has a direct interest in this Bill, has been consulted and approves the proposed amendments.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have no objection to this legislation because we realize that anyone acting as an agent or broker for a farmer’s produce should give due security. In the past it was frequently our experience when such people acted as brokers, whether as a company or as a co-operation, that farmers suffered heavy losses because something went wrong with such an institution. Therefore we on this side of the House have no objection to the principle of the Bill. Of course it is also correct that the co-operations acting as brokers for their members’ produce should be excluded from the obligation of giving security.

The question does arise that some directors of co-operations feel that because they market farmers’ produce and have dealings with such non-members it is perhaps unfair that they will now also have to give security in cases where they act as brokers for nonmembers. Nevertheless, I want to say that in general we on this side of the House have no objection to the Bill. We think that the hon. the Minister is acting correctly. Whenever steps are taken to tighten up and improve the marketing facilities of a farmer, we on this side of the House are always prepared to lend our support. We feel that this is an important aspect of the farmer’s industry, and that not only his production but also the marketing of his produce is important; we therefore support this legislation.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, during 1961 it was decided to withdraw certain portions of the forest lands in the Tsitsikama from demarcation and to declare them a national park. After the withdrawal the Department of Forestry had no further interest in the land, but neither was it possible to proceed immediately to the proclamation of the Tsitsikama Forest and Coast Park. Pending proclamation control over the land was therefore transferred to the Parks Board in the meantime.

Certain improvements to existing buildings had to be made urgently. The bungalows which had been let by the Department of Forestry had to be maintained and let to the public by the Parks Board, and roads as well as accommodation for the Board’s officials demanded further expenditure. Naturally the Board kept the revenue collected from letting the bungalows and from campers for its own account, to reimburse it in part for its abovementioned expenditure.

The Controller and Auditor-General, however, queried the authority of the Parks Board to incur any expenditure in connection with and on the lands purchased with a view to a new national park or to addition to an existing national park, but which has not yet been proclaimed as such. It is naturally inevitable that such expenditure will be incurred, and in order to set the matter right legislation was passed last year to the effect that the Board, if authorized to do so by the Minister, may inquire into the question of whether or not it would be desirable to declare any area a park or to declare any land part of a park. The Controller and Auditor-General is of the opinion, however, that the amendment was not phrased widely enough to authorize the Board to incur provisional capital expenditure, i.e. prior to the date of proclamation, of a capital or administrative nature, or to collect fees in respect of proposed parks. The law advisors agree with the views of the Controller and Auditor-General; hence the amendment as contained in clause 2.

Until now the closing date of the financial year of the Parks Board was 31st October. The date 31st October fitted in better with the seasonal activities in the Kruger National Park, but in view of the fact that a considerably larger portion of the park is now kept open throughout the year, and that for practical purposes it is preferable for the financial year of the Board to coincide with that of the State, it is now provided that the financial year of the Board will also end on 31st March. This will apply as from 1st April, 1966. In other words, it will be of retrospective effect.

A further matter which is set right is the question of the opening and closing hours of shops situated inside national parks. At present it is the position that shops situated inside such parks are subject to the provisions of the various provincial ordinances relating to opening and closing hours. In view of the exceptional nature and scope of the services provided by the Parks Board for the benefit and enjoyment of visitors to parks in the various provinces, it is extremely difficult, with a view to the sound administration of such parks, to abide by the divergent provisions of the various relevant provincial ordinances. You yourself know, Mr. Speaker, that if one wants to go out in the morning to see lions one should not wait until the shop is open. Nor does one want to return any earlier than necessary in order to find the shops open, and that is why this correction is now made.

The hours should also be extended.

The measure provides for that as well. In the Transvaal the shops in the Kruger National Park, and in the Free State those in the Willem Pretorius Game Park and the Jim Fouché Holiday or Angling Resort, have already been excluded from the provisions relating to shopping hours. The provincial administrations have been consulted and they had no objection to the proposed amendment contained in clause 4, in terms of which the various provincial ordinances relating to shopping hours shall have no force or effect in a national park. I move accordingly, Mr. Speaker.

May I say at once, Sir, that we on this side are going to support the second reading of this Bill. Clauses 2 and 3 are really straightforward administrative matters. I think that the provision contained in clause 2 is a very wise one. The Deputy Minister has explained what has happened in connection with the Tsitsikama Reserve, and it is quite clear that there should be some legal process whereby one can meet the expenses incurred when investigations are being made into the necessity or desirability of an area being proclaimed as a reserve before such a proclamation is in fact made.

We almost had the same trouble in regard to the Augrabies Waterfall.

Well, the provision in clause 2 takes care of all that; it deals with a matter which is from a financial point of view rather untidy, and it deals with it very satisfactorily as far as we are concerned.

Clause 3 is quite straightforward; it is a matter relating to the Auditor-General with which we agree. As far as clause 4 is concerned, I must state that we on this side of the House will always look very carefully at any infringing on the powers of the provinces, but I am glad to have the assurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister that in the case of the reserves which he has quoted, the provinces have indicated that they have no objection to the provisions of clause 4. In fact, Sir, I think that in its own right this provision is a good one, because one cannot have two authorities in charge of these institutions like stores and public amenities. These things may be dealt with by means of a provincial ordinance, and then they may happen to fall foul of the regulations made under the National Parks Act.

As I said, Sir, we on this side have no objection and we support the second reading of this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, as a result of changed practices which came to the attention of my Department, it has become necessary to make certain amendments to the Agricultural Pests Act, 1957. During the past few years hon. members of this House pointed out during discussions of agricultural matters that there were certain anomalies in the nursery industry that should be set right by means of legislation.

My Department endeavours to ensure that plant material leaving registered nurseries is free from disease as far as possible. The proposed legislation will make it possible to apply that control more effectively. Although we still receive frequent complaints that nurseries do not sell the material ordered, that is something which cannot be controlled by my Department. Such cases should be reported to the South African Nurserymen’s Association, because most of the growers are members of that Association and a quality stipulation is enforced there. In other words, we want to give the growers themselves the opportunity of protecting themselves and assuring the world that they will supply good plant material. This amending Bill, which bears the approval of the relevant concerns and of which I just want to mention the main points, was drafted pursuant to consultations with the S.A.A.U. and the S.A. Nurserymen’s Association.

Firstly, under the new definition of “nursery” all premises on which plants are grown, except for private use, will be required to be registered as nurseries in terms of the Act. This will eliminate the practice of some people to sell their surplus plants.

The registration of premises of non-growers who sell plants will also be compulsory. This will provide the Department with a list of chain stores and other undertakings that sell plants, in order that they may also be inspected from time to time with a view to plant diseases and pests. Such sellers, however. will pay a considerably lower registration fee than growers themselves. That means that any person who sells, whether a chain store, shop or a grower for personal purposes, will be required to be registered as soon as he decides to sell, and thus the Department will have a list of sellers at hand.

Secondly, the insertion of the definition of “sell” now also includes “offer, advertise, keep, display, dispatch, convey or deliver for sale, or exchange, or dispose of for any consideration whatsoever, or dispatch, convey or deliver in pursuance of a sale, exchange or disposal as aforesaid”. Under the existing provisions of the Act a person must first actually sell a plant in conflict with the provisions of the Act before he can be prosecuted for an offence.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, additional requirements are laid down for the registration of nurseries and for affixing the name and address of both the grower and the seller to the plant or the container in which it grows or is packed. In other words, it will no longer be possible for one grower to accept plants from another and sell them under his own name only; he will also have to affix to the plant the name of the nursery which grew the plant and sold it to him. This will facilitate the tracing and more effective control of possible diseases in nurseries.

In the fourth place, stricter control over the lifting, removal or destruction of plants in nurseries which are under quarantine is contemplated. Under the existing provisions of the Act it is difficult to exercise control effectively as it is quite frequently found upon re-inspection with a view to cancellation of quarantine that the plants placed under quarantine are no longer on the premises of the nursery. In defence the grower or seller usually asserts that the plants concerned have died or have been destroyed by him in order to do away with the infection, and although the containers are usually shown, it is frequently suspected that the plants have been sold. As the infection is no longer in evidence, quarantine has to be lifted and the grower or seller cannot be prosecuted because it cannot be proved that he removed the plants or had them removed.

Finally, Sir, because the Agricultural Pests Act, 1957, as amended, already contains all the provisions of the Psorosis Act, 1927, it is proposed that the latter Act be repealed in its entirety.

The object of this Bill is therefore to see to it that the general public and our farmers in particular obtain plant material that will be free of diseases, and I trust the House will give it its kind support.

On behalf of this side of the House I want to say that we do not oppose the Second Reading. We welcome the Bill and its provisions, particularly in view of the last reasons mentioned by the hon. the Deputy Minister, namely to ensure as far as possible that the plants, shrubs and trees sold for planting vineyards and orchards will be as free from diseases as possible. It is mainly for those reasons that we want to support the hon. the Minister. But I think the most important reason to support him is that there are so many people who grow plants which end up in the hands of other growers somehow or other and are sold under the names of those growers and are frequently not only infected with diseases, but are not good material either. If this will enable the hon. the Minister to have somewhat more control over that kind of thing, I believe that it will be to the advantage of our fruit industry and of the wine industry, and even of people who have ornamental trees in their gardens.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

I can assure this House that there is at least one member of the Soil Conservation Board, the hon. member for Natal, who has been waiting for this Bill for a long time, because it is an extremely important Bill as far as they are concerned. On the occasion of the motion for the Second Reading of this measure it is not necessary for me to give a detailed explanation of it. As we all know, the Soil Conservation Act of 1946 is probably the most democratic Act which has ever been placed on the Statute Book. It is a measure that was welcomed on all sides at the time, because it was felt that urgent and firm action was necessary to combat the erosion of our soil and to protect our veld and our water sources. My Department realized full well that the success of such a measure and the progress made with its application would depend very largely on the initiative and co-operation of the farming community itself. The Department realized only too well that it was easier and far more effective to guide a farmer than to coerce him, and I want to say here that this Bill is intended to enable the farmer to preserve the soil both for himself and for his descendants. Therefore we only want to guide the farmer and therefore this is a democratic Bill.

One can feel proud of the success which has already been achieved as far as soil conservation is concerned, and the co-operation which a large part of the farming community has given to this grand effort, sometimes under difficult circumstances, is praiseworthy and is fully appreciated. We are all familiar with these aspects and it is probably not necessary for me to go into them any further.

Although the Soil Conservation Act is, as has been mentioned, a most democratic one, it is nevertheless necessary to make smaller changes of a non-contentious nature from time to time in order to adapt to changed circumstances. The amendments which I am submitting to this House to-day are in the same spirit, and I should like to mention the most important of them.

During 1960 the principal Act was amended to include under the definition of “occupier” all persons who as lessees or otherwise had the management, charge or use of land or any person who had the right to cut trees or wood, and also “bywoners” or “deelsaaiers”. But not only these groups were included under the definition of “occupier”. It went further and also included labour tenants or squatters or servants as defined in the Native Trust and Land Act of 1936. The intention was that it should also be possible to compel these persons to apply soil conservation. We are all familiar with conditions in certain districts of the country where large numbers of squatters live on farms. Subsequent to the 1960 amendment my Department was faced with the practical problem that soil conservation plans also had to be served on all squatters as “occupiers”. That is precisely where the great difficulty lies in Natal. The hon. member for South Coast will know of all the labour farms in that province, and now the Act provides that we must serve the soil conservation plan on every one of them as well, even though the persons concerned are not there and even though we cannot find them, and even though they have no responsibility there. From the nature of the circumstances it is difficult to carry out these provisions to the letter, because the names and addresses of the squatters and other incidental occupiers are not always known. The legal advisers were of the opinion that as the Act then read a soil conservation plan or a fire-fighting plan could not be valid in law unless it had been served on all owners and occupiers. Consequently an amending Act was passed by Parliament in 1964 in order to place this position beyond any doubt. That amending Act provided, inter alia, that plans only had to be served on owners and occupiers where names and addresses were known. In practice this provision gave rise to endless problems, particularly in Natal. Some farms are occupied by large numbers of squatters, as I have said, and although the names of most of them are known from the records kept by the Bantu Affairs Commissioners, the squatters have no fixed postal addresses, with the result that the plans had to be served personally. The administration of such a provision has proved to be impossible, and therefore this Honourable House is being asked to restore the position that obtained before 1960. My Department is more interested in the owners, and we are of the opinion that full responsibility for carrying out soil conservation plans should be placed on them alone. This matter has been discussed at length by the Soil Conservation Board, and that body is particularly concerned that the position should be rectified as soon as possible.

Furthermore, it is proposed to amend section 19 (4), which provides that an endorsement must be made on the register and on the title deed of the land if a soil conservation plan has been declared applicable to that land. The provision would be useful to bind new owners of land, particularly in respect of the maintenance of soil conservation works on which the State has already paid subsidies. For various practical reasons, however, the Deeds Offices have found it quite impossible to make such endorsements, and it is proposed that the subsection be repealed. After consultations with the Chief Registrar of Deeds it has been decided, instead of this procedure, to prescribe a statement which has to be submitted at every transfer of agricultural land (that is to say, land outside cities and towns and outside Bantu and Coloured trust areas under the new definitions proposed in section 1), to the effect that the soil conservation plan is applicable to that land or that such a plan is not applicable. This will ensure that the new owner will at least have to submit an official document and that he will not be able to declare in future that he was unaware of the soil conservation plan applicable to the land. Now he will no longer be able to say that he did not know.

Lastly it is proposed to insert a definition of “agricultural land” and of “urban area” in view of the amendment in regard to the submission of a certificate to the Registrar of Deeds, which I have already mentioned. In addition I just want to mention that I shall move a small amendment at the Committee Stage.

On behalf of this side of the House I want to say that we support the Second Reading of the Bill. It is actually a little boring this afternoon that one should get up at each one of these agricultural Bills and agree with the Minister. On the other hand it shows how easily the hon. the Minister gets the support of this side of the House when he comes forward with good legislation. We think that the changes which are being made are good. I have always found it strange that a soil conservation plan could also be served on a man who is a “deelsaaier” or on someone who is perhaps a squatter or a labour tenant. In actual fact those people have no responsibility in respect of the land; in the first instance the responsibility is naturally that of the owner or the lessee of the land. As far as the “deelsaaier” is concerned, I think the “deelsaaiers” remaining in South Africa to-day are very few and therefore I also think that it is right that that obligation will rest upon the owner. As the hon. the Deputy Minister said, the change which is being effected is a great improvement, because it is often very difficult to obtain the addresses of the labour tenants, servants or squatters.

As regards the last clause, clause 2, which provides that a transferee shall furnish the deeds registry with an affidavit, I think that the change being effected here is a particularly good one in that a person who buys land must realize that if a soil conservation plan is applicable to that land he cannot evade his responsibility. One quite often finds that people who have done a good deal of soil conservation work are forced to sell their land for some reason or other and that the next owner adopts a quite indifferent attitude to the soil conservation work which has already been done there. We therefore support this Bill.

I think it is common cause that everybody in this House and the public in general accept the principle of soil and water conservation. It is something that is forcibly brought home, particularly in times of drought such as we have been having during the past two or three years, to people who normally would not perhaps give it any great thought. From that point of view one can have very little quarrel as my hon. colleague has said, with this Bill. But I want to approach it from a slightly different angle and in regard to the definition in clause 1, which again excludes land owned by the Bantu Trust. I say “again” because it is excluded to-day. This is again fortified in the Bill which is now before us. Here we had an opportunity to remedy the position. Sir, I have no hesitation in saying that some of the worst eroded areas and the areas where soil conservation is needed more than anywhere else in South Africa, are to be found in the Bantu areas, the scheduled Native areas and the areas owned by the Bantu Trust. There are hundreds of thousands of acres where the damage will be done when we have weather conditions such as we have at the present time. When I read reports in the newspapers and I hear over the wireless that six, seven or eight inches of rain had fallen within 24 hours or within two days, I know what is happening; in those places where the farming community have done their best to carry out the principles of soil conservation and where work has been done, you can still get washaways and you can still get trouble when you get that kind of precipitation but, Sir, how much more so when no soil conservation work has been done and where the bare and the barren hillsides, with no attempt in the case of cultivation to plough on a contour, or even to take the most rudimentary steps, are exposed to these terrific downpours and the topsoil is simply washed away in vast sheets—hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of topsoil—because there has been no attempt at soil conservation. I know that there are certain selected spots here and there where the Department of Bantu Administration is carrying out certain works in connection with soil conservation. I know those areas. But that is not the point. The point is that the law should apply to those areas in the same way as it applies to the White man. Sir, I come from a border farm and when we try to get our members to accept the principles of soil conservation and to spend money in the interests of soil conservation, they just point across my own fence and say, “Look over there; what is your answer to that?” What were formerly clear, permanent pools of water on the farms of our members, are to-day just sand-beds because of the erosion that has taken place higher up and has come down through the Native areas. That is the position, Sir, and I doubt whether it misses out 1 per cent of the rivers into the east coast, right from the Portuguese border down to the Cape/ Natal border. These conditions apply in practically all these rivers. What is the good of putting a law on to the Statute Book where we express these great hopes, hopes for our country? But is it not our country when it is in a scheduled Native area? Is all that topsoil, all that fertility that gets washed down the rivers, not part of South Africa? Has the time been reached when those areas are no longer part of South Africa? Are they foreign states today? Can we afford just to wash our hands of them and to say that our law dealing with soil conservation and water conservation will apply to the White areas but as far as the scheduled Native areas and the areas under the care of the Native Trust are concerned, they are no longer part of South Africa and we cannot help it if those areas are eroded and washed away into the sea? I claim that these areas are still part of South Africa, part of our country, and any erosion in South Africa is part of my country’s erosion, and it is going to have its effect on the remaining portions of South Africa, the White portions. You cannot have eroded areas which are in the scheduled Native areas without having a reaction in the White areas. Sir, I do not know about conditions in the Highveld, and I am not going to attempt to speak about the conditions there; I am speaking now about the coastal conditions which apply from the Portuguese border and continue right down to the southern border of the Transkei and in fact right down to East London. Sir, this law should be applicable to everybody, so far as it is possible. I agree with the Deputy Minister that it is better to lead people than to try to drive them. He probably has a particular case in mind; I want to speak to him about it. As far as the Bantu Affairs Department is concerned we should also try to lead them; as far as the Bantu are concerned, we should try to lead them to an appreciation of the fact that in promoting soil conservation they are helping themselves. They are not only helping the country at large but they are helping themselves. We must embark on a process of persuasion, of education and of demonstrations by practical means of the benefits to be derived from soil and water conservation. I know it is a slow and uphill process but it should be done. But when the law does not apply to those areas and the White man sitting on his farm sees that the law is not applied there while pressure is brought to bear upon him, then he throws up his hands in despair and says to himself: “What do I do under these circumstances? This is no good to me; I want to know that I am going to get something out of it, but I want to know that there is going to be a fair burden imposed upon all of us and that there is going to be one law for all of us.” That is the attitude that is being adopted at the present time and it is a hard attitude to fight against. I say again that this amending Bill presented an opportunity for that old provision to be departed from. I say that the Department of Bantu Administration should have been approached and the wisdom of bringing this law into operation over these areas should have been pointed out to them. I know that it is going to take a long time; it is not going to be done in five or six minutes or within a year, but the law could gradually have been brought into operation over these areas by persuasion and education. We would then have taken a very big step forward indeed. I have no objection to the principle of the Bill and its general provisions but I regret from the bottom of my heart that this exception is being made again in respect of land which is part of our Republic of South Africa and which we ought to be defending just as much as we defend the soil on our own farms.

I have all sympathy with and I appreciate the strong language used by the hon. member for South Coast. He is quite right. The Bantu areas are still part of the Republic of South Africa; they are not foreign territories.

For how long?

The hon. member may ask, “For how long?” I do not want to be dragged into a political debate, but I want to point out the administrative problem to hon. members. One cannot have two forms of control over one area, and because that is so my Department has been in the closest consultation with the Department of Bantu Administration. We also go much further. Recently the Department of Agriculture Technical Services has again had consultations with the Department of Bantu Administration and of Planning, the National Transport Commission and the Provincial Administrations in regard to the demarcation of roads and the erosion accompanying that, because every department has control over a certain aspect. I think I can freely invite any member of this House to go and have a look where Bantu Administration has already come to realize the necessity of soil conservation measures. I can name the hon. member a few places, but I shall name only one as an example, Nongoma. Not only has veld control been applied there to train the Bantu to leave the veld to lie unused for a while, but contours have also been constructed. However, we have one difficulty to contend with, and there the hon. member for South Coast is right. It is an educational task because one cannot threaten these people. They have to be guided and educated over a long period of time. It is the traditional attitude of the Bantu that his wealth lies in quantity—large numbers of children and large numbers of livestock—and not in quality. Now that attitude first has to be changed and he has to be told, “Look, you should not farm with large numbers of stock on this piece of land because you will trample it and ruin it.” He must be conditioned so as to know that he should farm with better quality stock there in order to achieve this conservation. I want to give the House the assurance, however, that we cannot bring the Bantu areas into the Act in this way, because the Bantu areas are often communal property. It belongs to the tribe with the chief as its head. To whom is it going to be made applicable? Is it going to be forced onto the whole tribe? That is why my Department is acting in the closest collaboration with the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, so much so that amongst the one-year students at Potchef-stroom University this year we have four persons from the Department of Bantu Administration who, after following a one-year course there, are going to give guidance in soil conservation exclusively to the Bantu. I want to give the House the assurance that we shall take the necessary steps in this regard, without including the necessary provision in the Act. by guiding them and pointing out to them that they must educate and direct their own people in this regard.

I hope my speech will help you.

I am grateful for the hon. member’s speech. I just want to say too, that an amendment will also have to be included in clause 1 which will make it possible for a person who has bought land under the control of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure to obtain a loan and to qualify for a subsidy, which at the moment he cannot do because he has not yet obtained transfer.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

A superficial glance at this Bill gives one the impression that we are now washing our hands altogether of the responsibility to protect birds in South Africa, and that the field is now thrown wide open to people who want to exterminate and shoot. First of all I want to give the House the assurance that that is not the case. This Bill merely provides that in terms of the two Acts which are now to be repealed, no wild birds, i.e. birds found temporarily or permanently in the country, may be caught, exchanged, sold or exported without a permit issued by my Department. Until now the policy followed was to issue no permit for catching wild birds to private persons, and exporting wild birds was allowed only for scientific and educational purposes. Arising from the power conferred on the provinces by Act No. 50 of 1935 and the ordinances passed by the respective provinces from time to time, nature conservation developed into an important function of the provincial services. I want to emphasize that nature conservation is a matter which the provincial administrations are eager to handle.

This ambiguous legal provision naturally gave rise to considerable anomalies, and the continued existence of the two Acts under discussion may invalidate some provisions in the provincial ordinances, as the Cape Provincial Administration pointed out in representations to my Department. It so happens that the Cape Provincial Administration is at the moment facing the problem that people have contravened their ordinances but that they cannot institute prosecutions because our Act created an anomaly. Because my Department had no inspectors at its disposal it could not enforce the Acts properly, and the establishment of such a service would amount to duplication because the provinces do have inspectors for nature conservation, and the protection of wild birds would therefore be more appropriate to the provinces. I have already mentioned that they are eager to do so, and they also do it very well.

I may just add that the prohibition on the export of ostriches will continue to be controlled by my Department because ostrich farming is deemed to be of economic importance, and my Department would like to retain its say over those large birds.

You want to keep their heads in the sand.

No, Mr. Speaker. I am not dealing with those matters.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must return to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the repeal of the two Acts is welcomed by all the provincial administrations—they actually asked for it—and I trust the hon. House will give it its favourable consideration.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House not only support this Bill but we welcome it because it is once again one of those measures which are going to remove uncertainty and give one legislative body, in this case the Provincial Councils, power to legislate. Parliament itself has now stepped down and prevented that difficulty which has arisen in the past where two legislative bodies with equal powers in a particular field may clash and where Parliament will naturally have the last word, the Parliamentary Act having precedence over any provincial ordinance. May I in passing thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for saying how well the provinces are administering the wild life in their care. Included in that is our own avifauna which is the subject of this Bill. It is a rare tribute that we give to the provincial administrations powers which vest in hon. gentlemen in authority on that side of the House. This is a very welcome tribute indeed. I can assure the hon. Deputy Minister that this will be very much appreciated.

It is an honest one.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister emphasizes that it is honest. We took that for granted from an hon. member in this House. Although a little note of levity has crept in, this question is really a very serious one. I think that I can say for all four provinces which are doing the job very well, that we are very keenly interested indeed in the preservation of bird life. It is something which together with the preservation of our natural fauna and flora, ranks very high indeed. We have certain kinds of birds that are a pest—I exclude them for a moment—because they have increased in numbers under certain conditions to the extent that they simply have to be destroyed. That is that and there can be no argument about it. As to the generality of our indigenous birds however they are a permanent part and a very important part of the whole of the agricultural set-up in South Africa. Destroy the bird life and you have changed the ecology of the whole agricultural community of South Africa. One of the basic features and factors will have gone. It has been found in countries overseas where the protection of the indigenous avifauna has not been so keenly upheld as it has been in South Africa that the most serious and deleterious effects for agriculture have followed when that bird life has been destroyed. We are therefore very anxious indeed to have the powers to preserve our bird life through the powers of the provincial councils to legislate, the Administrator to make regulations and so on. I can assure the hon. the Deputy Minister that the trust that he has placed in the provinces to safely carry out what has been entrusted to them will not be abused but that South Africa can rely upon the fact that every effort will be made by every means, legislative and administrative, to see that our avifauna is properly protected and that the care is lavished upon it to which it is entitled as a part of the heritage we have and which we are enjoying here in our country and want to pass on to those who come after us.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, this is a Bill to amend certain provisions of the Aliens Act of 1937 with a view to facilitating the administration and to rectify a deficiency which was probably not foreseen when the Act was drafted in 1937, but has now been brought to light. In clause 1 of the Bill it is sought to amend the definitions of the Act so as to bring them into line with amendments made to the South African Citizenship Act of 1949 and the Admission of Persons to the Union Regulation Act of 1913, which were promulgated after the promulgation of the Act now under review. It is also sought to provide a definition for the expression “European inhabitant of the Union” as used in section 4 (3) (b) of the Act. In terms of section 4 of the existing Act the authority to grant a permit for permanent residence is vested in the Immigration Selection Board, established under section 3, and in terms of sub-section (4) of section 4 the Chairman of the Board is required to issue the permit which has been authorized. As the issue of a permit is purely an administrative matter, it is considered that the administrative procedure should be simplified by enabling the Secretary for Immigration, or any official designated by him, to issue the permit. I propose, therefore, in clause 2 (a) of the Bill, to amend the Act accordingly. In clauses 2 (a) and (b) of the Bill it is also proposed to add a proviso that the recipient of a permit for permanent residence must enter the Republic within a period of 6 months from the date of issue of the permit or within a period for which it may be extended, failing which the permit will lapse. This is essential as the merits of each applicant are judged on the circumstances obtaining at the time when his application is considered by the Immigration Selection Board. If a period of validity is not stipulated and the immigrant should fail to take up permanent residence within a reasonable time, the circumstances of his case might have changed to such an extent by the time the permit is made use of, the Board might not be prepared to grant a permit if the application were to be considered then. He could, for instance have committed a serious crime in the meantime or he could have become mentally or physically incapable of providing for himself and his dependants. In fact, we have had a test case which arose out of this difficulty. The Government law advisers are of the opinion that a permit issued in 1948, which has not been made use of, is still valid in spite of the fact that the person concerned is, in the opinion of the Immigration Selection Board, an undesirable type in the circumstances presently surrounding his case.

Mr. Speaker, it is also necessary to make provision, as I propose to do in clause 2 (a) of the Bill, for an extension of the period of validity of a permit in deserving cases. An alien may have to dispose of his fixed property and other assets and make certain other arrangements after he has been granted permanent residence or he may have other sound reasons for not being able to take up permanent residence in the Republic within six months. In such cases we want to make provision that the Secretary for Immigration should be in a position to extend the validity of a permit and also to lay down conditions for such extension, such as for instance the submission of fresh proof of health.

Finally, Sir, there is an obvious error in section 4 (5) where the word “or” was used instead of the word “and”. The opportunity is now being taken to remedy this textual error.

Mr. Speaker, we regard it as quite reasonable that there should be a limitation on the period of validity of permits in respect of persons who enter the country. The rest of the Bill contains only administrative amendments, with the result that we have no objection to the Second Reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This measure is a simple one which will probably call forth little discussion. It was passed in the Other Place during the previous session already and it is now being resumed in terms of Standing Order No. 71. The Bill proposes to amend Section 7 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1944, which governs the preservation of court records, and Section 9 of the Act, which governs the appointment of judicial officers. As is generally known, the records of a magistrate’s court are preserved at the seat of the court under section 7 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1944, for periods which vary from two to 15 years according to the nature of the records. Experience has shown, however, that the need of access to court records which have been dealt with is very slight after a few years have elapsed. Accordingly the law has been amended from time to time in the past in order to reduce the original preservation period of 15 years in respect of certain court records. Nevertheless, several thousands of court records are still taking up considerable storage space every year to no purpose seeing that they are seldom, if ever, consulted. The Department of Justice is finding it increasingly difficult to comply with existing provisions in connection with the preservation of court records without incurring considerable expenditure in respect of additional storage space. The problems being experienced in this regard can, however, be eliminated by having the periods for which records have to be kept at the seat of the court laid down administratively by the Secretary for Justice as circumstances require instead of prescribing them by law. Valuable records will, as in the past, continue to be stored at archives after suitable periods have elapsed, from where they can at any time be re-obtained by the office of origin if required. The proposed amendment will prevent the incurring of unnecessary expenditure at a large number of places in order to obtain storage space, as well as the repeated amendment of the Act in order to adapt it to circumstances.

As far as the propsed amendment of section 9 is concerned, it may be mentioned that in terms of section 9 of the Act the Minister may delegate his power of appointing judicial officers to officers of the Department of Justice holding the ranks mentioned in the section. Because the designations of the ranks concerned have been changed time and again in the past, the section has had to be amended repeatedly. Such an amendment has once again become necessary as a result of the recent renaming of the ranks concerned. The repeated amending of the section simply because the ranks have been renamed can, however, be avoided if the Minister is authorized to delegate his powers in this regard to officers of the Department of Justice without mentioning the ranks of these officers in the Act. Of course, such powers will, as in the past, only be delegated to senior officers.

There is also a provision in the Bill which affects the position of Bantu Affairs Commissioners. The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and officers of his Department may make judicial appointments in respect of districts or sub-districts under his administrative control. Consequently it is necessary to adapt the existing provisions in this regard to the amendment now being proposed. I move.

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister said, there is not much in this Bill, as it merely deals with the keeping of records and the appointment of officials. But it is a fact that before the law did lay down for what period these records had to be kept. Now the period will be decided by the Secretary for Justice. I want to point out that the public did know where they stood, and their representatives here did have some say in fixing the period for which records would be kept. I quite appreciate the justification given by the hon. the Minister, namely that these periods are changed from time to time by different Acts of Parliament. I should like to know whether the Minister can tell us in the Committee Stage what principle will be adopted by the Secretary in deciding for how long different types of records will be kept. As the Minister knows, if a judgment becomes superannuated and someone wishes to act thereon, application has to be made to the Court for the record. But if the record has been destroyed, he will not be able to obtain the copy. I suggest therefore, that the Secretary for Justice keeps these records for some considerable time before he does destroy them. In criminal matters it will probably not matter very much, but in civil matters it may be of importance to have a copy of a record.

I should like to hear from the Minister, who will be responsible for getting the record from the archives? If a copy is required, how does the party concerned obtain a copy from the archives? I know of an instance where an attorney applied to a magistrate for a copy of a court judgment in a case decided some time ago, and he was told to obtain it from the archives. Surely it should be the responsibility of the Department of Justice to obtain the required copy from the archives, because, Sir, I do not see how the archives can merely hand out records to every Dick, Tom, and Harry who may want a copy. Who will make the copy? I do not think the archivist will make the copy. I shall be glad if the Minister will deal with this matter perhaps in the Committee Stage or during the Third Reading, if he does not know the answer at present.

With regard to the appointing of officials, I think the wording of the Bill before us is certainly much better than it was previously. We on this side support this measure.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

At present persons whose rate of earnings exceed R2,860 a year are excluded from the ambit of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and as soon as a worker earns more than that amount he is no longer a contributor to the Fund and cannot accumulate further credits for the purposes of unemployment insurance benefits.

A maximum wage limit is laid down in the Act because only workers whose wages fall under that limit are regarded as persons in respect of whom provision should be made for assistance by means of the Unemployment Fund. In view of wage increases, however, it is necessary to revise the maximum wage limit from time to time.

During recent times there have in fact been representations from various trade union federations in which an increase in the maximum wage limit was urged in order that persons who had previously come within the ambit of the Act, but who had ceased being contributors as a result of wage increases, could continue being so.

The representations which were received were referred to the Unemployment Insurance Board for inquiry and recommendation. For the information of hon. members I may just mention that that Board is a statutory body under the Act on which both employers and employees are represented, and one of its functions is to inquire into and to make recommendations to the Minister regarding any matter that relates to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Initially the Board endeavoured, when considering the representations, to collect information on the actual increases in salaries that had taken place, but such statistics are not readily available.

At its meeting held on 21st September, 1966. the Board decided unanimously to recommend that the maximum wage limit be increased to R3,120 a year, i.e. an increase of 9 per cent on the previous figure of R2,860 a year, which had come into effect in July, 1965. The Board is of the opinion that the increased wage limit will bring most of the persons who had been excluded as a result of wage increases back within the ambit of the Act. The Bill provides accordingly and it is in the interests of the workers that it be placed on the Statute Book as soon as possible.

Why was an amount of R3,120 resolved on?

That was the recommendation of the Board in their well-considered judgment, and we accepted that. It is estimated that the proposed amendment will bring 30,000 workers in Group 12, i.e. the highest wage group,, within the ambit of the Act and that it will cost the State approximately R80,000 a year.

Mr. Speaker, it is now approximately two years ago that this particular provision in the Act was amended by increasing the maximum to R2,860 a year. At that time we on this side of the House, and I understand also certain trade union representatives on the Unemployment Insurance Board, pleaded that the amount should be R3,120, but our request was rejected. We wanted the determination of that amount to be based on the consideration that this Act would then be placed on the same basis as the Workmen’s Compensation Act. It was replied, however, that the two Acts had nothing to do with each other. I therefore find it interesting, Sir, that the amount which is now proposed is the same as that laid down in the Workmen’s Compensation Act. From that point of view this measure is an improvement because it creates some uniformity, although there are of course other differences in the calculations made in terms of these two Acts.

This side of the House supports this measure, but what gives rise to some concern is, in our view, the fact that Group 12, of all the various groups into which beneficiaries under this Act are divided, now becomes an enormous group. If one considers the 12 groups provided for in the Act one finds that every time an employee’s salary increases by R156 a year, he moves to a higher group. That applies for Group 1 up to Group 11. An increase of R156 in a man’s income means that he moves to a higher group, and then his compensation under unemployment insurance increases automatically. That has the interesting effect that the rate of compensation need not necessarily be adjusted in order to meet inflation, because a worker’s wages are increased as inflation becomes more severe, and compensation under the Act is also increased automatically if he falls in a higher category: But in category 12, which should in general include responsible people who will not have recourse to the provisions of this Bill too frequently, one finds that there is an infinitely larger margin than only R156 a year. It starts off with people who earn R 1,974 a year plus a cent. They receive compensation of R14 a week. But in that group there are now people earning R3,120 a year, and they will receive the same compensation. To me it is inconceivable that one can think that persons whose standards of living differ so widely can meet the problem of unemployment through the same compensation of R14. I should therefore very much like to hear from the Minister whether he and his Department will not consider introducing a further subdivision here as well, and at least giving people in the higher category better compensation to enable them to adapt themselves to some extent, without tremendous disruption, to the problem of unemployment if they come face to face with it. At the moment it is becoming quite unrealistic. The reason for the increase in the maximum was that as a result of inflation and the consequential wage increases people stop belonging to the Fund and that the Fund consequently loses revenue, which proves that a problem is arising in this respect. R14 compensation today cannot be compared to R14 in 1957. I therefore want to urge the Minister very strongly, in the interests of people affected by this, to give attention to this matter. We cannot disregard differences of R156, which appears to be the basis on which this classification was made, when dealing with people who earn more than R1,794 a year.

With that one observation—other members will raise other points—I want to say that we support this Bill as a practical measure to meet reality in South Africa, which is that the rand is depreciating by the day under this Government, and that we have to adjust our laws accordingly.

I am pleased that the Minister has approached the House once again to bring a larger group of workers under the cover of unemployment insurance. If one bears in mind that at the end of 1965 there were 1,175,000 contributors to the Fund, one realizes what a large number of workers are at present protected against unemployment in South Africa. As the hon. the Minister said, this Bill will bring in an additional 30,000 workers, but if we consider the normal increase in two years it is to be anticipated that by the end of this year that number of workers will increase to 1,300,000. We are, therefore, grateful that not only the workers who previously contributed to the Fund and who are now excluded as a result of wage increases, but also a larger number of workers can be brought in under the cover of the Act. This is the third time this Government has increased the maximum. In other words, it is an attempt to ensure that the cover afforded by the Act keeps abreast of the increase in wages. I also want to say that it is actually a pity that the Minister did not see his way clear to give this 12th group higher benefits, but I think it is quite understandable and that one has to choose in this matter. Hon. members will recall that in 1959 the Fund reached the highest mark in its history, i.e. R134 million, and that it then started sinking and decreased so rapidly that the Auditor-General and the Committee on Public Accounts had to bring it to the attention of this House that something had to be done to counter that unfavourable trend in the Fund.

Order! The hon. member is now going somewhat too far.

The hon. member mentioned increased benefits, and I want to point out that we have to choose in the matter. The fact of the matter is that in 1961, when Group 12 was established, the percentage ratio of a contributor’s benefits to the median wage in Group 12 represented 33,8 per cent of his wages, and with the increase in 1965 that percentage decreased to 31.4 per cent. If one now has regard to the median wage in the new maximum of R3,120 which is being laid down, then the percentage ratio of the weekly benefit to his wages decreases further to 29.6 per cent. It appears to me that this is a matter one will have to face up to, but on the other hand I want to point out that the Fund has not yet succeeded again in reaching the mark of R134 million which it reached in 1959. It now totals approximately 126 million. As regards the average cover, the average cover per contributor was R190 in 1959. At present the average cover is only R109. I, therefore, maintain that if one gave increased benefits under the present dispensation, considering the present state of the Fund, one would merely exhaust the Fund. If one wanted to maintain the Fund at the same level with regard to the cover provided…

Order! The hon. member is now going too far.

I just wanted to make the point that we cannot pay increased benefits at this stage.

The Minister, in introducing this Bill, gave some indication of what the effect would be in regard to the groups of contributors who now find that their wages are beyond the ceiling as set out in the principal Act. I believe that the House deserves to have a little more information from the Minister in this regard. We realize that in 1962 important amendments were made to the Act which resulted in an accumulation in the fund. In terms of this Bill, further contributors in Group 12 will be brought into the ambit of the Act, and some of them were no longer contributors due to the fact that the ceiling was set at R2,860 per annum. In terms of this Bill it has been increased to R3,120. Therefore it would appear that one of the effects will be a greater amount accruing to the fund by way of contributions. Here I think the Minister should give us a little more information as to the effect this legislation will have on the fund. In 1962 we on this side bitterly opposed the amendments made. We find that as the result of those amendments the fund has increased. In 1963 the accumulated funds were R120 million and at the end of 1966 it had increased to R127 million. In other words, the funds have increased by R7 million during the past three years. Now we are creating a situation where even more funds will accumulate. We would like to have some indication as to what the anticipated additional amounts which will accumulate in the fund will be as the result of the raising of the ceiling proposed in this Bill. We understand from the Minister’s introductory remarks that it is merely to keep pace with the increase in wages and it is not really to increase the number of contributors but rather to keep those persons who were contributors in the past. So it would appear that there will not be an increase in the number of contributors. The hon. member for Pretoria West indicated how large the number of contributors was. Therefore it will be interesting to learn from the Minister whether as the result of this Bill he anticipates an increase in the number of contributors. We realize that one of the side-effects of inflation is an increase in wages and it has meant that it has become necessary for the ceiling to be raised. At the same time one would anticipate that the Minister will give due consideration to the benefits that are paid. These people will now, in terms of this Bill, come under a group defined in the Schedule of the principal Act. In terms of that they will also be enabled to claim benefits on the scale of the benefits payable under this Act. We now find that this Group 12 will have a very large disparity in figures. The Schedule, as it stands, has steadily been increased over the years. In 1965 it was increased from R2,500 to R2,860 per annum, and now in terms of this Bill it will be increased to R3.120. However, we know that the Unemployment Insurance Board are always anxious to ensure that the ceiling figure is divisible by 52 so that it can be worked out on the weekly basis. The benefits of these persons in Group 12 will also be on a weekly basis. I specifically mention this question of Group 12 because they pay the highest contributions and the highest number of contributors are in that group. According to the latest available report. I think approximately 30 per cent of all contributors are in Group 12. I might mention that difficulty is often experienced by members of this House in keeping track of the position in regard to this fund due to the fact that only one report is tabled in this House and a member has to read that report in the office of the Clerk of the Papers. However, the position is that Group 12 will now consist of persons earning R 1,749, which on a weekly basis is R34.50; in the same Group 12 will come this new ceiling figure of persons earning R3,120 per annum or R60 per week. They are all included in this group, the worker earning R34.50 per week up to the worker earning R60 per week. In terms of what these people will be entitled to in benefits, the maximum benefit in that group will be R14 a week. So the man who is earning R 34.50 is entitled to claim benefits of R14 a week when he becomes unemployed and at the same time the man earning R60 a week will also only be entitled to R14 a week. Therefore it is hoped that the hon. the Minister in raising the ceiling for Group 12 in terms of this amendment, will also consider the position of those people who, in terms of the principal Act, will be entitled to a benefit of R14 per week.

There is one final point on which I think the House should have further information from the hon. the Minister, and that is whether he is satisfied that the ceiling he proposes in this Bill is high enough to meet the situation that has arisen in recent years. In 1965 the ceiling was raised to R2,860 per annum from R2,500. The proposal now is to raise the ceiling by an additional R260 per annum to R3,120. I believe that it would have been more realistic, if the hon. the Minister wanted a certain group of contributors, whose wages have increased in recent times, still to remain covered, to have raised the ceiling to a higher figure. I suggest that he might even have considered the figure of R3,380 as the ceiling in terms of this legislation. That figure also happens to be divisible by 52, so that the group earning R65 per week would be brought within the ambit of this particular legislation. Sir, I feel that this Bill is an important segment of social security in South Africa. We on this side of the House are always prepared to support measures which we believe benefit the workers and that is why in principle we support the second reading.

Several questions have yet to be answered by the Minister, and the one that strikes me as being the most important is how the Minister came to the decision that the figure of R3,120 should be the ceiling. Who decided that and what influenced the Minister to accept that decision?

It took two years of argument on our part to persuade him.

Sir, this is a very important matter, because the whole basis of unemployment insurance depends on this ceiling. The hon. the Minister must concede that the ceiling was raised for one reason only and that is that the value of money has fallen. It is conceded that people are earning more at the moment and basically it is a good idea to call upon them to make larger contributions to the fund. But surely, the hon. the Minister must also realize that these very people who are earning more because of the inflationary tendency will require more when it comes to receiving benefits. Why should it only be a one-way traffic? Is the Minister afraid that his fund will be depleted? I repeat what I said last year, and that is that the danger of unemployment in South Africa is minimal. Surely the Minister is not afraid that his fund will be depleted by a sudden rush on his fund from unemployed people. The obvious thing for all thinking people is to say: “If people are required to pay more into the fund, let those who have to draw benefits from the fund receive a like return.” The benefits payable to all groups, whether they be in the first group or the twelfth group, should be increased. If we recognize that there are inflationary tendencies, then the Minister must also take those inflationary tendencies into account when he reviews the position as far as the payment of benefits is concerned. Sir, I would urge the hon. the Minister to consider the position of those people who have to leave their employment because of temporary illness. I think the Minister has said that there will be a larger group of people to whom benefits will have to be paid. The Minister knows as well as I do how difficult it is today for the working man to meet his accounts. Surely he should immediately consider our suggestion that he should increase the benefits payable to people who become unemployed or sick.

I appreciate the support this measure has received from both sides of the House. Of course such a measure always offers room for the plea that a higher limit should be set and that higher benefits should be paid. That is a natural reaction which is always elicited by such a measure.

In this matter we have a great deal to do with the Unemployment Insurance Board. The Government allows itself to be guided to a large extent by the considerations and recommendations of that board, because the board is constituted from an equal number of representatives of employers and employees. It is therefore felt that the opinion expressed by the board is a most representative opinion. We therefore attach a great deal of value to it.

The hon. member for Yeoville pleaded for the subdivision of Group 12. That is a matter which is certainly enjoying attention. If it is analysed it appears to be somewhat unbalanced. The board has in fact given thorough consideration to that. They felt, however, that at this juncture they did not see their way clear to add an additional group, say Group 13.

Are they superstitious?

No, they are people with a very level-headed attitude towards life; they are not Father Christmases who can simply dole out money left, right and centre. They have to do with a fund which they have to keep actuarially sound, and they want to fulfil that responsibility in such a way that they will not be placed in an unfavourable light before the workers or the employers or the Government.

The hon. member for Pretoria West also expressed his regret that the benefits in respect of Group 12 were not higher. One would like them to be higher, but surely the benefits must have regard to the strength of the fund, and in that respect the board itself has not come forward with other proposals.

Why was it not approved by the board; what was their objection?

The board did not deem it advisable at this stage. Surely they take all the aspects into consideration. I was asked by the hon. member for Umbilo what effect this amendment would have on the fund. I was advised that it would bring the fund approximately R390,000 a year in additional revenue.

It was also asked what the further position was as regards payments. In this regard I may give the following particulars: In 1965 an amount of R3 million was received in contributions in Group 12, and in that year the payments were R2 million. To that must be added, of course, the administration costs connected with the fund, which must also be taken into consideration. The hon. member for Pretoria West pointed out that the fund has not yet succeeded again in reaching the mark it reached in previous years. I presume the board has as much due regard for that fact as we have, to ensure that the fund remains sound. In that regard I want to assure hon. members that this board is a body which has constantly fulfilled its task with the utmost responsibility towards the workers. If it were to happen that the board felt it could establish a thirteenth group, as the hon. member for Yeoville would have it, or that the benefits could be increased, hon. members need have no doubts that the board would make such a recommendation, and the Government would then consider it most favourably.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

This Bill seeks to make provision for more effective control over motor carrier transportation and to facilitate the application of the principal Act. Hon. members have had the privilege of an explanatory memorandum and, for that reason, it is unnecessary for me to go into the proposed amendments in detail.

Clause 1 refers to the definition of “authorized officer” and the object of the amendment is to empower members of the Railway Police Force to act as “authorized officers” at places beyond the precincts of the railways and harbours. The extension of the powers of members of the Railway Police Force for purposes of applying the principal Act is deemed essential in order to restrain unauthorized motor carrier transportation. Only 49 inspectors are at present employed in the transportation inspectorate of the Department of Transport, and, in addition to road transportation inspections, they are also responsible for inspecting vehicles in terms of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act and for checking the records of agencies dealing in such insurance throughout the Republic. In addition the assistance rendered by the South African Police and the various provincial and local traffic authorities in the application of the principal Act is limited because of a shortage of staff and their numerous other duties. Unauthorized motor carrier transportation can only be controlled effectively if regular organized investigations are carried out by authorized officers. By extending the powers of members of the Railway Police Force in this regard, valuable assistance will be rendered in the combating of unauthorized motor carrier transportation.

The proposed amendment in clause 2 seeks to make the application of the principal Act more effective. In practice the existing section 7 (1) (h) at present has the effect that motor cars, for instance, which are used as taxis have to display the name, address and the nature of the business as well as the class of passengers carried. The same applies in the case of smaller vehicles which are used for hawking purposes. Holders of certificates have complained, however, and have pointed out that it is unpractical and unreasonable to expect that all the above-mentioned particulars have to be displayed on a motor car for instance. For that reason the proposed clause 2 extends the discretion of the National Transport Commission and a local board by empowering them to decide in future that either the name and address or the nature of the business or the class of persons carried will be sufficient. Therefore this amendment is purely and simply a measure to accommodate public road transportation in practice.

As regards the proposed amendment contained in clause 3, experience has shown that road hauliers are often encouraged by unscrupulous consignors and owners of goods or by persons acting on their behalf to undertake unauthorized motor carrier transportation to the advantage of such consignors, owners or persons and that it is not possible to bring charges against such persons under the principal Act. The proposed amendment will counter this malpractice in that it will be presumed in future that the consignor and owner of such goods and any person who acted on behalf of such an owner or consignor were aware that such goods were conveyed illegally, unless it is proved to the contrary that said persons did not know that such goods were being conveyed illegally or could not prevent such goods from being so conveyed. Consequently it will henceforth be possible to charge these persons as accessories to such an offence.

Clause 4 makes provision for the amendment of section 13 of the principal Act in order to regulate the exceptions to the requirements contained in sub-section (1) of the relative section, namely that particulars of applications for motor transportation certificates have to be published in the Government Gazette in the manner prescribed by regulation before such applications are granted or refused. In view of the provisions of section 7 (4) of the principal Act it is obvious that legislature intended the National Transport Commission and local road transportation boards to have the power, in urgent cases for example, to issue certificates for motor carrier transportation of a temporary nature. If prior publication of particulars of such applications constitutes a pre-requisite for the issue of the certificates, the existing machinery for the speedy consideration and dispatch of such applications will automatically be made ineffective. While the exceptions in question do not specifically include the publication of particulars of applications for temporary motor carrier certificates, the motor carrier regulations provide that prior publication is not essential in respect of applications of this nature. This procedure has always been followed since the coming into operation of the principal Act but in a recent case in the Supreme Court of South Africa (Orange Free State Provincial Division) the legality of the regulation in question was challenged on the grounds that it was ultra vires the enabling provision contained in section 13(1) of the principal Act. On this point the court expressed the opinion that the arguments to this effect seemed correct. It appears evident that the case will be taken to a higher court for revision and that a prima facie case has been made out for declaring the provisions of the relative regulation ultra vires the principal Act. Such a possible declaration will have serious repercussions for the effective application of the principal Act and as a result, commerce and industry will be prejudiced in that it will be deprived of the privilege of having applications for temporary certificates considered without the formality of prior publication which, if required, will involve delay.

Clause 5 makes provision of the amendment of section 18 of the principal Act which prescribes penalties for any contravention of this Act. Considering the increasing number of cases of unauthorized motor carrier transportation and the detrimental effects thereof for bona fide road hauliers, it is clear that the existing maximum penalty of R200 or imprisonment for six months together with provision for the forfeiture of the vehicle used for such transportation is an ineffective deterrent. An increased maximum penalty and provision for the forfeiture to the State of the goods conveyed by unauthorized motor carrier transportation are therefore deemed essential.

I can assure hon. members that present circumstances and the extent of unauthorized motor carrier transportation justify these proposed measures.

Recently the Department had to deal with cases where hauliers and other owners of vehicles were repeatedly and intentionally involved in unauthorized motor carrier transportation in spite of convictions and fines. Things developed to the stage where so-called transportation agencies were established for the purpose of effecting the conveyance of goods by road over long distances without the necessary authority. Certain sales representatives expressed the view that they found it difficult to obtain orders for goods offered by them if the businesses supplying the goods were not prepared to guarantee delivery by road as was offered by competitive firms which in most cases apparently effected delivery by means of unauthorized motor carrier transportation. With particular reference to the provision for the forfeiture of goods conveyed by unauthorized motor carrier transportation, I have to mention that it has been brought to the notice of the department that in many cases of unauthorized motor carrier transportation involving the conveyance of heavy loads over long distances, it was not so much the haulier but in fact the consignor who was to blame for the illegal activities. In such cases the haulier was prevailed upon to undertake illegal transportation or to run the risk of losing an existing legal contract with consignor.

I regret to say that certain large industrial and commercial undertakings apparently do not hesitate to offer their goods for conveyance by irresponsible hauliers by means of unauthorized motor carrier transportation. Such undertakings usually have their own vehicles but are apparently not prepared to run the risk of using such vehicles for unauthorized motor carrier transportation. Some hauliers and owners of vehicles even go as far as handing a certain amount of money to the drivers of vehicles used for unauthorized motor carrier transportation which they can use for paying possible fines if the vehicles are stopped en route and prosecutions are instituted. If the vehicle is not stopped en route and the load is delivered at its destination such money is handed to the driver as a bonus. In addition certain consignors have even stated openly that they are not in the least concerned about whether consignments are conveyed illegally or not.

It must be emphasized, however, that the proposed provision for the forfeiture to the State of goods conveyed by means of unauthorized motor carrier transportation will in no way affect the law-abiding dealer who makes use of existing transportation facilities.

In order to combat this malpractice which is followed by certain operators who persist in making use of unauthorized motor carrier transportation in spite of various previous convictions, it is essential to provide for the imposition of the maximum penalty in the case of a third or subsequent conviction on a charge of this nature.

In order to protect the interests of any person in a vehicle or goods forfeited to the State it is also essential to make provision, as is proposed, for the provisions of sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1955, to be applicable in the case of such forfeiture.

The imposition of the proposed increased maximum penalty falls outside the jurisdiction of magistrates’ courts as laid down in the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1944. This will inevitably give rise to delay in bringing prosecutions under the principal Act to finality and consequently it is necessary to make provision for the extension of the jurisdiction of magistrates’ courts in order to allow them to impose the proposed penalties. Therefore the proposed amendment is of a consequential nature.

The proposed amendment in clause 6 is essential for the proper application of the principal Act and the amendments proposed in clause 5. In terms of the existing paragraph (h) of section 19 (1) of the principal Act, the Minister may make regulations which prescribe the duties and powers of authorized officers appointed by the National Transport Commission only. The relative amendment which is now being effected will enable the Minister to make regulations prescribing the duties and powers of all authorized officers as defined in the principal Act.

In the case of an offence involving the perpetration of unauthorized motor carrier transportation and which may, in terms of the present provision and as is proposed, lead to the forfeiture to the State of the vehicle and the goods thereon, it is essential to empower certain authorized officers, i.e. officers appointed by the Commission and any police officer, to seize a motor vehicle suspected on reasonable grounds of having been used in connection with such unauthorized motor carrier transportation, and the goods conveyed thereon. It is also essential to make provision for an enabling clause for prescribing the manner in which motor vehicles or goods so seized shall be dealt with pending the institution of criminal proceedings.

Mr. Speaker, this side of the House recognizes the problem which has given rise to this legislation before us. Not only in the fields covered by the Minister, but in another field the position has become a very serious one. I am referring to the matter of the pirate taxis. I notice the hon. the Minister has not even touched on that aspect of the illegal trade which has developed, particularly in Durban and from the Transkei into Natal, into a lucrative and very large-scale trade. That illegal pirate taxi business is one which needs urgent attention. Therefore we will support this Bill at the Second Reading, and we support the principle of taking action to deal with the evils of illegal transportation. We, however, have certain misgivings in regard to the details of the Bill which we will deal with now and also at the Committee Stage when we get to it. One of the misgivings is one which goes further than detail and that is to try to put one’s finger on the reasons for so much illegal transportation. I ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not the direct result of the policy followed by his Department and by the National Transportation Board—a restrictive policy which reduces to such an extent the number of legitimate carriers that it forces people or tempts people into becoming illegal carriers, both as pirate taxis and for the transportation of goods. I ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not believe that it is the actual policy which his Department lays down, of refusing a large percentage of applications for motor carrier certificates, which is forcing this resort to illegal means. I happen to have had the opportunity of being present when evidence was led before the Marais Commission on the co-ordination of transport, and a great deal of the evidence led in Durban concerns this particular problem. There was evidence led from the Taxi Owners Association, the local carriers, the shippers and handlers of cargo and other organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Industries. Without exception this problem of the restrictive approach of the Department towards motor transportation was one which caused great concern. Particular requests were made to deal with the illegal aspect of competition by those who ignored the law and made money whilst the honest carrier, who obeyed the law, suffered. But if the honest carrier is not to have the opportunity to carry goods, then ultimately he too will wonder whether he should not follow the example of the illegal one, unless this measure is going to be sufficiently stringent to stop the practice. I would like to ask the Minister at this stage whether he has received the report of the Marais Commission, whether it has completed its work and whether this legislation is based upon the recommendations or the findings of that Commission in regard to this particular problem.

Turning to the Bill itself we support the extension of the powers of the Railway Police, to act off railway premises, and we realize that it will be necessary if the Railway Police are to be effectively used in combating road piracy. We support the extension of the discretion in regard to notices to be displayed and we accept the amendment in clause 3 (a) in regard to persons who convey goods or other persons illegally being presumed to have carried on motor carrier transportation, unless the contrary is proved. However, we have very serious doubts about paragraph (b) of the clause which gives the right, firstly, to prosecute an owner of goods carried illegally and to confiscate those goods with the onus upon the owner to prove that he did not know that they were being illegally transported.

The Minister did not deal with that point.

The Minister dealt with that in passing. He merely stated the fact that this Bill placed the responsibility of proof on the owner of the goods. We cannot see how an owner can adduce the proof which is necessary except by saying: “X came to me. I thought he was a licensed carrier. He quoted for the job and I gave him the job.” What proof is an owner expected to obtain from a carrier? Does the Minister now mean that every consignor of goods is going to have to demand to see the certificate of the carrier before he allows that carrier to carry his goods? Because, if that is the proof required, it is the only way in which it can be done. It is quite impracticable for every consignor of goods to demand to see the carrier’s licence or certificate in respect of every single consignment of goods and every different carrier he uses. We feel that the principle is wrong of assuming a person is guilty unless he proves himself innocent. It is contrary to our whole system of justice, our whole approach to justice in South Africa. We have always opposed this principle. We have always believed and still believe that it is utterly wrong to say that any man is presumed guilty unless he proves his own innocence. In this particular case, as it is incorporated into this Bill, we see absolutely no justification. There are cases where justification can be accepted, as in the case of paragraph (a). But we cannot see any justification in regard to goods. Here we find that a person, who in all innocence conveys some valuable cargo from point A to point B, can lose that cargo through no fault of his own. We believe that if there is to be confiscation of goods and if there is going to be punishment of a person using an illegal carrier, it is the responsibility of the prosecution to show that the person, in fact, had reason to be aware of the fact that he was acting illegally. We believe that to reverse the onus is unjustifiable and against the best interests of justice, and we shall oppose this particular sub-section at the Committee Stage.

We have no objection against the next clauses, except in so far as the consequential confiscation of goods of an owner is concerned and placing the onus of proof on the owner before he can claim his own goods. We do have doubt about clause 6, where any authorized person may on reasonable suspicion seize and hold a vehicle until after the criminal proceedings have been concluded. As we know today, criminal proceedings can take a very long time. They can take months to complete or in many cases before they even come before the courts. If they go to appeal, those proceedings can then take very much longer still. Here we have a position where any policeman, railway policeman or any authorized official, if he should take a dislike to a particular motor carrier, can say: I have reason to suspect that you are undertaking illegal motor conveyance, and he can then confiscate that vehicle and hold it and completely cripple or close down a business on his mere word that he had reason to suspect that there was an offence. We feel that this is taking the matter further than appears necessary unless the Minister can justify that particular clause in his reply or in the Committee Stage. It is too open to abitrary victimization, and the effect of it would be not merely inconvenience, but it could be completely crippling to any person who has vehicles so confiscated. So, although we believe that it is necessary to wipe out this illegal practice, we feel that those two aspects should be considered more carefully. We feel that a contribution could be made by a change of policy and attitude in the Department to the whole question of motor carriers.

Despite our disagreement on the two details, this side will support this Bill. We particularly hope that the tremendous illegal traffic which is going on in passengers at the moment will be brought to an end, and the legitimate carrier given his fair chance to carry the traffic which is offering.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban (Point) asked the hon. the Minister whether the reason for all this illegal transportation, one of its causes, was not to be found in the policy of the Government in acting so strictly with regard to the granting of certificates and exemption for the transportation of goods.

I asked whether it was not a contributory reason.

Yes, the hon. member asked whether it was not one of the main contributory reasons, or whatever the hon. member would have it.

I cannot agree with that in the least. I cannot see the point. The principle on which the Motor Carrier Transportation Act is based was set out very clearly in 1930. Although the Act has since been amended in virtually all respects, that basic premise in respect of exemptions and permits has remained unchanged through the years. In brief, the principle is that where adequate transportation is available to the public in a certain vicinity, transportation at equitable freightage, a permit or a certificate must be refused. Unless that principle is upheld—and how can it be upheld if not by means of a permit system?—private conveyors would simply be given a free rein. We know that the Opposition has made representations through the years that a larger volume of the transport should be given to private conveyors. This side of the House differs with them in that respect. We maintain that it simply cannot be done. The fact of the matter is, Sir, that the revenue of the Railways is constituted in such a way that less than 20 per cent of their transportation is high tariff transportation. That 20 per cent or less yields 50 per cent or more of the Railways’ revenue. It is in fact that small volume of freight, that less than 20 per cent high tariff transportation, which is at issue. One has to take care not to open the door in this respect, otherwise the entire balance of the Railways’ revenue may be disturbed.

Having regard to that basic principle on which the Act is founded, and having regard also to the fact that certain undertakings must be protected—particularly the national transportation system, i.e. the Railways—there have been concessions in recent years. We merely have to consider that so far an amount of almost R2,000 million has been invested in the national transportation system of the country, in the Railways, and that 225,000 people are employed by that concern. It will then be appreciated that this great national institution cannot be curbed and that its revenue cannot be prejudiced by issuing permits freely. During recent years, however, the boards have shown a great deal of leniency and have awarded certificates more freely. I may inform the hon. member for Durban (Point) that during the year 1961-’62, 38,591 certificates were granted, while 23.133 temporary permits were issued. During the past years more and more concessions have been made to private conveyors and during the year 1965-’66, 53,030 permits were granted, while 32,001 temporary permits were issued. That means, Sir, that in less than five years 23,000 more certificates were issued. That proves that there was in fact a relaxation.

There should have been 100,000 more.

We know that the hon. member would like to have no control whatsoever. He wants free competition because he does not care for the national interests that have to be protected. But the hon. member for Durban (Point) is more sensible and I am speaking to him. Apart from the leniency of the Road Transportation Board, unauthorized transportation has increased out of all proportion in recent years. One need only consider the number of offences and prosecutions in that regard. In addition to the information furnished by the Minister, I may mention that in the past year there were 4.043 prosecutions, with 2.500 convictions, while an amount of R71,795 was collected in fines. We know that the inspectorate has a small staff. These figures are just an indication of the proportions this illegal traffic has assumed, notwithstanding the leniency on the part of the boards in issuing permits more freely.

I now come to the other point made here by the hon. member for Durban (Point), namely that he considers it quite impracticable and quite unjustified that there is now the possibility that a person’s load may be confiscated.

That is not what I said. I said that the onus was now placed on the owner.

It is quite clear that if we want to tackle this matter successfully—which the hon. member for Durban (Point) also wants—we shall be compelled to come to grips with the unscrupulous consignors as well. This matter cannot be dealt with by pinning down the contractor only, the man who undertakes illegal transportation. There is very clear evidence of collusion, that there is indeed organized collusion by consignors and that there is soliciting and encouragement by consignors to persuade unauthorized conveyors to convey their freight. Why should only the man conveying the freight be pinned down? It should also be possible to get at the true culprit, the man behind the plot. There is collusion to conduct this illegal traffic. If the person soliciting the conveyor is not pinned down, we shall not be able to eradicate this illegal transportation traffic. I agree with the hon. the Minister and with hon. members on the opposite side that the decent, honest private conveyor has nothing to fear under this measure.

He has.

Then the hon. member must prove that.

I will.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) made no such accusation. As I said, Sir, the honest, decent private conveyor has nothing to fear in this respect. In fact, this measure gives him even more protection than that he enjoyed in the past, because a concession is made here. In the existing Act the following was stated in respect of the defence: “If it is proved that such other person did not know that the said motor vehicle was being or would be used for carrying on of unauthorized motor carrier transportation or that he could not prevent such use…” Now is added: “or that such other person did not know that the transportation of the said goods constituted or would constitute the carrying on of unauthorized motor carrier transportation or that he could not prevent the carrying on of such transportation.” This defence is now expanded. Matters are now facilitated for such a man. This principle of the presumption has always been in the Act. It also applied in respect of the confiscation of the vehicle. It is now merely extended to the load. Unless we do that, we cannot penetrate to the root of this evil and we cannot make this Act a successful instrument with which to combat this evil, because it is quite clear that the deterrents in the Act at present fail to deter those people, and that has wide implications. Apart from the implications mentioned by the hon. the Minister, namely, its effect on other transportation, such as the road transportation system of the Railways and private conveyors who undertake transportation legally. It has an effect which cannot be determined easily. I may give one example of how it affects the farmers. I am told by a colleague that in the Standerton region, if he markets tomatoes in Johannesburg and the market collapses and prices fall and tomatoes fetch 10c a box there, as against 50c a box in Durban, and he loads a consignment in order to catch the more favourable market in Durban, then before his consignment gets there the Indians have bought up a couple of loads of tomatoes at the lower price in Johannesburg and have taken them to Durban, and then they break the market there. Can you see the implications for act timeously. Various loopholes may be found, but it is very easy to ascertain whether a man is authorized to convey the goods. At present the Act provides that if a man has his name in the telephone directory as a conveyor one may ring him and ask him to convey the goods, and that would constitute adequate defence, even if he has some unlicensed trucks on the road. The Act provides that no one may pretend or may make it known to the public that he is authorized to convey goods unless he has a permit. That is provided by the Act and that is one’s defence. There is no need to obtain confirmation in writing from every person. Nor is it necessary to see every man’s certificate. We cannot make the concession requested by the hon. member without frustrating the aims of the Bill.

I want to associate myself in a few words with the hon. member for Durban (Point), particularly in connection with two matters raised by him. The one is Clause 6, which provides that an authorized officer may in certain circumstances seize any motor vehicle and the goods conveyed thereon if he has reasonable grounds to suspect that such conveyance is being done illegally; and the vehicle may be put out of action until the criminal case has been concluded. This is a far-reaching provision, and I hope the Minister will give the matter further consideration before introducing something like this into our legislation. I just want to ask him this. The hon. member for Parow said that the innocent haulier had nothing to fear. I now want to ask the Minister, also on behalf of the hon. member for Parow, that if it appears that an authorized officer has seized a vehicle and the goods thereon in good faith and it is proved on the case being heard that the man was innocent and has suffered losses as a result of his possessions having been put out of action, what compensation is he going to receive? Will the Department compensate him or will he just have to bear his losses? If the Minister does not get up and say that something will be done to compensate such an innocent person for an injustice suffered by him as a result of suspicion on the part of an officer, then I repeat what I have said by way of interjection, namely that innocent people do have something to fear in terms of clause 6. I am pleased to know that the hon. member for Parow feels as I do that something like that may not be allowed to happen. For that reason I shall be interested to learn what assurance the hon. the Minister can give us in this regard.

I also want to ask the hon. the Minister in a few words whether, as it was put to him by the hon. member for Durban (Point), he does not feel that the problem he wants to combat here has deep-rooted causes which we may not ignore? Why is it that otherwise honest businessmen and hauliers lend themselves to these practices? Is it not perhaps because there is a fundamental need, which is greater than we realize, for additional transport? The hon. member for Parow stated the existing legal position very clearly, and that is that if there is a sufficient number of transportation businesses in an area which can convey goods at reasonable tariffs, such people enjoy protection. But if there is sufficient transportation at reasonable tariffs why are these things happening? If that was the case, that need would surely have been satisfied. It worries one that this phenomenon is so general and that such drastic steps must be taken to combat it. What is the cause? It is a statutory crime, an artificial crime, which is being created. In general the trend is for people to render legal services, and to convey goods is in itself not illegal; it is not immoral. The clause is intended to protect other interests. Are we protecting something which is really satisfying the need? In that case we must make a common and strong stand on its behalf. But here there seems to be something more profound than we realize. For that reason I am also interested in the question asked by the hon. member for Durban (Point), namely, whether this line of action does not perhaps follow on interim representations or reports which came from the Marais Commission? We hope that the Marais Commission will report on this deeper problem mentioned by me and that this Bill is not proof that the Government rejects in anticipation any recommendations which may be made in this connection because it is determined to put the interests of the Railways first, even above the national interests of the country, because this is the reply to the hon. member for Parow, who spoke of national interests and those of the Railways. It does not follow axiomatically that Railway interests are always the same as national interests. We all want to protect the enormous investment in this fine undertaking, the S.A. Railways. However, if changes must be effected in the interests of the country, we say that the prosperity and the welfare of South Africa must have priority in the matter. We shall hear with interest what the hon. the Minister has to say about this matter.

I want to deal at once with the question put by the hon. member for Yeoville. In regard to the report of the Marais Commission, I just want to tell him that that report has, of course, not been submitted as yet. Nor is this amendment based on the inquiry instituted by the Marais Commission. I think the hon. member for Yeoville will, after all, admit that we would not come to this House with legislation unless the experience we have gained in the past year has furnished adequate proof that it is essential to take steps in order to curb this unauthorized motor carrier transportation.

The hon. member asked: What causes otherwise honest businessmen to render themselves guilty of unauthorized motor carrier transportation? In the first place the hon. member knows, of course, that this unauthorized motor carrier transportation is more profitable, because the haulier usually conveys the goods at a lower tariff. But apart from that we have the so-called system of agents in this connection. It is quite possible that businessmen who are honourable and honest, may unknowingly and unwittingly render themselves guilty of unauthorized motor carrier transportation, because it has been found in recent years that there are agents who simply make a point of recruiting hauliers for the purpose of conveying the goods of industrialists by road. They give the large firms and factories the assurance that they are authorized hauliers, that they have at their disposal a large fleet of motor vehicles and that they undertake motor carrier transportation to and from any part of the Republic. Well, what happens? They, the agents and the businessman, agree on a fixed price for the transportation of certain goods, and then they simply instruct one of their sub-contractors, one who has a motor vehicle, to undertake this unauthorized motor carrier transportation, and then they receive a considerable share of the transportation fee as commission for the work they have done. It is therefore quite possible that a businessman may be unaware of the fact that his goods are being conveyed by means of unauthorized transportation.

How can he prove that? In terms of this amendment he will forfeit his goods now.

He can prove it quite easily. The hon. member for Durban (Point) said that we could argue about this matter, and we shall most certainly do so at the Committee Stage. It is my opinion that the amendment we are effecting in paragraph (b) of clause 3 makes it easier for the owner or the consignor of goods or for agents acting on their behalf to prove that they are innocent because they did not know that the transportation they were using constituted unauthorized motor carrier transportation. However, the two objections raised by the Opposition in regard to clause 3 and 6 can be discussed at length during the Committee Stage. I am still convinced, along with the hon. member for Parow, that the honest person, whether he may be a haulier, an owner of goods or a consignor of goods, who has his goods conveyed by authorized motor carrier transportation and who, for as far as it is within his power, sees to it that such goods are conveyed by authorized motor carrier transportation, has no reason to fear the amendment which is being effected here. It is only man who wants to avail himself of unauthorized motor carrier transportation who has every reason to fear this amendment. I am convinced that the penalties, which we are increasing considerably, will be an adequate deterrent for curbing unauthorized motor carrier transportation.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) wanted to know whether I thought that the policy of my Department, the policy of the road transportation boards, of being very strict in granting certificates and exemptions, might not possibly be the cause of unauthorized motor carrier transportation. The hon. member for Parow has already referred to the number of certificates and exemptions and shown how it had increased in the course of years. In the past five years the number of annual and temporary certificates has increased by no fewer than 25,000.

Does that include coal certificates?

No. I shall come to that presently. The number of annual and temporary exemptions in respect of assistant hauliers has increased by 19,000 in the past five years. The hon. member referred to coal certificates. In 1964 concessions were made, for which application to the road transportation boards is not necessary at present, for extending the cartage areas of Durban, Cape Town, Pretoria and the Witwatersrand, as well as for considerably larger delivery areas for the transportation by both hauliers and auxiliary hauliers of certain specified goods, in cases where road transportation is from the nature of the case the obvious means of transport. I do think that adequate possibilities have been and are being created so as not to handicap road hauliers and businessmen unnecessarily in respect of the transportation of their goods. The road transportation boards must make this grant in respect of certificates and exemptions on a very clear basis of policy. “Whenever any transportation facilities in exisstence within any area or over any route, are, in the opinion of the Commission or a local board concerned, satisfactory and sufficient to meet at a reasonable charge the transportation requirements of the public within that area or along that route, the Commission or such local board shall not grant any motor carrier certificate…” I think this basis on which they are working is a fair one. I think the members of the road transportation boards are, like all of us, merely human and they also make mistakes, but I think that it has in general always been our experience that they have granted certificates and exemptions strictly according to this basis.

At this stage I do not want to go into these matters any further. The hon. member for Durban (Point) himself thought that we could settle the possible differences in respect of certain clauses more successfully at the Committee Stage, and I prefer to follow that course. I wish to extend my cordial thanks to the Opposition for their support. It does not often happen that the Opposition surprises me, but to-day I was really pleasantly surprised by them and I want to thank them heartily for the support they promised.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the provisions of this Bill amend a number of Railways Acts, and the implications of each clause are explained in the explanatory memorandum which was Tabled on 23rd January, 1967. The amendments are not contentious and my observations will therefore be brief.

Clause 1 is of a consequential nature and arises from the amendment of the Motor Carrier Transportation Act with which the House has just dealt. Clause 2 raises the age of retirement of all navigation officers in the South African Airways from 53 to 55 years and reduces that of flight engineer officers from 63 to 55 years. However navigation officers who joined the Service before 1st January, 1959, will still be able to retire at any time after attaining the age of 50 years, should they choose to do so. The proposed raised age of retirement is introduced at the request of the members of the staff concerned and, in view of their having valuable knowledge at the age of 53, it is felt that the services of those members of staff who are still medically fit, should be retained for the longest period possible.

The raised retiring age of all pilots in the South African Airways, that is, from 53 to 55 years, has already been approved by Parliament during the first session of 1966, and it is considered that navigation officers should be on a par with pilots as far as their retiring age and pension benefits are concerned. Flight engineer officers have requested that their retiring age be reduced from 63 to 55 years. The reasons they advanced in support of their request were that they were subjected to the same medical examination as navigators, and that they were under the same mental and physical strain as pilots. Other airlines also make provision for their flight engineer officers to retire at the age of 55 years if they choose to do so.

Clauses 3 to 8 are of a consequential nature and arise from the amendment proposed in clause 2 in regard to the retiring age of certain members of the airways staff.

Clause 9 makes provision for the validation of certain changes in the conditions of employment of the staff which were introduced with retrospective effect by means of amendments to regulations.

Mr. Speaker, clause 1 of the Bill tends to cause one some concern since we do not want to see two parallel police forces with parallel jurisdiction in South Africa. But, in view of the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that the jurisdiction will be restricted to cases where powers are specially conferred upon the Railway Police by Parliament, we cannot object to it. However, we hope that it will not be accepted as a principle that it is possible for us to have parallel police forces in South Africa.

Then I must add that I was totally amazed at finding that not once, but twice on one day the Opposition supported the principle of a bill relating to Railway matters. As regards the previous Bill we agreed as to the principle, but we said that there were differences of opinion on minor points of the Bill. However, in this regard we are in full agreement and I think the reason for our being so is that in this case the Deputy Minister wants to comply with a request made by the organization of a group of workers on the Railways. It is a reasonable request and when the Railways Administration grants reasonable requests of the staff, they may always depend on the support of the Opposition. We only hope that they will realise more often that the requests of the staff are not always unreasonable.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to give the hon. member the assurance that there is no danger whatsoever—nor do I think he believes that such a danger does exist—of two police forces developing in South Africa at present. Surely he understands quite clearly what the South African Railways Police Force is going to be used for. Then I just want to thank the hon. member cordially for the support promised by the Opposition in regard to this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.