This clause should be deleted. I have already explained the reasons for this in my second reading speech.

Clause put and negatived.

On Clause 6,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

This is just to make it clear that the duties of the Secretary of the Department will be performed by him himself.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

We raised some objection to this Clause in the second reading, but in view of the hon. the Minister’s explanation when he replied to the debate which clarified the position somewhat, we are not objecting to this clause.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 12,

The wording of Clause 12 is not precisely in line with the wording in the English text. In the Afrikaans text the words “mag oorskry nie” should be inserted. I therefore move—

In the Afrikaans version, in line 55, after “nie” to insert “en die woorde ‘mag oorskry nie’”.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 13,

I move the amendment as printed—

I have explained this amendment in my second reading speech also.

I have no objection to the hon. the Minister’s amendment, but I would ask the Minister to give us some information on this point. Clause 13, at the end, gives power of acquisition of immovable property by the Commission, namely property which has been affected under the Group Areas Development Act. It authorizes the acquisition of property “for purposes determined in this Act”; we have no objection to that, but then the words are added “or where necessary otherwise to develop or dispose of it”. Now, Sir, I can understand that in the case of development there may be cases where it is desirable. But if it is a question of disposing of the property it seems to me quite wrong that property acquired under the Group Areas Act should be transferred to the Housing Commission in order that the Housing Commission may dispose of it. I do not know what the reason is; perhaps the hon. the Minister can give us the reason for that provision.

I have explained to the hon. member in my second reading speech that a new arrangement now exists and that the Development Board is not providing a duplicate instrument in regard to development and the building of houses. In other words, the Commission is the developmental instrument in practice. It can do so on behalf of the Development Board. But when such a place has been completely developed, supposing houses have been built there, a certain type of house, and the individual who lives there wants to acquire that house, it is desirable that the Commission should have the power to enable that person to become the owner of that house and of that site. In other words, we are giving the Commission power, after it has taken over and developed it, to transfer it to the people living there.

I am grateful to the hon. the Minister for his explanation, but I would ask him to reconsider the wording and perhaps, if it is considered necessary, amend it in Another Place, because as this clause stands, the last words provide, “for the use for purposes determined in this Act (namely the Housing Act) …”—that I can understand—"… or where necessary otherwise to develop it …” One can understand that, and obviously if it is developed as a Housing Scheme, there is clearly a right to dispose of it, but it would appear to me that it would be quite in order for the Group Areas Board where it has made a bad bargain to off-load it on to the Housing Act and thereby escape it. Those last three words, however, “dispose of it”, seem to me to stand quite apart from the earlier provisions. I hope at least that the hon. the Minister will give us an assurance that is not the effect.

That is not the effect.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 15,

There are several aspects of the wording of this clause to which I wish to draw the Minister’s attention, because it would seem that they do not coincide altogether with what the hon. the Minister intends in this particular clause. The first of these is in the proposed new Section 43bis in which it is proposed that the Commission can change the name of a township if a scheme is being carried out in that particular township. Sir, that would be all very well if in fact the scheme which was envisaged was one such as exists in Sophiatown, which indeed I understand this clause is directed at. With its new look, one appreciates that the dwellers therein would not wish to have it known that they lived in a place which was called Sophiatown and was indeed the very same place in area. But one of the difficulties which arises here is that the definition of a scheme is such that it would appear that this goes further than the hon. the Minister intends. The White Paper which has been issued on this, gives as the reason for this clause the necessity for a change in name where during the re-development of the township, the appearance and nature of the township is changed to such an extent that the existing name is no longer acceptable. But the definition of scheme is “a proposal for the construction of one or more approved dwellings, whether or not the proposal includes the acquisition of land …” The point is that it says, “one or more dwellings.” So if the scheme was to erect one building in a township, the Board would have the power to change the name of the entire township. So far as this new proposed Section 43ter is concerned, here there would also appear to be an anomaly, and that is that having regard to the ordinary words which are used, it means that so far as sub-section (2) is concerned, it is possible to close all the public places and parks in any township in which there is not even a scheme in operation, not even one house being built, in which the Commission probably has no interest whatever; and I think some force is lent to this argument because sub-section (1) of this new proposed section goes on to say that where the powers in sub-section (2) are effected, that is to say, when there is a closure, in those circumstances the public places vest in the Commission—only in those circumstances. So there are two situations which are envisaged here, and a reading of the White Paper suggests that this is not what was intended by the hon. the Minister. As the clause stands now it proposes what I think could be described as an unwarranted interference with the rights of those persons who have purposely bought property abutting onto public places in a particular township, and even with rights of persons who have in fact gone to that particular township because of the existence of these public places and other amenities. Sir, there is on the Order Paper an amendment which covers these difficulties, and I would like before I sit down to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to Section 8 of the Group Areas Development Amendment Act, which provides for the vesting, in almost substantially identical circumstances, where the Group Areas Board has in fact acquired townships, of public places in that Board. In this section the Group Areas Development Act provides that there shall be no vesting until all the lots or erven have been acquired by the Board, and the amendment which is on the Order Paper provides for something substantially less than that and qualifies what is in the clause of this Bill as it stands, and I hope that the hon. the Minister, in the light of these circumstances, will give his earnest consideration to accepting the amendment if it is moved.

It is customary to do so and it is my privilege to congratulate the former speaker very heartily on his maiden speech. He has shown himself to be a person who has legal knowledge, one who is able to discuss a matter on its merits, and such talents are very welcome in this House where from morning to night we have to struggle with the intricacies of the law and there are few people who can always give us the right advice. I am sure that he will still make important contributions in this House.

In connection with this clause, I think the Opposition fears rather unnecessarily that irregularities will slip in here. They need have no fear. If we look at this clause as it stands here, we see that provision is made that at any time when the Commission thinks fit it may do certain things, and then it is further qualified by the words that when the local authority requests them to do so, the Commission can then in such a case change the name of a place. But then it goes further and if we read the same clause we see that it is clearly stated that only after consultation with the local authority and with the Administrator in whose area it falls can it change the name. Here we therefore have all the necessary machinery to ensure that no irresponsible action will take place. In addition, we must remember that we are dealing with a Commission, a Commission which has status, a Commission which is respected in the area and which has a sense of responsibility and which will not do irresponsible things. There is therefore no danger that they will act recklessly in connection with changing the names of places.

The question may perhaps be asked why we cannot make use of the existing machinery to change the name. The existing diagram must be cancelled and a new one must be submitted, and the people who are continually busy with this work assure us that it is a very cumbersome procedure leading to great waste of time, and in the meantime the whole building plan is delayed and held up and people have to suffer inconvenience and provision of housing is impeded simply because that procedure has to be followed. Now a short cut is provided, but these are responsible people and responsible methods are being prescribed by which they can change the name of such an area. We should remember that many areas are not registered, but a name can be changed very simply. So there are certain areas in the Peninsula here where the Housing Commission has tackled the important schemes. It could already have changed those names if it wished to. It had the power to do so; it need not have followed that cumbersome procedure because these areas are not registered but nevertheless, in spite of that, those names remained in existence and the Commission has never in the past showed any signs of intending to change any existing names. It is obvious, as was mentioned here by the previous speaker, that when one has areas where one feels that there is a stigma attached to that name, there ought to be a short cut open to the Commission to lay out that area, to plan the housing and to change the name so that there will no longer be a stigma attached to that particular area, and so that people can occupy the houses there and the whole of the planning can continue without following the cumbersome course which leads to delay.

I would like to agree with the hon. member that a case has been made out for simplification of the procedure for changing names in appropriate circumstances. I hope that the hon. the Minister will accept an amendment which I propose to move on this point: It is the first portion of the amendment as printed—

The purpose of that amendment is a very simple one. The clause as it stands empowers the Commission to change a name after consultation, it is true, with the Administrator and the local authority, but the power is in the hands of the Commission, and it could change the name of a township in any case where it is carrying out or has carried out a scheme. As the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) has pointed out, “scheme” is defined in the principal Act as the building even of a single residence. My amendment is designed to ensure that where there is a change of name, whether it be of a whole township or of a portion of the township, the Commission has a substantial interest in that change. I believe that this amendment will be used for the first time in respect of the township of Sophiatown. We are in complete agreement with what has been said by the hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Dr. W. L. D. M. Venter) and by the hon. the Minister during the second reading debate. The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that the change can only be made by the Commission in the circumstances set out in my amendment, namely if the Commission is carrying out or has carried cut a scheme on all or the majority of the erven in the township. We are prepared to concede that in those circumstances it is reasonable to have this very much simplified procedure. In a case where the Commission desires a change of name in a township in which it holds only a very few stands or there are only very few stands or erven involved in the scheme of the Commission, we submit that it would be better, if a change is necessary, to bring it about through the ordinary machinery so that persons who have vested rights can have a say as to whether the change is a desirable one or not. I believe that the amendment as I have moved it will fully achieve the purpose which the Minister has in mind as set out by him in the second reading debate and set out in this White Paper which we have before us.

I would like to proceed to say that in regard to the next portion of the clause, I do not propose to move the amendment as printed, referring to the Registrar of Deeds; that consequently will fall away. I have reached the conclusion that quite obviously the Housing Commission would have to consult with the Registrars of Deeds concerned before they make a change, otherwise there would be confusion, and I do not think it is at all necessary to put that in the Statute, and I am therefore not moving that amendment. I would say, however, that in regard to the following portion of the amendment, I very sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will accept it. I formally move the amendment as printed—

1. (3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of this section shall apply only if all the erven abutting on the area proposed to be closed are owned by the Commission or the Government or are included in the scheme.

It will be necessary for me to put forward reasons why I think that this amendment is most desirable. Sir, the latter portion of Clause 15 of this Bill introduces a new Section 43ter into the Housing Act, and it provides that “whenever any street, park or open space or land shown as an open place on the general plan of the township, is closed at the request of the Commission, the ownership in that street, park or open space, as the case may be, vests in the Commission”, and of course the Registrar of Deeds must make the necessary notes. The second sub-section as was pointed out by the hon. member for Durban (North), appears to go very much further and in terms refers to cases where the Commission considers it necessary that the street, park, or open space should be closed. I accept, and I hope the hon. the Minister will confirm, that sub-section (2) is intended to refer only to property referred to sub-section (1) and that it does not stand alone. But whatever may be the position, I think it is desirable to insert an amendment along the lines I have suggested, or on lines which would achieve the same object. The affect of my amendment would be that the Commission would only require this to be done under a scheme of the Commission where the land which surrounds the public park or the stands which abut on the portion of the street to be closed, are all affected by the Commission’s scheme. If that is not so, then where there is a scheme to build one house or a few houses in an established township, the Commission would have the power to close parks, to close streets, and although it would have to do that through the local authority, it is obvious that the local authority would be obliged to act in terms of the request of the Commission. Private rights could be affected if, for example, a park is on the boundary of a township; there would be other persons across the road whose amenities would be interfered with if that park were closed. I submit to the hon. the Minister that it is in the public interest, while the Commission has the right to insist on this closure—and that we concede—that it should only have it in view of the fact that it actually acquires ownership of the land concerned, and for other reasons, in such cases were the Commission and those who are affected by this scheme which the Commission is carrying into effect, are the only persons who are affected. If the clause stands as it is, unquestionably very important rights could be taken away, and I would like to mention some examples. Take the Rondebosch Common as an example. On the clause as it stands, if the Commission was building one single house in the town of Rondebosch, it would be entitled to require that park be closed, and thereafter it would vest in the Commission, and I am quite certain that the hon. the Minister does not intend anything of the sort. He can very easily meet that point by accepting the amendment which I have moved and which limits the right to cases where the erven abutting on the area proposed to be closed are owned by the Commission or the Government or are included in the scheme. I submit that it is a reasonable amendment which is designed to improve the law, and I hope that the Minister will be prepared to consider accepting it.

The hon. member was kind enough to let me have his second amendment which is not on the Order Paper. I am quite prepared to accept the principle in the following wording: “In line 10 to omit ‘therein’ and to substitute ‘on all or the majority of the erven in such township and portion of the township’.”

Yes, I would like to accept that.

In Afrikaans it will then read: “Dat in Reël 8 ‘daarin’ geskrap en vervang word deur ‘op al of die meeste van die erwe in so ’n dorp of gedeelte van ’n dorp’.” If hon. members are satisfied with it I shall move such an amendment. But in regard to the second portion of this printed amendment, namely (3), I regret that I cannot accept it. What the hon. member said there is in the spirit in which the Commission wants to approach this matter, but we cannot say with certainty to-day that we will not come up against all kinds of complications if we were to accept the wording he suggests.

May I mention two examples. We may have a cul-de-sac or a road lying at the back of a group of plots which do not belong to the Commission. The Commission does not own those plots; they are private property, but the Commission, for the sake of efficient planning, wants to make a new street along the side of the road, or close a street and make it go round a corner. As the hon. member’s wording stands there, we are afraid that it may prevent us from planning a proper scheme there. But we agree completely with the spirit of the hon. member’s amendment. I can understand that the hon. member wants to see it in print, but the difficulty is to draft a clause which provides for all these various contingencies, and I think we should leave it, as the hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Dr. W. L. D. M. Venter) said here, to the judgment of a responsible body like the Housing Commission, the composition of which is not even left to the whim of the Minister but is prescribed in the Act. I do not think that people with the knowledge and authority of the members of the Housing Commission will do anything imprudent, and it is merely to obviate the Housing Commission being faced with implications which we cannot foresee to-day that I am not prepared to accept his wording, but it will be administered in that spirit. If the hon. member agrees I will meet him and we will agree on the first portion of the amendment as suggested by me. I move—

I am prepared to withdraw my amendment. We have now dealt with one portion of the matter. I am glad that the Minister in spirit accepted my amendment. I think that his amendment covers everything I had in mind and I am grateful for it. In so far as the second part of the amendment is concerned, I do not mind what the wording may be, but it is a matter of principle. I am very glad that the Minister accepts that it is essential that the Commission must act in the spirit of the amendment I moved, but I believe that it is the duty of this House in a case like this where the rights of private persons may be affected, to protect those persons. I think other members on this side of the House also have doubts in regard to this matter. We have tried to move the best possible amendment, and I hope that there will be further discussions and that eventually the hon. the Minister will meet us on the second point as well as on the first point.

First amendment proposed by Mr. Tucker withdrawn with leave of the Committee.

I am quite aware that there were doubts about this clause. These doubts are largely based on the fact that the implementation of this clause would cause quite a lot of trouble in the office of the Registrar of Deeds. On the other hand I think that we as a House should accept that the principle contained in it is a necessary one, and in so far as the machinery of the Registrar of Deeds is not geared to give effect to it, the necessary machinery should be found to give effect to an essential requirement. For that reason I think the principle of the Bill can be accepted and that we should concentrate our thoughts only on this problem, namely how to fit in with the machinery of the Deeds Office in regard to the wording of this clause. [Interjection.] No, I am referring to Section 15 as a whole, particularly the first portion of it. As I have examined it, it seems that the implementation of this clause in the office of the Registrar of Deeds is not impossible, and anyone who knows the office of the Registrar of Deeds will agree with me. We are, however, aware that this clause will cause much more work for the Deeds Office. And in spite of that, it is work which can be done in terms of the present system. The only difficulty I foresee and which I would like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister is in regard to the last portion of sub-section (3) which is not quite clear to me and which is fairly vague. I do not know whether hon. members are aware of how matters of this nature are dealt with by the Deeds Office. I want to compare it with the present system in connection with the re-numbering of plots. With the re-numbering of plots, the Registrar of Deeds writes the new numbers into the register, and I suppose that when the name of a town is changed a new register will also be opened by the Registrar, where the various plots are then described. With the re-numbering of plots it happens—and that is an obligation resting upon the Registrar—that when a deed of transfer is submitted to the Deeds Office in which the number of the erf has been changed, then there is an obligation on the Registrar of Deeds to see to it that this deed of transfer is endorsed to the effect that the plot has received a new number. It does not matter for what purpose the deed comes into the Deeds Office, even though it should be there for the purpose of registering a bond or even for the cancellation of a bond, but the Registrar of Deeds is compelled to endorse that deed. In this case I think it leaves us rather uncertain as to when the Registrar of Deeds should really endorse the deed, because right at the end of sub-section (3) there are the words “and which is submitted to them”. In other words, a deed which is submitted to the Registrar of Deeds. It may be argued that the deed should be submitted to the Registrar together with a request that the description of that property should be changed, and if that is the interpretation there is no obligation on the Registrar of Deeds to alter the description of the property whenever that deed is submitted to the Deeds Office for another purpose. I do not think that is the intention here. I think the intention here is that the diagrams and the registers must be altered in the Deeds Office, and also the copies of the deeds filed in the Deeds Office. But apart from that, as soon as a deed of transfer comes into the Deeds Office, for whatever purpose it may be, even though the owner does not ask for an alteration in the description of the site, the Registrar of Deeds should be compelled to alter those deeds. If that is the Minister’s intention, I feel that this paragraph can with advantage be amended to place the obligation on the Registrar, when deeds come into his possession for whatever purpose, to amend such deeds. I think that is what the Minister would like to have.

In regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker), I feel that the hon. member cannot reasonably insist on that amendment. I can imagine a street having to be closed as the result of an alteration in a township scheme, and which will perhaps in future be cut up into plots. In terms of the amendment suggested by the hon. member, it will mean that if there is a single plot adjoining that street which belongs to a private individual, the Commission will not be able to close the street. The hon. member will agree with me that the Minister cannot agree to have this, because it will totally destroy the efficacy of this clause. On the other hand, one realizes that the rights of the private owner should always be taken into consideration and should be honoured and that one does not suddenly want to go to such a private owner on a Thursday morning and say: “You are now living in a different township,” or “Your street has been closed”, but I do not think the hon. member can expect the hon. the Minister to meet him to such an extent that a single private owner who is perhaps obstinate can obstruct the whole scheme with regard to the closing of parks and streets, etc.

I agree with the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) that the hon. the Minister should introduce some amendment which will oblige the Registrar of Deeds to make these alterations in the Deeds Office. I would, however, take his suggestion a little further and to include the words “be requested”.

That is of course obvious as it now stands.

Yes. but I want to make it quite clear that it will be done.

But in regard to 43ter, the point raised by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). I am glad that the hon. the Minister agreed with us that the principle raised by the hon. member is correct. He sympathizes with the object the hon. member for Germiston (District) has in mind, but I also agree with the Minister that the amendment as worded by the hon. member for Germiston (District) may be impracticable. I suggest that we can protect the principle by putting it in a different manner, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider an amendment in line 50, that is in 43ter—I will read the whole sub-section (2)—

Now there I would like to insert the words—

Those are the words which the hon. the Minister has accepted in the amendment to 43bis, and if the hon. the Minister accepts this amendment now, it will overcome also the difficulty foreseen by the hon. member for Ceres that one owner owning land abutting on an open space, could stop any scheme from being carried out. But what I wish to avoid is that the Commission without having any scheme in progress can, on its own, order an open space or street or park to be closed. Because as sub-section (2) of 43ter is now worded, I submit the Commission could do it without having any direct interest in such township. It could do it although it may have no scheme at all, without having even an interest in one house. I think that must be an oversight in the drafting of this section, because although 43ter (1) has a proviso that the Commission must be carrying out a scheme, in (2) there is no such proviso. I don’t think the Minister could have intended that, and I would ask him to accept an amendment to ensure that the Commission must be interested in the majority or all of the erven of such township. I move—

I cannot agree with the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes), nor to a certain extent with the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). The hon. member for Germiston (District) is undoubtedly, aware of the difficulties experienced in the Deeds Office if the name of a township is changed and also when the various diagrams in regard to the various plots are made. If one wants to change the name of portion of such a township, one must open two registers, one for the existing township and one for the new township. The hon. member knows what the administrative difficulties are in the Deeds Office. If we are to accept his amendments, it will mean that if, for example, the Commission takes over a portion of a township and there are 400 plots which they are going to use approximately 15 or 16, then they must open a townships register for a township of 15 plots, and for the rest they retain the old register. In terms of this clause, a new general plan must be framed and it is very difficult then to close roads. One may have a road which runs through from one area to the other, and then one cannot close that road. Now one will encounter many difficulties as soon as one starts applying the Act. I think we must leave the clause as it is. The Commission is not a sinister body and it will do its best to give effect to the spirit of the clause. Do not curtail their powers because then we would be creating serious difficulties which we cannot solve here, but as soon as one goes to the Deeds Office and tries to give effect to this clause, and there are those restrictions suggested by the hon. member, one’s hands are tied and one will have to come back to Parliament to pass a new Act.

Would the hon. the Minister when he replies deal with the latter portion of sub-section (2) of 43ter, which reads that after the Commission considers it necessary to close a road or public space—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to make it clear when he replies what the meaning is of the last part of the sentence “take the necessary steps to effect the closure”. Does it mean the commencement of the necessary steps? He will see that the procedure lays down, and it is binding on the local authority, that if it is to close a road or public space or street, they first must have a council meeting and a resolution has to be adopted; they then have to advertise for a certain period ranging from 14 to 30 days, and it will be impossible to comply with the existing control and at the same time meet this provision of 30 days, of having to close the street or open space within 30 days. In other words, there must be sufficient time to allow them to carry out the procedure laid down in the provincial ordinance governing local authorities. Those conditions have been laid down for very good reasons. They have been laid down to give the public who are concerned in the spaces concerned time to lodge their objections; their objections then have to be considered, and, if necessary, later referred to the provincial administration before the local authority can act. It is very essential that these people should have that right, because, as has already been mentioned, the closing of a road or public space in one particular township may affect vital rights of access or other rights of people who are not resident in that township at all but have to use those rights as part of the general layout of the area. I can sympathize with the hon. members for Ceres and Kimberley (South) who see the need for attempting to shorten the procedure, to cut down on the time-lag which takes place before these jobs are done, but I would also like to point out to the hon. the Minister that it is not always shortening the time which brings the quickest results. We have had so many experiences of trying these short-cuts across existing legislation (which has proved itself) and then finding yourself tangled up in all sorts of legal niceties which in the end possibly double or treble the time necessary to do the job in a straightforward manner. I believe that sometimes the longest way round is the shortest way home in matters of this sort, and where we have tried and proved methods of doing a thing, I feel they should not be short-circuited unless we are very well satisfied that the new method is really going to be an improvement on the first.

I am prepared to meet the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller). When one is dealing with lawyers, one should accept the wording they prescribe or else one lands in a mess. The law advisers say that they are quite satisfied with the wording, but there are now other lawyers in this House who evidently think differently. It is evidently one of the principles of lawyers to differ about everything they write. I am therefore prepared to meet the hon. member by moving the following amendment—

In regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes), I just want to say that my information was that it was already contained in 43ter, but now the law advisers say that one has to read the two separately and therefore I am prepared to repeat in sub-section (2) the same principle as that contained in sub-section (1). In other words I am prepared to accept his amendment.

In regard to the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay), I want to refer him to the line in which it is very clearly stated what the intention is, namely “the local authority concerned shall, at the request of the Commission, within a period of 30 days or such extended period as the Commission may determine, take the necessary steps to effect the closure”. Not to close it, but to take the necessary steps to effect it. I think that is very clear.

With the leave of the Committee, the second amendment moved by Mr. Tucker is withdrawn.

May I just say that I think the hon. the Minister has set a good example as to how easily we can make progress with legislation of this nature in the Committee Stage if there is a conciliatory attitude.

With leave of the Committee, the second amendment as proposed by Mr. Tucker was withdrawn.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Housing and Mr. Hughes put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 21,

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has had any representations from local authorities in regard to this further case of the derating of state-owned property.

None at all.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 22,

At the second reading, the hon. the Minister told us that the various clauses under which regulations could be passed have never been brought into operation, and it is for that reason that he is repealing them, and now provision is made whereby there can be an ad hoc decision as to the terms of a loan. I would like to stress the fact that I think it would be most undesirable if one had a host of loans on different conditions, one with a short period of repayment, one with a longer period in the same scheme, unless there were very good reasons for such a difference. I hope that the policy will be as far as possible that no distinction will be drawn between one town and another, unless of course the circumstances justify it, and that in general, the basis on which the scheme will be operated will be such that all sections of the population throughout the country, taking into account local differences, will be treated on the same basis.

I can only say that the policy followed up to now will be carried out.

Clause put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

The omission of Clause 2 and the amendments in Clauses 6, 12 (Afrikaans), 13 and 15, put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

I move—

More than two members having objected,

Bill to be read a third time on 12 February.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, we stated our views very clearly at the second reading of this Bill and we explained at great length why we were unable to accept it. But in spite of our objections to the principle of the Bill, we did move amendments in the Committee Stage in the hope of improving its provisions, and I can only say, Sir, that I am sorry that the hon. the Minister was not in an equally reasonable frame of mind when we debated this Bill as he proved himself to be when we discussed the Housing Amendment Bill this afternoon. As it is, he was unable to accept any of the amendments, and as a result I have no doubt, as we have seen so often in the past, it will mean that year after year he will have to come back and ask for amendments to the Act in order to put into effect the advice given by this side of the House.

However that may be, Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us now is the same as it was when it came before us at the second reading and because we are opposed, whilst we fully accept the hon. the Minister’s desire to assist the Coloured people, to the method adopted by the Minister of trying to do so, we will have to vote against the third reading. We think that to try and help the Coloured people by simply pursuing the fragmentation of the economy of this country is the wrong way to go about it. We believe that the Coloured people can be helped and should be helped economically as part and parcel of the whole economy of the country, and we believe that the Bill that is now before us is the wrong way to go about it. The Bill has come out of the various stages exactly as it came in at the first reading and therefore we are bound to opposite the third reading.

As the House knows, we voted with the Government in favour of the second reading of the Bill, but we did hope that the hon. the Minister, particularly in the newness of his office would be guided to a great extent by the experience which we as Coloured Representatives have of the Coloured people. Unfortunately, however, our appeals to him fell on deaf ears.

Order! I hope the hon. member as a comparatively new member will be guided by the Chair and come back to the third reading.

Yes, Sir, that was only by way of explanation. I now come back to the Bill and would point out that the Bill is restricted in its endeavour. We had hoped that by moving certain amendments it would be possible for the aid and assistance envisaged by this Bill not to be so restricted …

Order! The hon. member must not go beyond the scope of the Bill.

Sir, I merely want to put it on record that whilst we welcome the assistance given or to be given to the Coloured people, it is a great pity that the Bill as now framed does not give the scope of assistance …

Order! I cannot now allow a discussion on the scope of the assistance.

Sir, I have made my point and I thank you for your guidance.

Motion put and the House divided:

AYES—88: Badenhorst, F. H.; Barnett, C.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Faurie, W. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Holland, M. W.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotze, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux. G. S. P.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan. A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

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

NOES—40: Basson, J. A. L.; Bowker, T. B.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hopewell, A.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and N. G. Eaton.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill mainly provides in the first place for a vice-chairman for the Wool Board, and in the second place for an increase of the maximum levy on wool from yd. to 1 cent per lb.

As the Wool Act stands now, it contains no provisions in terms of which a deputy chairman for the Wool Board can be appointed. The chairman must perform very many duties in the service of the Board, which often necessitate visiting various centres in the country itself, as well as overseas. That takes up much of his time. It is therefore considered necessary to provide in the Act that the Wool Board can nominate one of its members as deputy chairman to assist the chairman and to carry out his duties if the chairman is not available or is unable to do so. This provision will therefore also promote the more official function of the Board.

Sec. 34bis of the Wool Act (as inserted by Sec. 19 of the Wool Profits Division and Wool Amendment Act, 1952) provides for the imposition of a levy on wool to a maximum of yd. per lb. It is now considered necessary to provide for a maximum levy of 1 cent per lb. for the following reasons. In the first place, as the result of the increasing competition by artificial fibres, it is necessary that not only should the Wool Board continue its present advertising campaign, but that it should also extend it considerably. The time when wool sold itself is passed and because the ordinary consumer does not have a particular predilection for one or other fibre, more attention should be devoted to advertisement to keep wool in a competitive position as against the new competitive fibres which are put on the market every year and in regard to which large sums are also spent on advertising.

Secondly, the International Wool Secretariat was recently reorganized with a view to extended sales promotion and in regard to research plans which must be tackled in future. This step has been very enthusiastically welcomed in the Republic by more than 32,000 woolgrowers who approved of it at the annual conference of the National Woolgrowers’ Association. The funds needed for this work which is being conducted on a very high level are contributed by the member countries on a production basis, namely Australia 62 per cent. New Zealand, 24 per cent, and South Africa, 14 per cent. In view of the considerable expanded programme of work, the budget of the organization has been increased appreciably and every country will increase its proportional contributions. In the case of South Africa, this can only be done through the levy funds collected by the S.A. Wool Board.

A third reason, Mr. Speaker, is that in order to continue the favourable results already achieved by means of research, it is necessary to expand the research programme of the Wool Textile Research Institute at Grahamstown. We in the Republic derive great benefit from the research programmes of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization of Australia. But it is also necessary that our local research should keep pace with research overseas.

Although it is envisaged in the Act to increase the maximum of the levy provided for in the Act to 1 cent per lb., it does not necessarily mean that the present levy will automatically be increased. The object of this provision in the Act is simply to make provision for increasing the levy if it should appear absolutely essential to do so in the light of prevailing circumstances and in view of the additional obligations of the Wool Board or those it will have in future.

The Bill further also provides that a member of the Wool Board, after completion of his term of office, may remain on for a further period of not more than three months until his successor is appointed. This provision is being introduced into the Wool Act with a view to having greater continuity in the Wool Board. It sometimes happens that for some unavoidable reason the successor of a member whose period of office has lapsed cannot be appointed immediately and therefore a vacancy exists in the Wool Board for an appreciable period. Similar provision already exists in respect of members of control boards established in terms of the Marketing Act, and such an amendment is being envisaged now also in the Wool Commission Act. In view of the fact that it also happens that sometimes there is a vacancy in the Wool Board for a long period because the nominating body, due to unavoidable circumstances, is unable nominate a person earlier, it is also considered necessary to provide that the Minister in the event of such a vacancy occurring, may, if he considers it necessary to do so, appoint somebody until such time as the vacancy can again be filled permanently.

The remaining few clauses comprise slight amendments only, by substituting in Sections 1 and 36 the words “agricultural economics and marketing” for the word “agriculture”, and by making provision in Section 26 that the Government representative in the Wool Board will be an official of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing or of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. As the Act reads at present, that is not compulsory. These few minor amendments are also being made.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think this Bill will be contentious, seeing that the general principle which is suggested here has already been accepted by the woolgrowers in their organizations, and that it is at the request of the Wool Board and the Wool Commission that these amendments are being introduced. I move.

This is a non-contentious measure and we on this side of the House intend supporting it because, as the hon. the Minister has said, the National Woolgrowers Association of South Africa have asked for it. This is a body which has between 32,000 and 33,000 members and they were unanimous in their resolution. They were unanimous because I think the farmers and the woolgrowers of this country have every reason to be worried about the future. They therefore asked for this levy to be increased so that there would be greater spending power, greater advertising ability, more money to go overseas in an endeavour to find new markets. When I think that the wool cheque of the farmers was £50,000,000 in 1960 and £45,500,000 in 1961—a very definite decrease, Sir—you can understand why the woolgrower is worried. In 1959-60 the average price of wool was 40.9d. per lb. In 1960-1 it was 36.6d. per lb. or a decrease of 4.3d. per lb. or 10 per cent. This is a very substantial decrease indeed. When you remember that artificial fibre interests are still advertising on a scale larger than wool interests are, and that they are out-spending wool on advertising to the tune of four to one, you will realize that it is necessary indeed for us who belong to the woolproducing industry of South Africa to see to it that more advertising is done and more research. I want to say here. Mr. Speaker, that I was glad indeed to see that the costs of advertising had risen from 40 per cent in 1959 to 66 per cent in 1961. There is much that can be done in the field of wool research. I think of what has already been achieved. I think of permanent pleating for instance; I think of the washable blankets that have come on to the market; of men’s jerseys that stand up to washing and drying in drying machines. These jerseys are sold on a large scale in chain stores. When I am speaking in a House consisting mainly of men, I think of the permanent pleating in men’s trousers. When I think of what has been accomplished in the past, I think of the new processes that can still be discovered and that can only benefit the wool producer.

However, Sir, as I have said in 1960-1 wool had dropped by 4.3d. per lb. When I think of that I am glad to hear the Minister say that he is not going to apply the maximum levy immediately. Because if the maximum levy is going to be applied immediately in a world of rising production costs and marketing costs it could become quite a heavy burden on the farmers. In 1959-60 the levy collected during that one year amounted to R954,578. If the maximum levy is applied, based approximately on a clip of 1,000,000 bales averaging 300 lb. per bale, it will mean an amount of R3,000,000 per year. I hope the hon. the Minister will be chary of proclaiming the maximum levy. If he did proclaim the maximum levy, I would ask myself what the circumstances were that had brought us to the proclamation of the maximum levy. I realize, as I said before, that the farmers are in difficulties. I realize that during the last year we lost our market in Russia. Russia was taking R8,000,000 worth of wool per year from us. Mr. Speaker, I asked the hon. the Minister a question last week and he gave me a reply to the effect that in 1961 not a single pound of wool was exported to Russia. In any case, we have also lost the Chinese market and the Chinese market was worth R3,000,000. But these were expanding markets. If you study the figures you will find, Sir, that the figures had doubled themselves over the years. Sir, we in South Africa are looking for markets, whatever the hon. member for Wakkerstroom says. When I speak about our having lost the Russian market and having lost the Chinese market, I remember what the hon. the Minister said a moment ago that the Chairman of the Wool Board had to go overseas to seek these markets. People had to go overseas to seek those markets and that has meant a great expense to the wool farmers through the levy. Hon. members will say that we now have Japan. That is perfectly true. Japan has come into the market …

That is a Jan Moolman argument.

I am sorry, Sir, but I do not know what the hon. member for Cradock is talking about. Japan has come into the market and this year she is buying wool to the tune of R10,000,000 according to her declared policy. But the R10,000,000 for which she is buying does not compensate us for the loss of the other two markets. We are still short. The other two together bought more from us. I saw in an article the other day that Japan was keen to buy more wool here in South Africa, but that she was talking about what she called “post arrival finance”. She wants the commercial banks in South Africa to give her an extra four months’ credit.

Are you against that?

I wish I could devise some method of waking up the hon. member for Cradock. They have asked for what they call “post arrival finance” because, as they say, the cost to transport wool from South Africa to Japan is very high indeed because of the distance. That is why, as every wool farmer knows, Japan buys much more from Australia. The freight from Australia to Japan is lower because the distance is shorter. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has given his attention to something else. What is the Government doing at Government level? So far we have only been talking about what the wool producer is doing for himself. Where we are losing markets not because of what the wool producer is dong, I want to know from the hon. the Minister what is being done at Government level in this regard? What is the Government doing to try to alleviate the burden on those countries who come from long distances and have to pay high freight charges on the wool that they buy from us?

There is something else that worries me and that I think should be paid attention to by the hon. the Minister and his Department. Perhaps some of the levy that is collected could be spent on this particular matter. It is this: We in South Africa are actually producing less wool than we did in 1956. I was quite surprised myself when I saw these figures, Sir.

There was a drought.

We had a drought I admit. I am speaking about a period of four years not one year. In 1956 we produced 321,000,000 lb. of wool. In 1960-1—five years later—we produced 305,000,000 lb. of wool. Let me put the hon. member’s mind at rest. This is not the fault of the Government. The Government cannot help this. So it is no use having fits about this particular subject. The Government has not got a finger in this particular pie although it has a finger in the marketing pie.

Your facts are not correct.

My facts are perfectly correct according to “Wolboer”. There is another point. In South Africa the average yield per sheep is 8.2 lb. of wool. In Australia it is 10.6 lb. and in New Zealand it is 11.7 lb. [Interjections.] This is an average, all kinds of wool. This levy that we are talking about to-day and which has been asked by the farmers for the benefit of the wool producing community itself, could be utilized to give attention to these matters that I have raised. It is worrying to think that we are producing less wool than we did before. It is worrying to realize that our sheep do not carry as much wool per sheep as in the case of Australia and New Zealand. We should see what can be done to increase that yield.

I have said that we on this side of the House welcome this Bill. We hope the Minister will be chary in applying the maximum levy but we feel that this is a very necessary Bill indeed and that it is for the good of the farmers. We are proud of the fact that the wool farmers of South Africa are helping themselves to such an extent.

Although we welcome the fact that hon. members opposite support this matter and this Bill, I want to say that we are very proud of what our National Woolgrowers Association has achieved in the world outside. We need only think of what the National Woolgrowers Association has meant to the farmers in helping them to get higher prices for their wool. I have statistics in respect of my district when a consignment of 40 bales of wool fetched £280. When we look at the position as it is to-day, we see that the National Woolgrowers Association which is the national organization of the wool producers has achieved wonderful things. We are proud of that body and of its achievements in the world outside. It has succeeded in achieving what it has achieved mainly due to the fact that it has been successful in getting the co-operation of other organizations in the international field. I have in mind the 1936 agreement which was, of course, a wonderful agreement. We know what has been done by way of advertising and research to increase the consumption of wool, and where we are proud of what the organization has achieved, I personally am proud of the small part that I was able to play in this respect. I also want to say that in this respect the International Wool Secretariat has attained wonderful achievements throughout the world. That, of course, is an organization to which we contribute. We have to contribute towards the Wool Secretariat because that organization has to cope with all the synthetic fibres that are produced in the world—those synthetic things, and it costs a great deal to do the necessary advertising and also the necessary research. In this respect I think of the Textile Research Institute at Grahamstown. Although there were rumours that would no longer be the centre of wool research I am pleased, for the sake of the hon. member who represents that constituency, that research will still be carried on at Grahamstown.

Then I want to touch upon a few points raised by the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk). Listening to her arguments I somehow got the impression that they were coloured by Jan Moolman arguments. We know that the chairman of the Wool Board made the great mistake of dragging this matter into politics. It is a great pity that he did so. That was a crime towards the farmers who were members of that organization, because something that should definitely not have happened. I only hope that in future something similar will not happen again. The various arguments advanced by the hon. member for Drakensberg, for example, that China no longer buys wool from us, are typically Jan Moolman arguments. We are told that Russia too no longer buys wool from us. That is typical of what Jan Moolman said at meetings all over the country.

Order! The hon. member should not mention names.

I just want to say that Japan buys a large portion of our woolclip to-day, something which she did not do before, and we welcome that. I had the honour to travel around with them and they are good businessmen. They did not come here for sentimental reasons but to do business. The Japanese say that South African wool is better suited for their purposes, than even the Australian wool and we are pleased that Japan has come on to our market. We do not care so much for the Chinese and the Russians but we are pleased that we are to-day able to sell our wool all over the world. Some of our wool is even being sold in Russia to-day. France and other countries buy our wool and re-sell it to Russia and China. It makes no difference to us who buys our wool, we are only concerned with who pays the highest prices. The attitude of the International Wool Secretariat is that they do not want to put up a fight to oust the synthetic article, but that they want to show up the quality of wool. We know that the International Wool Secretariat is doing wonderful work. It is in this respect that the wool farmer himself pays for his future. They get no subsidy from the Government and where this Bill asks for an increase in the levy, it is very essential that we do so because the National Woolgrowers have asked for it. I remember very well that there was a counter proposal at Port Elizabeth, a proposal that was hopelessly defeated when there were only eight votes in favour of the mover’s motion. His motion was that the levy should not be increased.

Who was responsible for that?

I have been told not to mention names, but it shows that the matter was thoroughly discussed and that the wool farmers defeated that gentleman’s proposal so conclusively that he subsequently disappeared from the wool scene. I hope that in future if politics are dragged into their affairs the wool farmers will again do what they did then. The wool farmers have more confidence in their present-day leaders than they have ever had. The leaders that they have to-day are of the best. They are again going overseas and I hope they will be even more closely knitted together because the people overseas do not understand United Party politics or National Party politics; they discard poltics in toto, because this is an international matter. I repeat that this Bill ought to be supported and nobody should be against it.

Mr. Speaker, 33 years ago, in my maiden speech in this House on 30 July 1929, I pleaded for a levy to be put on wool, particularly for research. That was the first time it had ever been suggested in this House anyway. I spent some two months abroad trying to find out what was necessary. Then the menace of artificial fibres was already showing its head and it was essential that we should go in for scientific research. In Col. 193 of the Hansard of 1929 I suggested that a levy should be put on, and further on, in Col. 194, I said—

Sir, I do not think the position has changed very much since that day. This money is absolutely essential for research, because without research we have no chance against artificial fibres. That might become one of our greatest menaces in future. Therefore I, for one, welcome this Bill and I hope the money will be spent mainly on research. Advertise, yes, but do not let us waste money by advertising and getting what we have had here, mannequins coming over and pushing up the blood-pressure of my hon. friend the member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker), who saw them in the gallery there. I do not think that did any good at all. [Interjection.] There has been a lot of talk about Japanese swimming and swimming-baths. I do not know what that has to do with wool, but I do know that if you wear a good woollen swimming suit, as soon as you wet it it creates warmth, and that is an essential thing even when swimming. But I do urge that this money be wisely spent. I think there has been much money wasted on advertising in this country which has not helped to sell wool. What we want to get down to is the basic scientific approach in research, and then to discover further markets and how to keep on competing against artificial fibres. Because whilst we as farmers are spread over thousands and thousands of woolgrowers, the artificial producers are a small coterie, almost a consortium, who can decide what line they want to follow and put all their forces into that so as to get as much out of the money they spend as possible, whilst our efforts are rather diffused. I therefore feel that the Minister should see to it that every bit of this money is used as far as possible for research and even advertising, but at the same time we should be careful that the money is not wasted.

It is with mixed feelings that I rise to discuss this Bill. In the first place I am gratified to see that we are all so unanimous this afternoon and that this Bill is being welcomed on all sides of the House. But I cannot help but also to express my disappointment, and I shall tell you why. Sir. Six years ago when we passed the Wool Act the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) quoted to us from his speech which he made about wool in 1929, his maiden speech, and it was a particularly good speech which he made in 1929. But unfortunately when he made his speech in 1956 and read what he had said in 1929, and extolled all the merits of wool, he did so whilst dressed in a suit of artificial silk. After the passage of another six years between 1956 and today, he comes here again and when we discuss wool again and the hon. member once again quotes from his maiden speech, he is actually again attired in an artificial silk suit. He is still not wearing the woollen clothes for which he has been pleading all these years.

Is it the same suit?

I really want to appeal to the hon. member for Green Point. [Interjection.] The hon. member should not provoke me into saying many things here. He may compel me to say that he regarded the sheep and wool courses he attended as courses aimed at making sheep fit to sit here in Parliament. I want to ask the hon. member for Green Point please to watch the Votes and Proceedings of the House, and when we discuss wool he must put on a woollen suit in order to set an example to us, at least on that day. I want to say something more about him. The hon. member for Green Point objects to the way in which the Wool Board spends some of its funds. [Interjections.] He complains that mannequins come here from Italy and that this sends up the blood-pressure of the hon. member for Cradock, but when I look at the hon. member for Green Point I do not know whether we would be able to find a better mannequin in Italy or in France than he is. If we as wool-growers could persuade him to wear woollen clothes, we need not even get a mannequin from Italy. If only he would parade up and down here in a woollen suit, it would be of great advantage to the wool-growers. So much for the hon. member for Green Point. I hope that by means of the propaganda made by the Wool Board we will be able to persuade him also to be a better advertiser and consumer of wool in future.

Mr Speaker, if you consider that in the three main wool-producing countries of the world, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, there are 180,000 wool-growers with a sheep population of 240,000,000, and that those 180,000 wool-growers have an annual income from wool of about R1,000,000,000, you will appreciate that this is the most important fibre in the world and that this fibre which is being threatened by competition from artificial fibres and vegetable fibres will have to stand up to that competition; and to do that it is necessary to adopt certain measures. In order to adopt those measures we have a Wool Board in South Africa, just as the other wool-producing countries also have their organizations. We have the Wool Board, whose duty it is to ensure that wool holds its own, and therefore they have to make propaganda. Wool must be publicized and there must be research. If one remembers that our Wool Board Fulfils all those functions without State assistance, but in fact does so from tax which the wool-grower levies on himself, I think it speaks volumes for the woolgrower. If I tell you, Sir, that the wool-grower has already taxed himself to an amount of .73 cent per lb., of which .33 cent goes towards the activities of the Wool Board and .40 cent goes towards a stabilization fund, and for karakul wool .20 cent goes to the Wool Board and .20 cent to the stabilization fund, you will realize that the wool-grower is not only prepared to do whatever is necessary to make wool hold its own in the face of competition, but that he is also prepared to tax himself in order to stabilize the price.

Now the hon. member for Drakenberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) has given us the figures of our wool production in 1959/60, or rather our wool cheque, and she pointed out that in the following year this cheque shrank by R10,000,000, which is quite correct. That amounts to a drop of 5 cent per lb. over that period. Those figures are correct, but if one considers how the income of the wool-grower can vary from year to year, even by such a large amount as R10,000,000 in one year, one realizes that the wool-grower must do everything in his power to keep the price as stable as possible, and, even more, to ensure that in future there will still be a demand for wool.

Now the Wool Board busies itself, inter alia, with Press advertising and I do not think I can give a better summary of their activities than to quote, for the information of the House, from the report of the Wool Board, to show what they envisage. The report reads as follows—

I am quoting this merely to show that the Wool Board has assumed a major task in regard to this publicity campaign. In addition, the Wool Board issues this pamphlet, “The Wool Grower”, which is the link between the producers and the trade. The Wool Board goes even further. Its latest undertaking in regard to publications is the compilation of a comprehensive, chronological history of the sheep and its products throughout the world and throughout the centuries. It is the first one of its kind, and it will be so interesting that in future it will yet become the wool encyclopaedia for any student wishing to do research, and anyone interested in sheep and wool will be able to use it for reference purposes. In this way we can mention one thing after another with which the Wool Board is already busy.

I also want to refer to its field services. At present the Wool Board has nine experts who provide a tremendous amount of guidance and information, hold wool courses and sheep grading demonstrations, etc. It is perhaps interesting to know that during the past year several thousand farmers made use of these field services made available to them by the Wool Board. We think, e.g., of the education which the Wool Board gives. Then I think how particularly privileged the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) is. You know, Sir, that in Grahamstown in the Albany Museum a permanent exhibition of the wool industry is being established by the Wool Board, in co-operation with that museum. That is easily accessible to the hon. member for Albany. There is also the South African Wool Textile Research Institute at Grahamstown. I have been wondering whether it is fair that the hon. member for Albany should have so many advantages, and whether it would not be more to the interest of the wool farmers if either this permanent exhibit or this research institute was moved to Port Elizabeth where it would be more easily available to the majority of wool-growers. Grahamstown is so inaccessible, whereas Port Elizabeth is within reach of all the wool-growers.

One of the other important functions of the Wool Board is also performed in co-operation with the two other main wool-producing countries, Australia and New Zealand, through the international organization, the International Wool Secretariat. I do not wish to cover the wide field of the duties of the International Wool Secretariat as far as wool is concerned. I have already mentioned quite a few of them. I think that what hon. members will find interesting is that in the year 1960-1 the International Wool Secretariat, through levies imposed by the three most important countries, had available the sum of R5.2 million. In addition, commerce and industry made a further contribution of R2.4 million, and therefore it had almost R8,000,000 available. This sounds a large amount, but as the hon. member for Drakensberg correctly pointed out, other fibre-producing concerns have four times as much or more available. Therefore it is essential that also the wool-grower should have more funds available to perform the functions necessary in the interest of the wool industry. The International Wool Secretariat has already decided that for the next year the contributions of the Republic of South Africa will have to be increased. The percentage has already been given here of what our contribution must be, viz. 14 per cent of the expenditure. In 1960-1 that meant an expenditure by us of R605,000. In terms of the new budget, our contribution for the present financial year is expected to be R800,000. That is an appreciable increase, but if we remember that in future we shall have to increase these contributions in order to cope with all the functions of the Secretariat, it is expected that we shall have to contribute an amount of R868,000 in the ensuing year. In view of that, it is of course impossible for the Wool Board, with the present levy of yd. which is available there, to contribute its full share to the costs of the International Wool Secretariat, taking into consideration all the work it does even in South Africa, and it is for that purpose that the wool-growers unanimously decided at their recent congress at Port Elizabeth in September 1961 to ask for consent to increase that levy to 1 cent. All we are doing here this afternoon is to confirm that the Wool Board will have the right to impose a maximum levy of 1 cent. I think it is no use saying that the Minister should be careful to see that those funds are used carefully and that the money should not be wasted. I have the fullest confidence that the Wool Board will spend that money advantageously. I also have the fullest confidence in the work of the Secretariat, but we are under an obligation to that organization and as a South African wool-grower I would be ashamed if the Republic of South Africa was not put into a position to contribute its share of the funds required in future to advertise and conduct research in wool and if we are to say no, we in South Africa are too stingy to make that amount available to the Wool Board. Therefore I support the making of this contribution. I am also glad that there is so much unanimity.

I will not weary the House by enumerating all the activities of the Wool Textile Research Institute, but it is of the utmost importance that this Institute should never suffer from lack of funds to continue its research. It does particularly important work for the wool industry, and the Wool Board subsidizes that Institute to a very large extent. I mention these matters in order to point out that the functions of the Wool Board cover such a wide field that it should not be handicapped in its work through lack of funds. And it is the duty of us as wool-growers to ensure that we collect the necessary funds and make them available to this instrument of ours, the South African Wool Board, to carry on this work.

Mr. Speaker, let us not drag political aspects into this debate. In conclusion, I just want to refer to one of the remarks made by the hon. member for Drakensberg when she said that we had already lost certain markets such as Russia and China, and asked what the Government was doing in that regard. Mr. Speaker, I do not want you to rule me out of order, but if the idea is that the Government should change its policy in order to find markets and that we should adapt ourselves to the policies of other countries, it becomes an impossible matter. The hon. member for Drakensberg must realize that various countries will buy in our market sporadically. Russia has already done so and one year they bought thousands of bales, and then they dropped out of the market, but we do not find that strange. It has already happened that Japan entered the market for a season and bought a lot of wool and then again ignored our market for years. These are matters which a country has to arrange itself in view of its requirements in respect of wool for that year, or with reference to the extent to which it could make credit arrangements or barter arrangements with a wool-producing country. I do not think we will get any further by arguing as to whether or not it is the Government’s fault that Russia and China have left our market. No, the main thing is that the scope of an industry as large as our wool industry must be safeguarded, not only in South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, but throughout the world. In view of the fact that we employ the Wool Board to play its role, and seeing that the Wool Board requires these increased funds, I think it is only right that those funds should be made available to it.

Sir, I do not propose to make a humorous contribution to this debate like the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo). I hope that the House will not take him seriously as far as his remarks are concerned about transferring the Wool Research Department from Grahamstown to Port Elizabeth. I thought the hon. member was a member of a party which advocated the decentralization of industries, and that research station is an industry. A place like Grahamstown is not naturally situated favourably for industries, whereas Port Elizabeth is an industrial centre and does not need another industry. The hon. member should also realize that the best wool produced in South Africa over the years has been produced very near that research station in Grahamstown. If the hon. member for Somerset East could obtain half the price for his wool as that obtained by the farmers there he would be satisfied, and yet he comes along with a suggestion of this nature. Sir, a university town is the finest place for a research department, in many ways. One reason, of course, is that it has very elaborate and intensive buildings which cost a great deal of money to transfer, but what is much more important is that a university provides a field for augmenting the staff of a research department. A university provides an assurance that the staff of the research department will always be up to full strength. I think there is no doubt that even the present staff of our research department were provided by Rhodes University College. It is a university with a wonderful record as regards it contribution in the field of research. Our leather research station, which stands alongside the wool research station, is the most outstanding research station in the world, and it has developed there too. I can assure you that with the personnel that the wool research station has at Grahamstown it can also become the most outstanding wool research centre in the world too.

Very well, I will not press the point.

I regret that a contribution of this nature should have been made in a debate in which we want to have full agreement. As the hon. member for Somerset East himself has always said, we do not want the introduction of politics into the wool industry. We are speaking about an industry which I think is the most popular in the Republic of South Africa, an industry which we would like to flourish. I want to point out that every type of material, warm, cool, light, heavy—can be bought in wool, and I hope that greater use will be made of wool by all sections and that this policy of ours of buying South African goods will be implemented more fully. I think the people in the country generally are deeply appreciative of the achievements of the Wool Board and of the Wool Commission for the stabilization of wool prices in this country. I would like to compliment the Wool Board and the Wool Commission and the Minister’s staff for the way in which they have successfully undertaken the task of stabilizing wool prices on an open market. I do not think it has ever happened before. It is a very great outstanding achievement which we should never forget, and I congratulate the Minister on having brought this about.

The principal reason for the introduction of this measure is to make provision that the special levy which is used to stabilize wool prices may be raised from ½ to a cent, which means that it may be more than doubled.

It is the ordinary levy.

I am sorry, it is the ordinary levy which can be raised from ½ to a cent. In 1955 when this Wool Stabilization Fund was first established it only amounted to something like R12,000,000. and with the augmentation of the Fund by something like R1,000,000 per annum from the levy and with the profit made by the Wool Board and the Wool Commission on their purchases, this Stabilization Fund has now risen to almost double the original figure, which is a particular achievement. We do hope therefore that the Minister will use his discretion when he permits an increase in this Fund. Sir. people seem to imagine that wool farmers are millionaires. Some of our poorest farmers are to be found amongst the wool growers. Unless one farms on a large scale, there is not a great deal of money in wool, and costs of production are very high nowadays. I would therefore urge the Minister to use the greatest possible discretion in guiding and controlling the increased expenditure on wool. We know, of course, that we must have research and we do not expect the Minister in any way to restrict the expenditure on research and on publicity and propaganda to bring about a greater dependence in this country on our wool industry. I have no doubt that the Minister will do everything he can in that direction, but in complimenting him on the achievement of the past we would like to suggest that he should be careful in permitting an increased levy because the wool farmers have enormous costs to meet. Transport costs, for example, are heavy; handling and shearing charges have all gone up, and if the Minister takes into consideration the cost of production of wool per pound, he will realize that the wool farmer is not left with a great margin of profit.

It is very interesting to see that the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) is so pro-National. He has never been as pro-National as he has been to-day, even if it is only in respect of the circumstances surrounding the locality. The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) has apparently raised a hare as far as the research station is concerned. But I am very pleased to see that the hon. member for Albany is doing everything in his power to see to it that the research station remains at Grahamstown.

I rise however to say something in connection with two matters which probably slipped the memory of the hon. member for Somerset East. He got up and said how necessary it was to wear wool and how the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) could set us a good example and could be a mannequin. But it is interesting to note—and I want to place it on record—that anybody who has any skin trouble, can only wear wool. A man whose feet trouble him can only wear woollen socks and if everybody wore woollen socks everything would be so much better in many circumstances. I notice the hon. member is pointing to his socks; I wonder whether he has a guilty conscience.

This Bill makes provision for us to give the Wool Board an opportunity to impose a higher levy subject to the approval of the Minister. The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) is concerned about control and how the fund will be used. I doubt whether it is necessary for us to be concerned about that. In the first instance, the National Woolgrowers Association unanimously decided that this Bill should be placed on the Statute Book, because the National Woolgrowers Association have complete confidence in the Wool Board; because the Woolgrowers Association know what steps the Wool Board have already taken to encourage people to wear wool: to advertise the good qualities of wool as against those of synthetic fibres and to put this matter right in the eyes of the world; because the National Woolgrowers Association, are confident that those funds will be used properly and not frivolously, particularly with the Wool Board that we have to-day. The National Woolgrowers Association also know that this Wool Board have already taken the necessary steps to try to regain those markets in the East that we have possibly lost. It will not avail the hon. member for Drakensberg to rouse suspicions because we have lost the Russian and the Chinese markets, as she alleges. I want to remind her that a few years ago Dr. Jan Moolman tried to do the same thing at Queenstown, and that cost him his head as far as wool is concerned. The fact of the matter is that those countries are nearer to Australia. Shipping freight is, therefore, much lower over that distance and we score in this respect that because they buy the wool that they would otherwise have bought from us in Australia. Britain and other countries can buy so much less wool in Australia. But the fact remains that, in spite of the fact that we have partly lost these markets, if we study the South African wool market from December 1961 up to to-day, we find that it has improved by 2 per cent to 2½ per cent at every auction. In other words, the wool buyers of the world still have confidence in our South African wool. But we should also take account of this fact that whereas the East is buying more wool from Australia to-day, there are signs that the spinning and weaving industry is steadily moving away from Britain to the East; so many more factories are being established there and it is gradually moving in that direction, and because of that the market in the East will increase and this extra amount that we are now allowing will place the Wool Board in a position to do their utmost to collar portion of the market in the East. Part of these funds that are provided for in this Bill, is also intended to keep our Stabilization Fund sound and I think South Africa and the wool farmers in particular owe the Wool Board a debt of gratitude for having set the example that it has set, even to the other, greater wool producing countries, even to Australia, to secure the position of the wool farmer by establishing the necessary stabilization fund. It speaks volumes for the judicious action of the Wool Commission who have in the past few years been obliged to buy in such a tremendous amount of wool, that they, with the assistance of the Wool Board, have been able to re-sell that wool without any loss to the stabilization fund and that, in the first place, the wool farmers have been assured of a stable, definite price, a floor price and that subsequently the Wool Board have had the opportunity of selling that wool on the market and of even showing a profit. That is sufficient reason for this House to have confidence in the Wool Board.

I want to conclude by saying this. Where there is doubt, as the hon. member for Drakensberg tried to raise here, in respect of control, we know that the Wool Board has to submit its books to the Auditor-General and that, as in the case of any other control board, it has to give an account of itself before the Parliamentary Select Committee and comply with the requirements of the Auditor-General. That doubt should, therefore, not exist. I think this Bill has also given us an opportunity to plead that more wool should be worn and to say that wool can be as fashionable as clothing of any other fibre; and this also applies to the ladies.

I would just like to remind the hon. member who has just sat down that this wonderful wool scheme that we are discussing this afternoon originated in the fertile brain of Jan Moolman and, as indicated by the last speaker, if he faced the political guillotine and lost his “wool” head, then I say all the more pity, because we are praising Jan Moolman this afternoon by praising this very scheme in respect of which we want to raise this levy.

Having said that, I want to add my full support to what has been said in support of this amending legislation. I want to put some important matters to the hon. the Minister concerning the costs which the farmers have to face to-day. Sir, a levy may sound quite a nice thing; we all approve of it if it will give us stability, but these costs are rising increasingly every year. I have a list of them here and I would like to read out some of them to the hon. the Minister. The costs for medicines, for parasites and various other things in sheep have gone up 600 to 700 per cent. To-day you have to pay anything from 2½ cents to 7½ cents per individual injection for a sheep to-day as against a ha’ppeny in days gone by. Serums are extremely costly. I suppose the price of dipping fluids has gone up at least 300 per cent. Then there is the increased cost of foodstuff, of shearing and of woolpacks. These costs have all gone up enormously. Sir, I am not going to say that we now propose to load the farmer with another levy, but we are going to give the Minister an opportunity of increasing this levy if it is necessary. I sincerely hope that he is going to be very careful, because while the rich man may be able to stand it, the small man is unable to do so, and it becomes increasingly difficult for the smaller man, in the face of the problems with which he has to cope today. He is facing this problem that he is contributing to many levies with accumulated funds which are invested at low rates of interest, far below the interest rates that he has to pay if he has to go to the Bank for accommodation. May I also ask the Minister to take particular note of this item: are we not at some time or other going to place a ceiling on levies, and are we not at some time or other going to place a ceiling upon the amount of accumulated levies? We already have R21,000,000 in this levy fund.

No, that is not correct.

This is the figure which the hon. the Minister gave me in reply to a question the other day. The accumulated levy associated with wool is R21,000,000. At this stage that represents 21 per cent of the total wool sales of the Union. With regard to this new overall levy, I just want to point out to the Minister that on the present basis of production, if you impose it as a whole, as indicated in both of these Bills, it will bring in R4,500,000, and to take that as a lick out of R100,000,000 that will be returned to this country, is more than the farmers can stand, bearing in mind the additional costs that they have to face in regard to the production and the selling of wool.

I do not want to say much about the arguments advanced here this afternoon by hon. members of the Opposition. In the first place I want to say that I fully support the hon. the Minister as far as the increased levy is concerned. When it comes to the question of using this levy I find it quite curious that hon. members who represent wool-producing districts, continually place the emphasis on the fibre. We are all grateful for what the Wool Board and the Government with its Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing have done to stabilize the price of this product. But there remains the question of the by-products which give certain local concerns in other countries such a big income that it can be compared with the income of a wool farmer per sheep. By processing those by-products you can earn a very big income for yourself and I should like to avail myself of this opportunity of asking the hon. the Minister whether greater use cannot be made of this fund for the purpose of research into the processing of the by-products of this South African product. There is wool fat for example which is a by-product of this article and which is very valuable, but because up to the present not much research has been carried out into the uses and processing of this product, the wool farmer is so obviously suffering a great loss.

In conclusion I want to refer to the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) who referred to the loss of the Russian and Chinese markets. She omitted however, to point out that during the period July 1961 up to the end of November of the same year countries like the United States of America had shipped 200 per cent and more wool from our harbours; that Italy had bought approximately 68 per cent more wool; that Japan too had bought over 200 per cent more wool and that even Germany had bought more wool from us. It would have been no more than reasonable on the part of the hon. member not only to point out the loss that we had sustained due to the loss of clients, but also to point out what we had gained as a result of advertising our wool and as a result of the activities of the Wool Board who, through advertising and research, have assured the wool farmers of stable prices on this market.

I just want to add briefly that we whole-heartily support this Bill, but I also want to say that we are not quite happy about the increase of the levy from a ha’penny to a cent. The wool producers support it whole-heartily and so do we, but we do want to warn that this is a very big increase and something that will definitely affect the smaller farmers.

That is a real yes-no.

Last year the average price of wool was only 36s. 6d.; the price at which the Wool Commission buys wool in is 34d. In other words, the price which is regarded as the minimum price on which the farmer can make a living, namely 34d. is only a little less than the price which we get to-day, and you realize that there is a very small margin of profit for the farmer. In some cases this increase will hit the farmer fairly hard. We do, however, appreciate the necessity of the proposed increase and we intend supporting it. We have said outright that we were supporting it but we do want to issue a word of warning and we do nonetheless want to ask the Minister to see to it that the levy is not increased to the maximum in the near future. There is a fairly big difference between a ha’penny and a cent, and I trust that he will keep a watchful eye on the levy and increase it gradually until the maximum is ultimately reached, in the hope that in the meantime the price of wool will increase.

I am pleased to see that hon. members are so unanimous in their acceptance of these proposals particularly the one in connection with the future increase of the ordinary levy imposed by the Wool Board. I just want to clear up a small point which does not seem to be clear to judge from what the hon. member for King William’s town (Mr. Warren) has said when he referred to funds that were collected under the Stabilization Fund that had been built up. No contribution will be made to the Stabilization Fund from the increased levy that is now proposed. There are two levies, one which is collected by the Wool Commission …

Yes, I understand that.

I merely want to mention it because the hon. member spoke just now about accumulated funds, but the one levy has absolutely nothing to do with that.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) is not in the House at the moment. She introduced the debate this afternoon from the Opposition benches and she expressed her approval of the Bill. I am sorry she is not present because I wanted to say a few things to her. It is noteworthy that the hon. member for Drakensberg, a woman, supports this Bill. In view of the particularly high position that she occupies in this House, she can do a great deal to advertise wool, as the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) told the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Bijl).

Then you should introduce your Bill later in the Session because then I wear woollen clothes.

I thought that the hon. member for Drakensberg, due to the particular position that she occupies in this House, could have performed particular service to the wool farmer by doing a little advertising. While we are talking about woollen goods that are being advertised and while we are talking about synthetic articles that are being advertised. I thought that such an attractive lady as the hon. member for Drakensberg, would have exerted herself to play the role of mannequin for the wool producers. Just think of the tremendous market that would have created for our wool. She could become the Diana Dors of the wool farmers in this House if she performed that function. Just think how she could advertise the real article instead of the synthetic one.

I am very pleased to hear that hon. members are so unanimous in their support of this Bill. I just want to point out that where we are asking for an increased levy to strengthen the funds of the Wool Board, I have already said in the course of my second reading speech that the intention was not immediately to increase the levy to the maximum provided for in this Bill. But as hon. members know, of course, the International Wool Secretariat prepares a budget every year and every country such as Australia and New Zealand and South Africa, contribute to that budget on a pro rata basis in accordance with its percentage wool yield. That budget clearly lays down, what the objects of the International Wool Secretariat are for the following year, with the result that the country that accepts the budget, has to make its contribution. It cannot be decided by a majority vote on the International Wool Secretariat that certain expenditure should be incurred and that every country should be obliged to make its contribution; every country is at liberty voluntarily to make its contribution, but if it has accepted the budget, it has to make its contribution. If the country concerned—take South Africa for example—should refuse to make her contribution to that budget, that budget will be taken over by Australia and New Zealand and the position will then arise where those countries will be able to advertise their own wool more in particular instead of wool in general. That is why it is so important that there should be co-operation on an international basis. Apart from the necessity of advertising and research by the International Wool Secretariat in other respects, it is also very essential that we make our contribution because we ourselves are great wool producers and because the wool industry is an important one in our whole economy. The position is that according to these budgets of the I.W.S. the funds which the Wool Board has at its disposal today are sufficient to fulfil our commitments for the next year. But in compiling the budget provision is also made for future expansion and if we do not take steps timeously to accumulate sufficient funds on behalf of the Wool Board to meet the expenditure connected with that future expansion, the Wool Board will be placed in a position where it will be unable to fulfil its commitments. I want to assure hon. members that this increase in the levy will be adjusted every year depending on the funds that the Wool Board will require to make the contribution that it has to make and also to meet the commitments that it has undertaken locally in respect of research in our own country and that this levy will not suddenly, in one fell swoop, be increased to the maximum amount of 1 cent. Neither is it the intention of the Wool Board to do it like that; it can always be done with a view to the funds that the Board require and also with a view to the economic position of our farmers. If the prices dropped to such a level that it would place an additional burden on the wool farmers, you would naturally have to reconsider whether you wanted to continue to take part in the advertising and research programme of the International Wool Secretariat.

Wool, of course, is of the greatest importance in the economy of the country. It is important particularly in view of the fact that a large portion of our country lends itself mainly to the production of wool only, and that being so, our wool industry should be made as strong and as stable as possible. The Wool Board and the Wool farmers have done a great deal in the field of research with their contributions, but on the other hand the Government has in turn made its contribution and is to-day still making its contribution as far as the various agricultural colleges, sheep breeding in general and wool research are concerned.

Having regard to our position in South Africa where we have to compete with the world outside—there is no protection as far as the price of wool is concerned, except the stability that we are trying to bring about on the local market—it is obvious that the more wool a country produces and can produce, the better will that country be able to maintain the industry against competition from other fibres and so stabilize it. We had the instance where wool buyers from Japan visited our country at the invitation of the Wool Board, and one of their difficulties was exactly this that we were not able to produce sufficient wool of the various types to meet their needs. When we think of it that our entire wool production is half that which Japan processes annually, we realize what a big demand there is for wool and what great opportunities still await us in this country for expansion.

I also want to avail myself of this opportunity to say that whereas in recent times our meat prices have been reasonably high in comparison with present-day wool prices, bearing in mind what they were in the past, there is a tendency on the part of wool farmers to go in for cross breeding, particularly as far as merinos are concerned. I think the time has arrived that we issued a word of warning against that, not that we do not want to place good lamb meat on the market for consumption, but we should remember that we may do some harm to our wool market by doing that, and our wool farmers who have produced such a good product over the years, as a result of their own contributions to research in connection with that product, should realize that it is in their own interests to market the best product that they can produce. I agree with the hon. member for Drakensberg that as far as our production per unit is concerned, there is room for great improvement. Of course, our agricultural colleges and other concerns are continually doing research work to see to what extent we can increase the carrying capacity of our sheep. I also think that it is necessary on an occasion such as this that we pay tribute to the stud-breeders of the country for their contributions in the past to improve the quality of our wool and to improve our sheep population to the extent to which it has been improved. In view of the fact, therefore, that non. members are unanimous in their support of this Bill and in view of the fact that it is essential if we want to put up the strongest possible competition against artificial fibres and the like, that we advertise our wool and conduct research, it is desirable that this measure be placed on the Statute Book as soon as possible. Many discoveries have already been made that have placed wool in a better position to maintain its position and to compete against other fibrous products. I therefore wish to thank the House for the unanimity with which it has welcomed this Bill and I want to express the hope that our wool producers will accept the challenge that face them, the challenge to produce an article of a high quality and also to produce more wool, and thus to retain the market for wool. I hope they will accept the challenge just as many challenges have been accepted in the past.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

This Bill agrees to a large extent with the former one in this respect that we wish to amend the provisions relating to the Wool Commission in the same way in respect of the chairmanship. The purpose is to provide that the Commission will be empowered to choose one of its members as vice-chairman who will be able to exercise all the functions of the chairman and to fulfil all his duties when the chairman is unable to do so. The present Act makes no provision for the nomination of a vice-chairman for the Commission and meetings of the Commission can only be convened by the chairman. If he is unable to carry out his duties for some reason or other, or if he is out of the country, then the Commission cannot come together to hold a meeting or to deal with its business. As has already been said in connection with the previous measure in this case too it has become the accepted practice under the Marketing Act to allow boards which function under the Marketing Act to choose a vice-chairman as well. At present the Act provides that three of the members of the Commission must be woolgrowers who must be nominated by the Wool Board, and one of these must be the chairman of the Commission. The Wool Act, however, provides that the nine members of the Wool Board must represent woolgrowers and strictly according to law, they need not be woolgrowers themselves and in addition the Wool Board is not obliged to choose its chairman from the ranks of those members. As the chairman of the Wool Board need not necessarily be a wool producer, therefore, this provision in the Wool Commission Act and Wool Amendment Act that one of the members of the Commission must be a woolgrower and must also be chairman, may create an anomalous position. It is proposed therefore to delete the provision that the chairman of the board must be one of the producer members.

The Bill further provides that after his period of office has expired a member may stay on for a further period not exceeding three months until his successor has been appointed. It may sometimes happen that for some unavoidable reason successors to members of the Commission whose period of office has expired may not be appointed immediately and that vacancies may therefore exist for a considerable period, with resultant inconvenience to the Commission in performing its duties. The proposed amendment will therefore bring about greater continuity.

As Section 6 (6) of the principal Act already lays down the procedure in accordance with which a casual vacancy in the Commission is to be filled, the words “and the Governor-General shall appoint a new member in his place” at the end of sub-section (2) of Section (6) are redundant. These words are accordingly being deleted by sub-section (b) of Clause 1 of this Bill.

For the rest, the purpose of Clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill is simply to express in decimals the levy on wool and the penalties which are provided for in the penal sections.

In the event of these two Bills being passed the intention is to introduce a consolidating measure in connection with our whole wool industry next year.

We on this side support this Bill. As the hon. the Minister has informed us, most of the amendments here are similar to those agreed to in the previous Bill, and the latter part of this Bill only deals with the conversion from £.s.d. to the decimal system. There is nothing in this Bill to which we object.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Perishable Agricultural Produce Sales Act in such a way that a commission agent will be compelled within seven days after the produce, comes under his control, not only report to his principal regarding the proceeds of the produce, but also to pay to his principal the balance of such proceeds after deduction of any amount which he is entitled to retain.

At first the law advisers decided that the meaning of the term “give an account” as used in Section 14 (2) (a) of the Perishable Agricultural Produce Sales Act 1961, also included the payment to the principal of the proceeds of the produce. Initially it was the intention that this meaning should be attached to the words “give an account” and this was also accepted by commission agents generally. However, in the application of the section mentioned above, doubts arose regarding the meaning of “give an account”, and after further consideration the law advisers admitted that there were grounds for doubt and recommended that the amendment now provided for in this Bill be introduced.

In the Livestock and Produce Sales Act 1956, which dealt with the relations between a commission agent and his principal before the passing of Act No. 2 of 1961, there was no provision relating to the payment of the proceeds of produce sold by a commission agent. In practice it appeared that this was a serious defect and for this reason this aspect of the matter was provided for in Act No. 2 of 1961. The provision that the proceeds should be paid to his principal by a commission agent within seven days after the produce comes under his control, is reasonable and is in accordance with the custom which is already being generally followed by commission agents. The amount of security required by Section 18 of Act No. 2 of 1961 was fixed on the understanding that payment would be made to the principal within seven business days, and for this reason the amount of security was fixed on the basis of 2 per cent of the turnover up to R500,000. Two per cent of the turnover is approximately equal to the average turnover for seven days. If the period within which payment must be made is to be more than seven days, or if it is not fixed in the Act at all, the amount of security would have to be increased substantially which would place an extraordinarily heavy burden on commission agents. The most satisfactory and reasonable provision for the parties concerned, therefore, is that payment of the amount should be made within seven days, after deduction, of course, of the amount to which they are entitled.

This is also a small amending Bill and one which we support. It would appear that it is only brought forward to rectify an oversight in the original Act in regard to the paying over of the necessary funds, and we agree with this measure.

Does this make the necessary provision, such as you have in the Act covering creameries, where only monthly payments are made for payment in respect of that particular month? And where the product is not sold, what is the effect?

Where the product is not sold, there is nothing to pay. Where the product is sold, the commission agent can deduct what he is entitled to, but he has to pay over the rest.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

This is a very short and non-contentious Bill. As hon. members are aware, the Common Law of South Africa is the Roman-Dutch Law, and it has been the legal system since the first settlement in 1652 and has remained so to this day.

One aspect of the law which has, in the course of time, developed otherwise is that which is generally known as penalty clauses in contracts. Briefly, a penalty clause in a contract is a provision that, should a party break a contract, he becomes liable for payment of a fixed amount as compensation or damage for such breach. In Roman-Dutch Law, however, these provisions in contracts were permissible subject to the following limitations, and it stands to reason why these limitations were imposed:

1. (a) That such a clause for compensation or damages should not be usurious.

   Hon. members will readily understand why that was the case. Then—

2. (b) That both a penalty and damages were not allowed; and
3. (c) that an excessive penalty could be reduced to the probable amount of the claimant’s loss.

In other words that the aggrieved party had the right to go to court and to prove to the satisfaction of the court that the amount stipulated in the contract was in fact far in excess of the actual damage, far in excess of the amount actually stipulated in the contract.

Although it was nowhere specifically laid down, it is a logical deduction that it rested upon the party dissatisfied with the enforcement of the provision in the agreement, to go to court and to ask that the claim be reduced.

On the other hand, the English law is that where a penalty has been agreed upon which becomes payable in the case of breach of contract, it must first be determined, whether when the contract was concluded the parties meant to include a real estimate of damages or whether they envisaged an arbitrary amount as deterrent. In the former case the full amount was recoverable, but in the latter the plaintiff had first to prove the extent of his damages.

The transformation of the penalty clause in our legal system started as early as 1889 with the judgment of Chief Justice de Villiers in the Cape Town Council v. Linders. There can be no doubt, when one peruses that document, that the hon. Mr. Justice de Villiers was inclined to lean to the English law point of view. Other courts followed his judgment, in most cases halfheartedly. The matter, however, came to a head in 1933 when the Appeal Court gave support to this trend in favour of the Roman-Dutch law in the well-known Pearl Assurance Company case. The Appeal Court decided in favour of the Roman-Dutch point of view. This case went in appeal to the Privy Council and the Privy Council, as lawyers will know, upset the judgment of the Appeal Court. And from that day so far as our case law was concerned, the English system had to be followed in South Africa. It is, however, clear from the continuous criticism that is still to-day levelled at the Privy Council’s judgment that lawyers in South Africa were not satisfied and attempts were made to clarify the position, and if possible to bring our law back to the Roman-Dutch law point of view. As early as 1935, the year after the judgment, attempts were made to revive the Common Law position. For the purposes of record I am going to quote the following provision which appeared in the General Law Amendment Bill of 1935—

1. (a) If the debtor proves that such sum of money or the value of such property is grossly excessive in comparison with the loss, inconvenience, disappointment or annoyance actually suffered by the creditor as a result of such breach, a competent court may at the instance of the debtor, reduce the indebtedness of the debtor to a sum or value which the court considers sufficient to compensate the creditor fully for any such loss, inconvenience, disappointment or annoyance.

I won’t burden the House with the further paragraphs of that provision. This Bill however was introduced by the then Minister of Justice, General Smuts. A debate followed in this House and it transpired from that debate that there was disagreement amongst the lawyers. Colonel Stallard, who was then a member of this House, opposed this provision of the Bill. He was in favour of the English system, whereas Mr. Blackwell, subsequently Judge, at the time favoured the Roman-Dutch law. As a result, however, of the fact that the various lawyers did not agree, General Smuts did not proceed with this part of the Bill, and he undertook to refer it back to the Judges. Whether in fact it was referred back to the Judges is not at all clear from the departmental records at my disposal. But the fact remains that the Bill was then killed and it was not proceeded with that year or thereafter. Lawyers, however, continued to discuss this matter. Many articles were written in the law journals. Various Judges commented on it in passing when giving judgment, and ultimately this matter, as a result of the initiative of Mr. Franklin, an attorney of Bloemfontein, was again referred to the Law Revision Committee, in 1959, and the Law Revision Committee decided to recommend that the Conventional Penalties Bill be introduced in Parliament.

Although, as I have already said, it cannot be ascertained what the reaction of the Judges was in 1935, if in fact they were consulted. I am in the position to state now that this Bill was unanimously accepted by the Law Revision Committee. At that stage there was a representative of the Law Societies, the Genral Bar Council and various representatives of the country’s university law faculties on that committee. Moreover, this Bill was published for general information as far back as the 21 July 1961 and up to now no unfavourable criticism has been received by myself or the department.

Not only is the Bill intended to clarify a general principle of law, but it will also at least have the advantage of ensuring that a party to a contract, subject to the necessary limitations concerning usury, cumulation of penalty and damages, and excessive penalties, will be able to enforce the penalty without-requiring the court to investigate the intentions of the parties at the time that the contract was concluded. This latter procedure is something which inevitably creates problems of proof, and, as hon. members of the legal profession on both sides will know, usually increases legal costs.

I therefore have no hesitation in recommending this Bill to hon. members of this House as a Bill which cannot only be accepted, but that we will be doing the right thing as far as the Common law of this country is concerned, the Roman-Dutch law, to put this matter right.

The House has listened with great interest to the review given by the hon. the Minister. There is no question that this is a matter which has received a great deal of attention in legal circles over a long period. One would have felt that the South Africa law had been finally settled by the decision in the Pearl Assurance Case, but of course it is quite clear, in view of the change in the position of our Appeal Court, that it is possible that if a matter of the nature which went to the Appeal Court in the Pearl Assurance Case, came before the Appeal Court at the present time, the decision of the House of Lords, which overruled the South African Appeal Court decision, might be reversed. I happened to see one of the members of the Law Revision Committee and asked him about this Bill, and he said that he really hadn’t any strong feelings either way, but he did feel that it was very important that the matter should be settled once and for all, so that there would be no further disputes before the courts over the matter. I must say that point of view appeals to me. There is no question that if there is one axiom in regard to law which it is important to try and uphold, it is that the law should be certain, and although the law on this point, I believe, is reasonably well settled, there is still the possibility that a South African court of appeal might take a different view if the matter came before it. We are therefore looking at this Bill very carefully. The provisions of the Bill will require some examination I think when we deal with it in Committee and we can discuss that matter then. We will in the course of this second reading debate raise various points and we shall be very interested to hear the reply of the hon. the Minister in relation to them.

I should like to express the hope—this of course is a particular case and one of very great importance—that in cases where the South African law has been settled over a period and is in fact settled law, we will not seek to amend the law simply to get back to the original Roman-Dutch sources. I am a great believer in the Roman-Dutch system of law and I think we are very fortunate to have that system of law but I do believe that, on account of the fact that English law had evolved further in the intervening centuries—much of the law of South Africa which is based on English precedents—we are in a better position than we would have been were we still operating on the original Roman-Dutch law, pure and unadulterated, as it was some 150 years and more ago. This Bill is one of great importance. It will probably lead to the avoidance of litigation in future. But I do think that we will have to look at the terms of the Bill very carefully indeed to make quite sure that we ourselves in passing the legislation, are not possibly introducing complications. I believe it is possible that we may be able to suggest amendments to certain of the provisions. I hope that if the Bill is passed into law something which has been the subject of great contention in legal circles over a very long period will have been laid finally to rest. I must express some doubt, Sir, as to whether some of these provisions when tested before the courts, will be found to be entirely satisfactory in the modern system of law.

This Bill has a most formidable-sounding title but I think the ordinary man has a very great interest in it. Because in fact, any man who buys a plot of land, or any article in a way which does not bring it within the Hire Purchase Act, is affected by the amount of damages, should he default on his contract. So, although this is of particular interest to academic lawyers, it has a very real interest for the ordinary man. And, indeed, I think the courts have made it clear that this was an important reason for tackling this matter.

As the hon. the Minister has said this matter has been before the Law Revision Committee, which has deliberated on it with its customary care and thoroughness. Indeed, I think the deliberations began as far back as 1956. This body is represented, as the hon. the Minister rightly said, in a very full way, and the fact that it has recommended this Bill to the Department is a very important consideration. That a measure should be introduced has, I think it can be said, the full support of the entire profession—the Bar, the Side-Bar and the legal faculties of the universities. I think that apart from the ground upon which the Minister particularly supported it, the feeling is that the Bill will introduce greater certainty into the amount of damages which a defaulting party will have to pay; so that the position of the two contracting parties will be clearer. I think, Sir, that there is also the position that it will eliminate the apparent conflict of our law in regard to penalties as opposed to forfeiture clauses. This has been a matter very dear to the heart, naturally, of academic lawyers. But I think there are one or two points upon which we should be glad to have clarification. I think Mr. Pollack, Q.C., a member of the Law Revision Committee, was asked to prepare a memorandum setting out his opposition to the Bill proposed. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister if in fact he did actually submit such a memorandum and what the precise nature of his objections were. He is, of course, a man of eminence in the legal profession and he was at that time a member of the Law Revision Committee. As the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) said, we have certain worries about the actual provisions of the Bill. Let me say at once that the profession welcomes the fact that this matter is being tackled. But at the same time there are different views as to how it should be tackled. Thus, Mr. Kahn, who is a leading member of the legal faculty of the Witwatersrand University, takes the view that the Bill in this form will not in fact operate to reduce any possible hardship on the defaulting purchaser. He believes that the only way to achieve that is to prohibit penalties altogether. I shall be very glad if the Minister could give us some indication whether in fact that approach has been considered and what in fact the result was.

The last small point I want to deal with relates to Clause 3. In the proviso to Clause 3 the court is directed to consider not only the proprietary interests of the innocent party but, as the Bill says, “every other rightful interest which may be effected by the act or omission in question”. I suggest that is a new concept in our law of damages. I am aware of the fact that Professor de Wet in his memorandum to the Commission did make this recommendation. It is, I think, in accordance with the German Burgerlike Wet. I am not quite certain of the precise term. It may be a very good provision, but I think it is one that is new to our law and I wonder what the Minister’s view is as to the advisability of introducing that aspect. As you will appreciate, Sir, it is an extremely wide consideration and one which doubtless will have to be circumscribed and defined by the courts. They have in the past done well, obviously, in tasks of that kind, and it may be that the Minister feels that will be the appropriate way in this case. But I shall be glad if he will just be good enough to tell us what his approach is to that point.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) on his maiden speech. In each of the propositions put forward by him he showed a thorough knowledge of the subject, and if his political insight were as clear as his knowledge of the law, he would naturally have been a colleague of mine. In any event, I wish to congratulate him on the fact that in one field his insight is clear.

Coming to the Bill, I want to associate myself to some extent with the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). I do not think that we as a House should, at this stage, tamper with this product of many years’ deliberation. But I myself have strong doubts as to whether the old Roman-Dutch principle of the enforceability of a penalty clause is still such a healthy thing to-day. Because a penalty clause is to the definite disadvantage of the more illiterate masses as compared with the well-equipped commercial people who usually draw up the contracts. Then again, as regards the matter mentioned a few moments ago by the hon. member for Pinelands in connection with Clause 3, there we are entering into a new field, in which I also envisage many snags and snares in the future. But, Mr. Speaker, I think my approach and that of the hon. the Minister …

You mean the proviso to Clause 3?

Yes, the proviso. My approach and that of the whole House, is that this is a matter where we must have a direct answer, and the greatest virtue of a legal system is to provide certainty. Because what we now specifically regard as the best and what the individual regards as specifically the best, are only convictions which have to be tested against the insight of the gods which is not to be obtained here on earth. That is why I want to thank the Minister heartily and congratulate him on having brought finality in this matter after a long period of uncertainty. I wish to make this appeal to hon. members of the Opposition that we in this House should not now seek to evolve an amendment or amendments which lawyers over the last 24 years, in a calmer and happier atmosphere, undoubtedly considered, reconsidered and eventually rejected for the draft which is now before us. I therefore gladly support the Minister, notwithstanding my subjective doubts which may in time when we have more experience of the working of this provision, lead to the amendment of the substantive contents without affecting this principle of certainty in law.

I think this is an occasion where we should deal with the matter cautiously. I am certainly in agreement with the last speaker when he said that we must be cautious in the way we handle the measure before us. I too am guided by the precept or maxim that it is better to have a situation in which the law is settled, even if it may not be perfect, than for the Legislature to set about trying to introduce perfection and to leave the law unsettled. In regard to the subject of this Bill the decision in the Pearl Insurance case goes back to 1933. So that for well over a quarter of a century the law on the subject of contractual penalties or liquidated damages, as interpreted by the courts, has been settled. That being so, we must be cautious, even though we may be well-meaning. As I understand the hon. the Minister the intention fundamentally is to restore the Roman-Dutch law on the subject of contractual penalties or liquidated damages, and therefore, to undo the interpretation of the Privy Council in that case in so far as it contributed to our law.

I feel that one must be conservative in one’s thinking even if you are trying to bring greater perfection into an established legal principle. I was interested in the Minister’s outlining of the position, to hear of the efforts made in the past on this question of whether we should disturb a situation which had been settled, as we thought, in 1933 and which was varied to a degree by the Privy Council in 1934. But I have grave doubts, Sir, whether the Bill before us does in fact restore the Roman-Dutch law on the subject. Because I find puzzling a word such as “conflict” in Clause l;-a word which is strange to me and one that would certainly have been strange to anybody before 1933. The Minister himself, in introducing this measure talked of a contract being “broken”. I understand the term “breach of contract”. I say therefore that we should be cautious about introducing this new concept of a “conflict” in a contract into the law because it introduces a concept which certainly was not there before.

When I look at Clause 3, to which the previous speaker also referred, I find a puzzling situation as well. Here we have the strange position of seemingly introducing some sort of procedure into the Bill which is designed to lay down substantive law. I hope the hon. the Minister will give careful consideration to this in his reply. Because as Clause 3 reads it seems to be placing an onus on the Court instead of on one or other of the parties to the litigation. We are dealing here with a situation in which there are parties to a contract; it is a bilateral matter. Clause 3 seems to introduce some sort of procedure in which the court, when it has the matter before it, should on its own initiative, take some course of action. Now that, Sir, was certainly never a part of the Roman-Dutch law. If therefore it is intended to re-state the substantive law on the subject then we must deal with the onus precisely as set out in the Pearl Insurance decision of 1933 by the Appellate Division. In that decision—the hon. the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—it was made quite clear that it was the party seeking to avoid payment on whom the onus lay in this regard. The decision was to this effect. It says—

Naturally it is the aggrieved party that goes to court.

That is not what the clause says. I may be wrong but that certainly is not what Clause 3 says as I read it. That is why I rise to draw the attention of the House to it, because this is one of the clauses where I think we must be cautious. As I see it we are not laying down substantive law; we are intermingling substantive law with some sort of procedure which I think is foreign to our concept of the onus of proof. I was interested in the quotation which the hon. the Minister mentioned in regard to the 1935 General Law Amendment Bill in which a provision something like this is contained. But in that case the Bill quite clearly provided that the court would be “acting at the instance of the debtor”. That to my mind brings about a very much clearer situation and one which is much nearer to the procedure which we have always followed. It places the onus quite clearly where it should be. Whilst I believe in the maxim that it is better to have settled law than uncertain law, I feel that if we are going to make this alteration, if we are going to restore the decision of the Appellate Division, we should do so in terms and in language as near as we can to the decision itself. As my hon. friend the member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) has indicated we might be introducing conflicts which I am sure the Minister does not want and which I am sure this House would be loathe to introduce into the law.

I want to say at the outset that I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) and with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) that in the nature of things one must always be very careful of course when altering the law, particularly on a point like this. The opinion has also been expressed by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) that here we are dealing with a situation in which our decisions are all in accordance with English law whereas we are now perversely restoring the Roman-Dutch legal position and that may lead to misinterpretation or result in other disadvantages. One must, of course, guard against that, but in this case I maintain that this cannot happen for the simple reason that the English legal practice that damages must in fact be assessed in advance, excludes the Roman-Dutch practice of what might be called an arbitrary assessment of damages. But the Roman-Dutch principle does not exclude the English law one, because if the parties wish to go so far as to assess their damages at the commencement of the contract, they can include that amount in the contract and in any event the amount can never be in dispute. It is perfectly clear therefore that whereas the English law is exclusive the Roman-Dutch system is inclusive and thus as far as this matter is concerned there can be no conflict of interests.

Before I go any further I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Kempton Park in congratulating the hon. member for Pinelands. Like him, I was also struck by the way in which the hon. member for Pinelands put his case. Since I was a member of the same Bar as the hon. member in years gone by it is a great pleasure to congratulate him on his maiden speech. He asked me whether Advocate Pollock had been asked to submit a memorandum and whether in fact he did submit a memorandum in connection with this matter. I have investigated the position and the information that I have does not indicate at all that Advocate Pollock was asked to draw up a memorandum and in any case there is no memorandum in my files which is supposed to emanate from him.

I wish to assure the hon. member for Pinelands, who raised this matter, that this Bill was considered from all angles before it was drawn up. I also gave hon. members the assurance that this Bill was published as early as July of last year. Apart from the fact that it was approved by the Law Revision Committee, it was also open to perusal by all lawyers and I repeat that so far we have received no comment from lawyers to the effect that this Bill will not fulfil its purpose. Furthermore, this Bill is not being discussed in this House for the first time. As hon. members know, it has already been dealt with in the Senate. Publicity has been given to it and hon. members will remember that the only comment came from Professor Price of the University of Cape Town, who heartily welcomed it.

Apparently the only objection that may be raised by hon. members is in regard to the proviso to Clause 3. That proviso reads:—

In this connection I deliberately read out the article in the 1935 draft in which these words appear—

It covers the same concept which these words were intended to cover in 1935. In other words, we have to do here with a position in which a court, when it is asked to reduce the amount stipulated in the contract, will have the right not only to have regard to the actual property damage of the plaintiff but also to take other factors into consideration to determine whether, when the parties stipulated that amount, they provided for an excessive amount in the contract. Hon. members will understand why that must be so. Breach of contract does not always merely have the result that a man suffers a certain, measurable loss. It may extend further There is the “inconvenience”, there is the “disappointment” and there is the “annoyance” that accompanies it. I do not think that hon. members will quarrel with me when I say that it is good and fair that the court should take into consideration the fact that these things eventuated and that they resulted from the breach of contract. There is the question of sentimental value. The breaking of a contract may have the result that a man may suffer little actual property damage but as far as the sentimental value which he attaches to an object is concerned, he may suffer a great loss, a loss for which money cannot compensate him. How often have hon. members not heard in practice that someone has suffered a loss for which money is no compensation? If the parties, well knowing that might be the result, have specified the amount in advance, as a deterrent or to ensure that the person will fulfil his contract, then it is most certainly good and fair that the court should take into consideration those subsidiary factors of which one does not wish to set out fully in the Bill. I wish to repeat, therefore, that this is not a new principle that we are introducing but it is a principle which was envisaged as long ago as 1935 by the then Minister of Justice, General Smuts, when he introduced that Bill.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) raised an interesting point but I think that if one reads the Clause, although it may not be stated in so many words, it nevertheless appears from the whole context, and it is self-evident from our law of procedure, that this kind of case will come before the court for decision only if the person who feels himself aggrieved because of the amount stipulated in the contract makes the submission to the court that the amount is out of proportion to the actual damage.

Can we not put it clearly?

It is a matter that we can discuss and I shall go into it over the week-end, but is decidedly not the intention of the Bill. But these are not matters which one can settle at the second reading; they are matters which, together with the cases mentioned by the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn), can be dealt with more conveniently during the Committee stage. I shall in any event give my attention to the points that have been mentioned here.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.