Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I wish to make a short statement on Part One of the Report of the Press Commission which I laid on the Table earlier to-day.

The first part of the Commission’s report consists of two volumes together containing more than 700 pages. Then there are also 19 annexures containing 1,566 pages.

The hon. the Prime Minister recently announced that the Commission has again been placed under the care of the Minister of the Interior. I have been called upon to lay the report upon the Table.

The first part of the report which, as I have already pointed out, is a bulky document, is available in English only and the Government has deemed it advisable to lay it on the Table in only one language, and in its present typed form. If the report were to be translated first and then printed in the two official languages, it would take some months still before it could be laid upon the Table.

My first task now is to acquaint myself further with the contents of the report before the recommendations it contains are considered by the Government. As may well be realized this is no mean task, but I am doing everything in my power to expedite the consideration of the report by the Government.

Until such time as the report has been considered, I cannot comment on it because I do not yet know whether the Government is going to accept the recommendations it contains in toto or in amended form, or perhaps even reject them.

All I can say at this stage is that the report will be considered as soon as possible and that if the Government should arrive at any decisions in connection with the recommendations of the Commission, it will be announced without delay.

I have requested my Department to furnish copies of the report to the Universities in the Republic, the State Libraries at Cape Town and Pretoria and the Parliamentary Library where the remaining copies will be available to Members of Parliament who wish to acquaint themselves with the contents of the report.

Copies of the report will also be made available on loan to the Press, the South African Press Association and the South African Broadcasting Corporation.

I move—

As we said at the second reading, we believe not only that this legislation is essential but that it is also good legislation to place our archives and the care of our public records under better control and also to help the research worker in his research. In the course of the second-reading debate we put forward certain suggestions and tried to draw the Minister’s attention to certain clauses. We received satisfactory replies from him to the points raised by us and also the assurance that if it should appear that in practice a particular clause cannot be administered smoothly, he will bring about the necessary amendments.

But I should like to make use of this late opportunity at this late stage to refer once again to a few of the clauses of the Bill, with the request that the hon. the Minister should give his serious attention to them. You may ask me, Sir, why I did not do so earlier, but certain other objections have reached me since, and after further study of this matter there are certain points I should like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister once again.

My first observation is in connection with Clause 1, the definition of the word “archives”. I think here we have a vague definition which may perhaps cause a certain amount of difficulty or uncertainty or ambiguity later on.

Let me read the relevant portion of the clause—

So far it is perfectly clear, but now we come to the part which is obscure—

I shall be grateful if the hon. the Minister in his reply will explain the portion beginning with the words “and which are from their nature.”

Then we come to Clause 3 (2) (a), to which I should also like to refer. In terms of Clause 2 the Minister exercises “control over the custody and care of archives and accessions.” But, on the other hand, under Clause 3 (2) (a) the Director is in charge of the custody, care and control of archives. It is felt by certain persons that this power which is being given to the Director also gives him control over the documents which are in the possession of city councils or town councils, and that he can, therefore, without the authority of the city council, without consulting them, without getting in touch with them, enter and examine such offices, and he may also recommend to them the destruction of documents or prevent them from destroying certain documents. The city councils, unless we are very careful, may feel here that their domestic activities can and may be interferred with. I think in this case it will be necessary to be extremely careful and to consult these local authorities and to obtain their co-operation. I wonder, if I may suggest it, Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. the Minister is not prepared to consider the question of appointing a representative of the United Municipal Executive to the Board so as to remove this difficulty.

Finally I want to refer to Clause 9 (1). Under this clause city councils and other authorities are obliged after certain periods to hand over certain documents to the interim places of custody. The Town Clerks of some of the city councils feel that the position will now be that they will have to obtain the approval of the Minister before they will be allowed to inspect any of the documents that they have already sent to the depot or to the interim place of custody. In actual fact these documents are still theirs; they come from their office. They may need them but before they will be able to inspect them again they will have to wait until they receive a permit or the approval of the Minister. In such cases where a local authority has handed over these documents to the interim place of custody, I wonder whether it will not be possible to give them free access to these documents if they desire to inspect them.

With these few words I want to ask the hon. the Minister in the first place to reply to these objections that I have submitted and, secondly, whether it is not possible for him at this late stage to bring about a change whereby it will be possible to administer these few clauses more smoothly than would appear to be the case at the moment.

In so far as the questions put to me by the hon. member for Hillbrow (Mr. Steenkamp) are concerned, the first was in regard to the definition of “archives”, particularly with reference to the words read out by him. I just want to point out that there are certain types of documents which are not covered by the Archives Act. I can mention one example, namely secret documents of an international nature. Therefore the definition had to be widened in order to cover that type of document. I think the hon. member will agree with me that provision ought to be made in such an act for all contingencies.

In regard to the hon. member’s second question, where he first read Clause 2 and then Clause 3, it is quite clear that in Clause 2 the Minister is given control over the safekeeping and care of the archives. But if the hon. member were to read Clause 3 (1) right through, it reads that, by virtue of the Public Service Act, the Minister must appoint a Director of Archives who is to perform his duties in terms of this Act subject to the instructions of the Minister. In other words, when the Director is given certain functions in terms of Clause 3 (a), and is entrusted with the protection, care and control of archives, it is on the instructions of the Minister. In other words, these are delegated powers. The Minister personally cannot do everything. But the provisions of Clause 2 are clearly implemented because the Director, in terms of Clause 3 (1) is bound by the instructions of the Minister.

Then I come to the request of the hon. member in regard to local authorities. I can only say that I quite agree with him that it will be a very good thing to appoint a member of the Municipal Association to the Archives Commission. I think that is essential, seeing that we are now taking control also of these local matters. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that I will consider it. I think it is quite correct. And obviously it also solves the last difficulty he mentioned under Clause 9 (1), namely that they must receive consent to obtain access to their own documents when those documents are in the intermediate depots. If the local authorities have a representative on the Archives Commission, this matter can be solved administratively.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

The object of this Bill is principally to eliminate legal and practical difficulties, particularly in relation to disciplinary matters encountered by the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Board when carrying out its functions and duties in terms of the principal Act. While recommending the necessary amendments in this regard, the Board took the opportunity of recommending some other amendments as well, most of which are of a minor nature and are designed to set out more clearly, or to bring into line with existing practice, certain provisions of the Act. The principles underliving the amendments have in most cases been under consideration by the Board for a number of years and have formed the subject of several joint opinions obtained by the Board from two counsels. The amendments as finally incorporated in this Bill have been drafted in close consultation with the Board. I shall not deal with each of these clauses separately, but I propose to deal with the more important ones.

Clause 4 repeals those sections of the Act dealing with the Accountants’ Registration Advisory Committee. This Committee was established solely for the purpose of dealing with initial applications for registration as accountants and auditors arising from the promulgation of the Act. It was thus merely a transitional procedure. And it was in fact abolished in terms of Section 20, eighteen months after the Act came into operation. Sections 13 to 20 which all relate to this Advisory Committee, are now redundant and the opportunity afforded by this Bill is being used to excise them from the Act.

The object of Clause 5 is to empower the Board to prescribe that a previously registered accountant and auditor who, while registered, was guilty of improper conduct, may be punished by debarring him from re-registration either permanently, or for a specified period, or until the occurrence of a specified event. Paragraphs (g) and (h) of this Clause introduce the principle of empowering the Board, at its discretion, to take cognizance of the conduct, prior to registration, of a person who has applied for registration as an accountant and auditor, in order to refuse or cancel such person’s registration. The type of case envisaged is that of an applicant, qualified for registration, about whom the Board has cogent and convincing evidence of dishonesty, such as the misappropriation of money, but in respect of whom the provisions of paragraph (b) of sub-section (6) of section 23 of the Act or of the opening portion of sub-section (7) of that section cannot be invoked to debar or cancel registration, as the case may be, because, for some reason, criminal proceedings were not instituted against such person. Paragraph (h) also removes the obligation which at present rests on the Board to cancel the registration as an accountant and auditor of a person who becomes of unsound mind, as special provision for dealing with such cases is now proposed in section 28bis, for the insertion of which Clause 11 of the Bill provides. The object of paragraph (j) is to permit registered accountants and auditors who are engaged in public practice to describe themselves as public accountants and auditors, thus serving to distinguish them from registered accountants and auditors who are not so engaged.

I now come to Clause 8, paragraph (c) of which gives recognition to the fact that in South West Africa the books of an undertaking are frequently kept in the German language. Paragraph (d) substitutes in paragraph (e) of the sub-section for the expression “the ordinarily accepted methods” a more appropriate expression having regard to the fact that, in auditing practice, there do not exist “ordinarily accepted methods” which are of universal application. As regards paragraph (j), Section 26 of the principal Act imposes certain duties on auditors, and sub-section (3) thereof imposes the duty of reporting to the undertaking whose books are being audited any material irregularly of which the auditor has cause to complain. If further imposes on auditors the duty of reporting to the Board any cases where the undertaking concerned has not rectified material irregularities reported to it by the auditor. Where an auditor does not carry out either or both of the aforegoing duties, the Board can take disciplinary action against him. This sub-section was enacted in the public interest, but because the emphasis is placed on an irregularity “of which an auditor has cause to complain”, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove in appropriate cases that an auditor has not carried out his duties properly, since “cause for complaint” must always be a matter of opinion. It must always be subjective. The Governmnet’s representatives on the Board therefore felt strongly that the existing wording of section 26 (3) did not protect the public interest to the extent intended when the principal Act was passed, and as a result the Board agreed that the sub-section should be reworded to place the emphasis on an irregularity which has caused, or is likely to cause, financial loss to the undertaking concerned, its members, or creditors. Such an irregularity, it is felt, is much easier to prove, and when the new wording comes into effect, it will simplify the task of the Board when taking disciplinary measures against an auditor who fails to carry out the duties imposed upon him by this sub-section. At the same time, care must be exercised not to expose an auditor to claims for damages by third parties where he has bona fide failed to detect a material irregularity. Although sub-section (5) of Section 26 already contains a general exemption from action against an auditor who has acted in good faith, it was considered that this exemption should be placed beyond doubt in regard to the matters contained in the new sub-section (3), as regards both reporting and non-reporting, to avoid any possibility of auditors who have acted in good faith being subjected to vexatious litigation by third parties.

I now come to Clause 10. As the Act now reads the Board has no power to enquire into cases of improper conduct alleged to have been committed by persons who are no longer registered accountants and auditors while they were so registered. As a result, the Board is unable to take cognizance of such alleged improper conduct should the persons concerned again apply for registration under the Act. The object of paragraph (a) of this clause is mainly to enable the Board to inquire into such cases, which in turn will empower it in proven cases to debar the persons concerned from re-registration either permanently, or for a specified period, or until the happening of a specified event.

Paragraph (b) of Clause 10 empowers the Board to postpone disciplinary action in respect of alleged improper conduct which forms or is likely to form the subject of proceedings in a court of law until such proceedings have been determined. This brings the powers of the Board into line with those conferred upon the S.A. Medical and Dental Council by Section 41 of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act.

Clause 11 introduces two new sections into the principal Act, namely: (a) Section 28bis which makes provision for the holding of an inquiry by the Board whenever it has before it information on oath which appears to show that a registered accountant and auditor has become mentally disabled. If the Board finds that this is the case it is empowered to suspend the registered accountant and auditor concerned from practice, (b) Section 28ter which confers upon the Board, its members and officers, immunity from criminal or civil proceedings in respect of acts or duties performed in exercising its disciplinary powers.

Clause 12 is the next clause that I want to refer to. The main object of this clause is to include in the category of persons who may not, without the Board’s consent, be employed by a registered accountant and auditor in connection with his practice persons who have been refused registration by the Board for any of the reasons set out in sub-section (6) of Section 23 of the Act. Certain minor improvements upon the wording of the existing provision are also being made.

Finally, Sir, Clause 14 provides that in conformity with the provisions of Section 23 of the principal Act, the provisions of this Bill will also apply to South West Africa.

We support the second reading of this Bill. But I think it is well to place on record that the amending Bill does introduce certain new features. As the hon. the Minister of Finance has said, the amendment contemplated in Clause 8 of the Bill seeks to amend Section 26 of the principal Act. This amendment is being introduced following representations made by the Government members of the Public Accountants’ Board. It throws a tremendous responsibility on an auditor in practice. I think that the Minister will agree with me when I say that many members of the profession resisted this new requirement which requires the accountant to indicate whether a material irregularity has caused or is likely to cause financial loss to the undertaking or any of its members or creditors. It is a very far-reaching provision and one which throws a great deal of responsibility on the practising accountant. For that reason, Sir, individual members of the profession have resisted accepting those responsibilities. It is quite often purely a matter of opinion as to whether a particular action in a company is likely to cause loss to creditors. Having regard to experience in commercial life in this country, I think there are very few people who would like to predict the future and would like to say that a particular action would or would not cause loss. While the profession as a whole has agreed to this provision, I think they will watch the working of this provision very carefully indeed because while there is protection so far as the auditor is concerned from creditors, shareholders and other interested bodies where he is likely to be subjected to legal action, as far as the individual members of the profession are concerned, the placing of this onus on their shoulders is such that it throws a responsibility which many accountants would not lightly accept. We will watch this development with considerable interest. Accountants who realize that in many cases as a result of reporting in this way their profession may be affected in future, accept that responsibility on the understanding that they will have the full co-operation of the Board and that they will be fully protected by the Board. It is an innovation which, as far as I know, does not obtain in other parts of the world except in those countries which regard public accountants as virtually full-time State officials. I hope we will not reach that stage where the professional man will be regarded as a full-time State official and that the opportunity for individual practice will continue. Here, Mr. Speaker, in effect the public accountant is being put in the position of being virtually an officer of State without the same protection which an officer of State enjoys. It is an experiment, Sir, and we shall watch the development of that experiment with a great deal of interest.

Mr. Speaker, we have before us legislation, but I wonder whether all hon. members realize its importance. This Act originated in 1951, after repeated attempts had been made in South Africa—and I must say they were made by my predecessor in my constituency—who did much towards getting this legislation on the Statute Book.

The profession of an accountant and auditor is one in regard to which not all people in the country realize the scope of the work involved. They do not realize the importance of the work. It is one of those professions which is certainly, particularly under present circumstances, one of the most important of all. We have the medical man who is of importance to the health of the nation, but the accountant and auditor are equally important, or perhaps even much more important to-day, in looking after the economic health of the nation.

Auditing originated in the year 1314, when in Britain the expenditure of the Crown had to be investigated. It developed further until the year 1667, when the expenditure of Parliament had to be reviewed. Throughout the years it was the accepted practice that the auditor had to scrutinize the expenditure of the State and the expenditure of the various economic undertakings. The auditor fulfils an important function, not only vis-à-vis the shareholders as such, because there are many other groups interested in an industry. So we find the creditor, the public and the State. Sometimes the shareholder or the person who runs a one-man business has invested the least money in that business. The creditors have a greater interest, and that is why it is so necessary that their interests should be protected. The State has an equally great interest in the industries in the private sector as the entrepreneur, because if the private sector is prosperous the State can also collect its taxation and the country can flourish. The work of the auditor is very important if we have regard to the many millions of rand comprising our national income and we remember that the auditor has to deal with those finances every day. A full circle is completed every day. It goes from the bank to the private sector, to the State, and back again, and the auditor must continuously scrutinize all these transactions. It has never yet been ascertained how many times an auditor has to deal with the same money in its cycle of circulation. In the past the position was that, as appears from various court decisions, it was customary and traditional for the auditor merely to scrutinize expenditure. So we find cases like Kingston Cotton Mills, where it was said that the auditor was the watchdog and not the bloodhound. In the case of London and General Bank, it was stated that the auditor was not there to give advice. But seeing that we are dealing with these amendments, I want to express another thought which should be brought home, not only to our legislators, but also to the private sector. I want to stress a further idea, namely that not only should we be watchdogs, but that the watchdog should now become the bloodhound. I shall explain it as follows.

We know that the auditor must have a thorough knowledge of the law and of all the various facets of the economy. The auditing profession requires its members to have a high degree of training. Now we find that in the various spheres of life there is sufficient study and research. We see what the C.S.I.R. has done in its own sphere, and in other technical spheres quite a lot of research has also been done, but in the economic and financial sphere there is still a great lack of research. We find that various bodies in fact do research. We find universities, banks and private companies doing it, but these are all independent investigations and research, and we know how very expensive research and study are. In the accounting profession we have a section of the community which has the knowledge available. It is a section which has been trained in economic and financial problems, and we see that the law provides for the powers and duties of auditors, but I want to make a plea now for a further step to be taken. We cannot move this amendment now, but I ask that in future a further aspect should be covered by this Act, namely research and study and guidance. To-day there is specialization in all spheres, but in the economic and financial spheres, in which the auditor operates, there are as yet no such facilities. I want to plead for further research and facilities for study in the profession. Bursaries should also be made available by the State and by individuals and private initiative to give these accountants and auditors the opportunity to do further research. This Accountants’ Society should be enabled to make use of the universities and other bodies to study certain facets of our economic life and financial institutions. Seeing that medical men derive certain benefits in terms of the Income Tax Act when they go abroad for further study, we must also offer that benefit to the people concerned in this section of our economic life. If we create that opportunity, these professional men will also be inclined to make use of it and to extend it further. Unless facilities are established, we cannot expect one firm of auditors alone, or even a few of them, to do so themselves. We already have what are called managerial consultants who, where companies do not have the necessary guidance and technical managers, provide those facilities, but it is not physically possible to tackle this wide sphere of study unless the necessary facilities and channels are created. We must make the best possible use of the brains of these men. The brainpower of the people is one of the greatest assets we have to-day, but I am afraid that we do not make sufficient use of it. If we provide these facilities, we will provide the men in our profession who can give the necessary guidance and advice to private undertakings. When we have these facilities we will also not find so many of our companies going insolvent. We must prevent that and not simply say later: You can be the liquidator of that company. If we ensure that there are trained men to give guidance to these people and to cover the broad sphere with which industry is concerned, marketing, production and all the other accompanying problems—if we provide those facilities and train those men. they can provide the private sector with the necessary information. The Government receives advice, because the Economic Advisory Council advises the Prime Minister and the Board of Trade and Industries advises the Minister of Economic Affairs, but we still do not have such bodies in the private sector, and that is the most important factor of all. See to it that private sector flourishes, and all will be well with the State. I want to ask that in future we should devote attention to this matter, not only as legislators but also through other bodies. If our private financial institutions prosper and if the auditing profession is able to give guidance, it will not be necessary for the Registrar of Financial Institutions to appoint an inspectorate to obviate financial loss by private investors who have invested their money in those institutions. We will pluck the fruits of that.

For the rest, I fully support these amendments of the Accountants’ Association. Great responsibilities are being placed on the accountant and auditor. It is an honour to belong to the profession, and practising accountants, with their sense of responsibility, accept the burden placed on their shoulders. If a man practises his profession thoroughly and properly, he will not be afraid to take a firm stand when necessary and I can assure the hon. the Minister that, apart from certain exceptions, the profession wholeheartedly welcomes the amendments.

It is my pleasant duty to follow the hon. member for Pretoria-Sunnyside (Mr. van Zyl), who has just made his maiden speech. He obviously is an accountant, because he quoted the judgment which said that the auditor is a watchdog but not a bloodhound, but where he went on to hope that he becomes more of a bloodhound than a watchdog I must disagree. Anyway, it is quite obvious that with his training he will be a great success in this House, which is particularly short of business men, and if I say particularly on the Government side I hope he will realize that I am referring to the Government side and not to him. I wish him well in his career in this House.

As my colleague has said, this side welcomes the Bill, but we definitely have reservations in regard to the amendment to Section 26. These amendments do not really extend the powers of the auditor, as has been suggested. It does make some attempt to clarify his duties, but I still think it leaves him somewhat in mid-air. He has to take the prescribed action in terms of this Bill if he finds a material irregularity, which is then defined as was read out by my colleague. He then reports to his client and unless he gets a satisfactory reply within 30 days he must report to the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Board. That is all very well, but the whole thing will come back to this question of material irregularities, and although it is defined as action likely to cause financial loss to the undertaking or any of its members or creditors, it will remain extremely obscure, and I fear that at some stage or another some unfortunate accountant is going to be dragged into some very expensive litigation because of the obscurity of this definition. Whether anything can be done about it at the moment is a different matter. I cannot myself think of any amendment, and as I said before, this side of the House supports the Bill fully with the slight reservations we have in regard to this amendment.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. van Zyl) very heartily on his first speech in this House. I also want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross), that it is an acquisition to this House to have somebody with us who is a member of this profession. Without casting any reflection upon other hon. members, I feel it is a good thing to have somebody in our midst who is a practising accountant so that we may have the benefit of his views during our deliberations. He cast a very interesting light on the importance of the profession, and I think the way in which he regards it lends great importance to that profession. He is a member of the profession and as such he is aware of their obligations, not only as a means of earning money, but that they have a much higher vocation than that. They are there to guard, as he said, over the economic health of the people. Our whole economy is based on trust, and one of the means of ensuring that this trust is not abused is through the accountant and auditor. He stands midway between his client, the man who pays him, and the public. He must be loyal to his client, but he also owes a higher duty towards the people who have faith in the business he audits, and he is there to guard that trust, and to safeguard the interest of the public in that undertaking.

The hon. member referred to research. I am not sufficiently expert on the subject precisely to visualize what form this research should take, but I understand the hon. member is an alternate member of the society, and perhaps he can make use of that position to make suggestions to the society, something he is unable to do now because this is not the suitable time and place for it, and if they then consider that the practical suggestions made by him can be implemented they can consider whether it is possible to do so, and if it requires legislation they can come to Parliament.

In regard to the other speakers, the two hon. members opposite who spoke gave their blessing to this measure in general. They do not quite see eye to eye, but generally when one finds experts on a subject there is always room for a slight difference of opinion such as we also had here. But I repeat that it is very difficult always to find suitable words. The hon. member for Benoni complained about the vagueness of the words “material irregularities”. I wish the hon. member could suggest other words which would be less vague and confusing. But it is not so much the words as the spirit in which they are intended, and the spirit in which the auditor supervises matters, and even more important, the spirit of dedication and pride in their profession revealed by them which will give meaning to these words, and which is in the interest not only of the protection of the profession, but also of the public as a whole.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

This Clause 1 merely widens the definition of a “declared road” to include junctions and crossings. It includes land needed for a road junction outside the usual limits of declared reserve. We think it is a very necessary clause, and it has the support of this side of the House.

I move the following amendment—

In terms of 4bis (1) an Administrator shall at the request of the Board acquire by treaty, or, failing that, by appropriation, any remaining extent of any piece of land which has been appropriated for the purpose of a declared road. This clause provides that if a property owner is so unfortunate as to have a declared road traversing his property, not only the extent of land required for the road will be appropriated but the remaining extent of his property may be appropriated at the discretion of the Board, with or without the option of of the owner. The owner does not come into this clause at all. I think it is only reasonable that it should be emphasized how inadvisable these powers are and that no appropriation of the remaining extent as laid down in this clause should be permitted. The Board has all the powers it needs in Clause 1 in regard to any further area of land it may require. If it needs more land for any other purpose, it could acquire such land by treaty. It could be argued that this provision is only in relation to some small section of a property which may be cut off, just a corner of a farm or a strip alongside the road which may be regarded as useless to the owner, but it does not say so, and I still think that even if it is only a small section it should be at the option of the owner that any appropriation should take place. It may be a section at the end of his farm and he may be able to sell it to his neighbour at a big price. I think his liberty as regards the ownership of his property should be retained.

I have brought the necessity for this amendment to the notice of the Minister during the second reading and I hope he will accede to this amendment as I think it is necessary. The Minister has a broad outlook on matters of this nature, and he realizes that in terms of this clause it may not be exercised in an unreasonable way, but the powers remain in the clause to do so and I hope the Minister will accede to this amendment. I am certain that if we pass this clause as it is, it will create very wide dissatisfaction among property-owners in this country. It is bad enough to have a national road crossing your farm and have land appropriated for the public benefit, but I do not think that the rest of your property should be held in jeopardy at the pleasure of the Board.

I should like to support most strongly the amendment of the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker), because here the Minister can expropriate a property at Land Bank values or some value like that. As he has pointed out, that bit of land might be of very great value to a neighbour who might have been trying to get hold of it for years, because it might mean that it is the only way he has of supplying water to a bit of his adjoining land. He may be prepared to pay an enhanced price for it. We all know of cases where land was sold at a very much higher price than it would be valued at from the Land Bank point of view, due to the worth it has to an adjoining neighbour. But is may be worse still. The owner himself might have a farm next door to the area to be expropriated, and that land might be of the utmost importance to him for the development of the rest of his property, and he might not want to sell at any price. I think it is wrong to leave it in the hands of the Administrator. It ought to be done entirely by negotiation and I strongly support the amendment.

Now, it could be said that a national road enhances the value of a property. There I disagree slightly. In many cases it does enhance the value of a property as a whole, but it can also do a tremendous amount of harm to a farm. I have known of strips of land a mile and more long and only 50 to 100 yards wide cut off from the rest of the farm by a road and it is a very great disadvantage to have a road cutting off a strip like that. There is also another important factor, and that is that whilst the engineers know all about roadmaking, they know very little about farming, and most of us have had the experience where the water flows off the tarred road like water off an iron roof and that flood of water is turned out to the lands …

Order! That is not relevant.

I just want to show the importance of doing it by negotiation, because it might be of the utmost importance to that farmer not to lose that bit of land, and therefore I support what the hon. member said.

I should like to move an amendment which will not conflict with that of the hon member for Albany (Mr. Bowker). because if his amendment is adopted mine will naturally fall away. I move—

The word “appropriate” is admittedly quite a meaningful word in the English language and that makes it important that the word should be used appropriately. The use of the word “appropriation” in the context of this Clause is quite inappropriate, I submit. It is true that one can appropriate something in the sense of taking it or annexing it with or without a reward, but in that context the customary use of “appropriation” is that it implies that there will be cognizance on the part of the owner, or at least that there will not be disagreement. If, however, the taking or annexing occurs without that cognizance, or in the absence of agreement, the taking is not “appropriation” but “misappropriation”, or it might be “expropriation”, I rule out “misappropriation”, because that is obviously not intended, but it is quite clear from the context that the word is “expropriation”. Let me point out that what is contemplated here as both hon. members who spoke before me have indicated, is that taking by “ appropriation” should only take place after there has been failure to acquire the piece of land by treaty, or in Afrikaans “deur ooreenkoms”. Now the act of expropriation implies two things. Firstly, it implies the divesting of ownership from one person, and secondly, the vesting of ownership in another person. With due respect to the draughtsman, I suggest that the words in Afrikaans are also incorrectly used and it should not be “ontneming” but “onteiening”. Appropriation has a specific meaning in Parliamentary parlance. We use the term “appropriation” more than once every year and by customary use in Parliament it means the setting aside of money for a specific purpose. So “expropriation” has also, by usage become, in Parliamentary parlance at any rate, to mean a dispossession or deprivation of ownership and a revesting of the dominium in someone else, and the courts so understand the word “expropriation”. I am doubtful whether they would understand “appropriation” in this sense. I would like to draw attention to a legal textbook dealing with ownership. It is Maasdorp’s Institutes, the Law of Things, where it says—

Sir, the courts’ interpretation in regard to the word “expropriation” is contained in a number of decisions of the courts. It is a term which has been interpreted and which has a specific meaning. To substitute this new word, “appropriation”, is going to bring confusion where confusion has hitherto been avoided as the result of decisions of the courts. I can quote a dozen or more statutes in which the word “exappropriation” is used and used correctly, and where in Afrikaans it is “onteiening”. I need only refer to one with which the Minister is well acquainted. That is Sec.2 (1) of the Railways and Harbours Control and Management Act, (now No. 70 of 1957) which has been on the statute book for many years and where the powers granted are powers of expropriation. But there is another good reason for using the customary word. That is because the provision here is not to give powers but to direct the Administrator what he should do, and the Administrator when he exercises these powers will do so under an ordinance. As far as I am aware—I have not had time to look at all the ordinances— these ordinances use the word “expropriation” as the correct term for dealing with the problem that we are facing here. My amendment is not a triviality; it is based firstly on parliamentary practice, secondly on legislative habit or custom and thirdly because the courts clearly know what “expropriation” means and have interpreted the context of that word in many cases. I have referred to one legal text book. There are many such textbooks on law and anybody looking at them would look under the letter “e” and not under the letter “a” to find out what are the powers of divesting people from ownership of land and revesting it in somebody else. That is an additional reason why the amendment should be accepted, and I hope the hon. the Minister will be agreeable to do so.

I do not want to follow the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) in his objection to the use of the word “appropriate” instead of “expropriate” as suggested by him. Nor do I think that will satisfy the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) because the board will in any case be given the right to expropriate land. That is the very objection which the hon. member for Albany has. I trust that the House will not accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Albany. As far as the amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) is concerned it is not clear to me either what the difference will be, but as far as the amendment of the hon. member must realize that we are here giving member for Albany is concerned, the hon. powers to land-owners who can at this stage already be regarded as being wilful possessors of that land; because if you read this clause, Mr. Chairman, you will notice that there have already been negotiations with the board to acquire that land. The owner refuses to accept the offer as a gesture towards the travelling public or towards the Administrator who want to effect an improvement and he is placed in such a strong position that land simply cannot be expropriated. What will be the result if we accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Albany? It will mean that it will be impossible to come to an agreement with that owner by way of negotiation, you will simply have to continue to negotiate and to negotiate because you will never have the right to expropriate the land. I do not think the hon. member for Albany has considered this amendment thoroughly before introducing it. The hon. member for Albany has experience of the workings of local boards; I do not want to go into that but he knows what difficulties local boards experience as far as the acquisition of land for public purposes is concerned—for the construction of roads and also for other purposes, and practically every organization has the power to expropriate. But where a road has to be constructed and where the Administrator has to acquire certain land, the hon. member for Albany says there should only be negotiation and if such negotiation does not succeed, it will mean that the entire enterprise will be doomed to failure. I do not think this House will accept such an unwise amendment.

I think the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) has not read the clause correctly. He seems to think that this “remaining extent” of land is expropriated for road purposes. The whole point of this clause is to enable a local authority to acquire a remaining extent of land that is not, specifically not, needed for road making purposes. Thus his main argument falls away. He also does not seem to realize the difference between “expropriation” and “treaty”. It is only if a man will not willingly sell a piece of land that you may have to expropriate. The two things are two separate processes. I would like the House to consider more carefully the points of view put forward by the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker). We are conscious of the aims and we approve of the objects of this Act. But we differ on the methods by which the Minister sets out to achieve his objects. We ourselves are aware of the fact that wherever disputes are likely to arise, it is difficult to find means of settling them, which do not either clog the wheels of administration and lead to costly legal processes, or are dependent on the arbitrary wish of a local “Authority” or the delegated judgment of some official. We are trying to steer a course in between those two. We suggest that where a “remaining extent” of land is left, after a national road has been driven through a farmer’s land and the necessary expropriations have taken place, an even balance of justice should be maintained, if possible. Both sides may be unreasonable. An owner, a farmer, may have some small odd-shaped space on the other side of the road to which the authorities are obliged to give access. If they were not obliged to give access he could do what he liked with it, but they are compelled by law to give this access. The value of that piece of left-over land may be so small that the cost of the access, whether it is by way of overhead bridge or underground culvert, may be so excessive that it would be better to give a good but fair price for the “remaining extent”. We believe that these things can best be fixed by treaty. We believe that they can be amicably adjusted by other means than an arbitrary decision. I know the difficulty of the Minister. Anyone who administers an Act is in the same position at some time or another. But I believe that in this case both sides should be reasonable. It must be remembered that the “remaining extent” is not defined; it is just any area of remaining extent. The extent may be worthless but it may also be as large and valuable as a small farm. In fact the extent may be larger than the original piece, as far as I know, from the reading of the law. A farmer may not want to part with it in any circumstances. I suggest that the danger exists that either side may be unreasonable. In legal practice, under the democratic system, where disputes are likely to arise and where we want absolute fairness, our custom is to go to some impartial judiciary, to some objective and disinterested Judge, to decide between the two parties. We believe that if the Minister will take out of the clause the reference to expropriation, the whole matter would be speedily adjusted by treaty, by mutual arrangement. If not then a court of law is the place to decide the differences of opinion.

May I come back to this word “expropriation” and urge its use in place of “appropriation”. I think that the Minister should agree to change his word to “expropriation” even if he feels that he is right in his interpretation and even if it was used in the original Act. Whereas there may be some difficulty about the word “appropriation” there can be no misunderstanding about the word “expropriation”. The difference in the usage, even in Parliament, between those two words has become quite distinct with the process of time. I believe, also in legal language. The meaning of the word “appropriation” in parliamentary usage is really “to assign anything to a particular purpose”. that is why we now use it chiefly in connection with the allotting of revenues to the various purposes to which they have to be applied”. “Expropriation” on the other hand, has a meaning that applies specifically and by definition to “the act of depriving somebody of ownership, usually the ownership of property, and usually by some public authority”.

What is the Afrikaans word for “ expropriation ”?

“ Onteiening ” is the right word, but here in this Bill they have used the word “ ontneming ” and in my opinion that is wrong. Sir, I suggest that this alteration should take place if only for the sake of clarity. The Minister must admit that when he wants to explain what “ appropriation ” means, he has to have resort to use of the word “ expropriation ”. He uses “ appropriation ” in his Bill but in his explanatory memorandum in which he explains what “ appropriation ” means, he resorts to the word “ expropriation ”.

A rose by any other name smells just as sweet.

Yes, but some roses have worse thorns than others. We are trying to remove the thorns from the Minister’s sweetsmelling rose. Virtually what the explanatory memorandum does is to say “ appropriation ” means “ expropriation ”. That is why the Minister uses the latter word throughout his explanatory memorandum. We feel that this small change is an important change; it is not a trivial change; it is one which should make the law much clearer. I hope the Minister will accept both the amendments moved by my honourable colleagues.

I have no quarrel with hon. members in regard to the desirability of using the word “expropriation”. I do not know why the framers of the principal Act 20 years ago decided to use the word “appropriation”.

They probably thought it was appropriate.

Well, it was a United Party administration at that time and they must have been wrong then. Act 21 of 1940 uses the word “appropriation” not only once but numerous times.

But is that the ruling law?

Of course it is the law. I am speaking about the principal Act. The hon. member has apparently not read the principal Act.

That is the dead-hand of the past. The principal Act no longer applies.

Act 21 of 1940 was the Act which amended the principal Act, and Act 21 of 1940 uses the term “appropriation”. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) talks about confusion, but if I had to agree to the amendment to substitute “expropriation” for “appropriation” then you would have confusion. In the principal Act you would have some sections using the word “appropriation” and in the amending Act you would have the word “expropriation” used, and I do not know what would happen then.

You know how to get over that difficulty. It would only require a little sub-clause.

It would, of course, cause confusion and that is the only reason why I cannot accept the amendment. You cannot have two different terms used in the same Act, two different terms apparently having the same meaning. I agree with hon. members that “expropriation” is the right term to use, but it would simply cause confusion if in this amending Bill the word “expropriation” were used whereas in the principal Act the word “appropriation” is used. That is why I cannot accept the amendment.

In regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Albany, I can only confirm what the hon. member for Wynberg has said as to the reasons for this amendment. Hon. members must realize that “expropriation” is only used as a last resort. It is only when an owner refuses to sell when it is in the public interest to acquire certain land, when the owner places an exorbitant price on his land, that expropriation is resorted to. In this particular case it might happen, as the hon. member for Wynberg has rightly said, that a small piece of ground might be left over after the national road has been built. To provide access would probably cost a considerable sum. It would either mean the building of a bridge or the construction of a subway. The building of the bridge or the construction of the subway might cost much more than the value of the land, but the National Transportation Commission is compelled to give access to that land. The owner of that land might want an exorbitant price for that land, a price which is out of all proportion to its value, and there is only one choice before the National Transportation Commission and that is either to expropriate or to provide the access, and I think that it is unreasonable to delete this provision and to create a stalemate or at least to place the National Transportation Commission in the unfortunate position of unnecessarily having to spend public money in order to provide an access. Hon. members must realize that the National Transportation Commission is not unreasonable. There is no intention to appropriate farms or valuable pieces of land. Hon. members can rest assured that if the National Transportation Commission had to adopt that attitude, their would soon be complaints both to the Minister and to Parliament. I think it is absolutely necessary to have this power. Quite possibly it may not even be used, but if it is necessary to “expropriate” I think they should have the power to do so. We have had this experience that the moment the State decides to purchase any land or property, the price is usually pushed up to two or three times its value. That always happens. Most people are under the impression that when the State buys, they can demand any price and that the State simply has to pay. We have had that experience over the years, and that is why it is frequently necessary to expropriate, otherwise there would be exploitation of the State, which is not in the interests of the public. For those reasons I cannot accept the amendment.

I am disappointed in the Minister, because there is no doubt that this clause as it reads now has a very material aspect, and I wondered whether the Minister would not perhaps meet us by substituting the word “arbitration” for the word “appropriation”. Then I think the Minister would be protected. I would like to move in line 14, sub-section 1 of Clause 2, to omit the word “appropriation” and substitute the word “arbitration”.

Order! The hon. member cannot move that amendment at this stage because in his first amendment he also proposes to omit the word “appropriation” in line 14.

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman I suggested this because the Minister said he was not prepared to accept the previous amendment.

Amendment moved by Mr. Bowker, withdrawn with leave of the Committee.

I now move—

Sir, arbitrators are always fair. I do not think the Minister should fear that arbitrators would force the Board or the Administrator to pay an unreasonable price for any remaining extent of property. I do not think the Minister appreciates the disability and the unhappiness that would surround the owner of property who through the laws of this country has to concede an extra section of his property for road purposes, and I think that any misgivings that may arise in the mind of the public should be eliminated as far as possible. I know that arbitrators would be fair, and I think that the Minister would only be reasonable if he agreed to this amendment which I now submit.

I would like again to support my hon. friend because he has tried to meet the Minister as far as he possibly can and at the same time to protect the farmers. I must say that I am also disappointed in the Minister, but I am very much more disappointed in the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo). Sir, it shows what politics can do to a man! I hope the hon. member will take the words of the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) to heart. He always gets up and poses as the farmers’ friend, but now to use the inelegant phrase of the hon. the Minister of Information, he has become a “boerehater”. He is now against the farmers. Here we are trying to protect the farmers and the landowner, and he gets up and makes a speech which is definitely against the interests of the farmers. I hope “die volk daarbuite” will mark it up and remember it. We on this side are trying to support the interest of the landowner and the hon. member comes along and supports the bureaucrats. Sir, what is wrong with leaving this to an impartial body? In the case of arbitration, as my hon. friend here has pointed out, you would have a fair settlement. Both sides would chose their arbitrator and there would be a third impartial person, and justice would be done to both sides. I hope the hon. member will not allow politics to carry him so far away from what is really in his heart because I really think he loves the farmers, but in this matter he has been led astray. Let him get up now and eat his own words and apologize to the House and the “boerevolk daarbuite”.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) that I am still the farmer’s friend that I was in the past. The position is not that you will place the farmers in an impossible position, those farmers in whose interests the board spend these large sums of money—sums which are far in excess of the value that land will ever attain. We dare not empower the wilful person, when negotiations have failed, to say that there cannot be expropriation. The hon. member for Green Point knows that there are cases where people have misused their rights and have refused to yield in the public interests and to come with such an amendment and to place the power in the hands of such people is not in the interests of the other taxpayers. In this case the taxpayers have to be protected, and the farmer is also the taxpayer, and I remain his friend. I do not hate the farmers as the hon. member would make the House believe.

The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) is quite right. This clause is really in the interests of the farmer. What has the position been hitherto? A national road is built and small pieces of land are cut off which are useless to the farmer. It has never been possible for the National Transport Commission to compensate him for the land. In other words, the farmer has always suffered damage as a result of the cutting off of those useless pieces of land bordering on the national road. We are now making provision for the first time that he can be paid compensation for that land; in other words, those pieces of land can now be purchased, and surely that is in the interest of the farmer. Formerly those pieces of land were useless to the farmer; now they can be purchased and proper compensation can be given to the farmer. If he charges a fair and reasonable price, the land is bought from him, but we know human nature; there are many people who push up their price the moment the State wants to buy. I think it is our duty to obviate that exploitation of the State. It is only in those cases where the owner of the land is unreasonable, where he wants an excessive price for a useless piece of land, that the National Transportation Commission will have the right to expropriate. That is the only case in which it will happen, and it will occur very seldom. Instead of spending money unnecessarily to build a bridge or a subway, which costs much more than the value of that piece of land, is it not in the interest of the State to have the right rather to expropriate that piece of land?

The hon. member talks about arbitration. Who is going to arbitrate? The Bill would have to stipulate who is to arbitrate and who is to pay the cost of the arbitration. If you have arbitration, the cost of the arbitration may be higher than the value of that piece of land.

I wonder if the hon. the Minister realizes that by law all farmers’ troubles as regards their fences and their boundaries cm only be settled by arbitration, and that system has worked over the years and has given satisfaction. Perhaps the Minister would like to specify who the arbitrators should be, but all the difficulties of the farmers are settled by a representative appointed by each of the complainants together with a third impartial individual who is generally the magistrate. The services of the magistrate would not cost anything because he is a public servant. It would only be the cost of the services of the two individuals appointed by the two sides, and my idea is just to give the farmer some say in regard to the appropriation of the remaining extent of his property, without any harm to the Government. I would like the Minister to understand that system has worked for years and years as regards our Fencing Act. As the Minister knows, there is nothing so delicate as the question of a boundary fence. Many of our boundary fences are not properly allocated. Then we also have the difficulties about give and take on our river banks and enumerable difficulties of that nature, and they are settled at practically no expense by this method of arbitration. The farmers are used to the system of arbitration and I have no doubt that they would accept this and I hope the Minister will give it some consideration. I believe that it would make this Bill more acceptable, and I am certain that the farming community would appreciate any concession that the Minister might make in this regard.

That is really no parallel with this. I know there is provision in certain Acts for arbitration in regard to certain specific matters. If the hon. member wants to introduce arbitration into this particular Bill and into the Act, you will have to have additional provisions in the Bill to say who the arbitrators are to be and how and by whom they are to be appointed; you cannot simply leave it in the air. The mere insertion of the word “arbitration” is not going to solve the problem. Additional clauses would have to be inserted to provide for the method of arbitration, to provide for the arbitrators themselves, to provide who is going to pay the cost of arbitration. I do not think it is really worth while to introduce a provision such as that merely for the purpose of preventing the owner of a small piece of ground from receiving less than the price he demands. I do not think any hardship will arise, and if there are any serious complaints, that the National Transportation Commission is acting unreasonably, then I am quite prepared to come back to the House and ask the House to amend the Act.

The Minister says that only a small bit of land will be cut off. Will he show me where it is stated in this clause that it is going to be kept down to only a small piece of land. There is nothing laid down here at all. But according to the Minister it is now getting smaller and smaller; it is like the unmarried mother whose excuse to her outraged parents was that it was only a very small baby. There is nothing here to say that it shall be a small bit of land. If the Bill had provided that it shall not exceed, say five or ten morgen of land, it might be a different matter, but as this clause reads the bureaucrat can take over any amount of land if he so wishes. It may be said that at some future date they want to build a fly-over or to erect a road workers’ camp there or take out gravel or make a stone quarry. They might want to use the land for quite a different purpose altogether. No, Sir, I am afraid that cock won’t fight. The Minister keep on telling us that if it is only a small area, it would be cheaper to take it over than to have the expense of building a subway under the road or a bridge over it. Sir, this is all very well but these “ifs” of the Minister are not very satisfactory. If the dog, for example, had not stopped to catch the flea, he would have caught the hare. I hope that the hon. the Minister will accept my hon. friend’s amendment, because we have met him as far as we can.

I take it that Clause 4 (c) is based on the idea that the cost of survey, investigation and preliminary planning of a route, before it is accepted as a declared road, should be part of the process of building the road. The Board is now going to take a power it did not previously possess, that is to defray the cost of such initial work from the fund itself. If that is so, I agree with it.

I move as an amendment—

The section to which an amendment is sought to be made here is Section 14 of the Act which empowers the Administrator to remove gates across a national road provided that the sides of the road are adequately fenced, and provided that adequate gates are inserted in the fences on the side of the road. The section as it stands provides that the Board has to insert in those fences on the side of the road such gates as may be necessary. I emphasize those words, because there is at the present time an objective test as to whether or not the necessary gates have been inserted. In other words, it does not rest with the Board to decide whether or not adequate access is given to the two pieces of land which are bisected by the road in question. It is an objective court that decides and if a farmer is dissatisfied with the number of gates put in by the Board, he can go to court and have a decision from the court as to whether those gates are adequate are not. Now the amendment in the Bill seeks to extend the principle of gates and to empower the Board instead of gates to put in bridges or subways in order to give access from the one piece of land across the road to the other piece of land. But the principle as to whether or not that access is necessary, is changed, and it is now merely for the Board to decide whether gates or bridges or subways will be adequate. Therefore the Board decides as to whether one or two or three subways are adequate in respect of the farmer’s access to his pieces of land, and provided the Board makes a bona fide decision, no court can interfere with the decision the Board has taken, and although the farmer may be strongly of the opinion that the access given is not adequate for his purposes, he has no relief at all, provided that the Board has applied its mind to the job. The Board’s decision may be an unreasonable one, the access may not be adequate at all, but in terms of the amendment now sought to be introduced in the Act, the farmer has no redress. This side of the House believes that is a wrong principle and that the wording which was in the principal Act, and still is up to the present time, should be upheld, namely, that there should be an objective test and if the farmer is dissatisfied with the means of access given him by the Board, he can go to the court and say: “The Board says that this is adequate, I say it is inadequate, will you please decide this issue as to whether it is adequate or not.” For that reason I move my amendment.

My honourable and learned friend has put the case very clearly and I don’t propose to go over the same ground again. Sir, if you read Clause 6, it refers to bridges, subways or gates, and line 36 says: “It shall be in the discretion of the Board to determine whether …” Now I suggest that will be an entirely ex parte decision by people who are interested from the engineering point of view and may not be interested from the owner’s point of view. But let us go further, and this is the important point from the point of view of the practical man: Suppose they decide to put a gate at a certain sport. Now you are not allowed to take a tractor for instance across a tarred road. If they decide to put a gate there and they say that is good enough as an access for the farmer, how is the farmer to take his heavy mechanical iron-wheeled machine across the tarred road? He is not allowed to take anything over which has iron wheels. How is he to get his implements across? It is quite obvious how that difficulty can be overcome. It may be out of order if I make that suggestion, but it is that the road-makers can lay down a cement crossing section between the two gates so that the man can take his heavy iron-wheeled vehicles across. I have found it very difficult and I am not on a naitonal road, but on a tarred trunk road. At present they can stop any vehicle crossing a road if it is not rubber-tyred.

Your amendment does not solve that problem.

The point is that here your Board decides to have a gate as opposed to a subway as a means of access. You have to go through the gate across the national road and if it is a tarred road you are not allowed to take across iron-wheeled machinery.

The amendment does not solve that problem.

It does because if the Board decides on gates the farmer can take the matter to court. He may say that he is not satisfied with the arbitrary decision and that he cannot farm properly if they merely give him a gate. Surely the hon. Minister sees that. Here it is a question of going across a tarred road and your Board decides that you will give the owner no other access except by gate. Now how can you cross that tarred road with your heavy machinery! Surely he should have the right to appeal against the decision of the Board and say: “This is unreasonable, I cannot farm my land on the other side if they only give me a gate.”

I would like the hon. the Minister to approach this matter in an attitude of sweet reasonableness. We dropped our objections to his word “appropriation” because it had appeared in the old Act and apparently was understood. We did not want to make confusion worse confounded. To please the Minister we resorted to the wording of the original Act. But now in this case the Minister wishes us to deviate from the wording of the old Act. In that Act the courts were not excluded. In the old Act there was no insertion of the sinister words “in the opinion of the Board”, words designed to take away from a complainant the possible correction of the courts of law, should a dispute occur. In the original section “such gates as are necessary” was the complete and vital phase. Interpretation of the word “necessary”, in case of a dispute, was left to the courts. Under this Bill the interpretation of “adequate access” is placed within the sphere of an arbitrary departmental judgment. I think the hon. the Minister should meet us in this instance, unless he can show that, in the workings of the old Act, unnecessary and lengthy court actions did take place involving the administration in costs and delays. I am quite satisfied myself that, as it previously worked, the Act was satisfactory. A farmer was entitled to and received reasonable access to different parts of his farm which had been cleaved in two by a national road. Such gates “as were necessary” were fixed by agreement between the Board and the farmer. I am quite certain that the Minister will find, on investigation, that there was not an unnecessary series of costly court actions in connection with the workings of the original Act. I ask the Board to accept exactly the same conditions, to preserve the same attitude of mind now that the method of giving access to and egress from different parts of a farmer’s land is being changed in the cause of road safety. We approve of the importation of a greater element of safety even though costs are increased. The fact is that it is necessary to change the system of giving access across a road by gates to a system of culverts and bridges. National roads nowadays are getting busier and busier. There is a greater element of danger in gates than in culvert crossings or bridges. But I do not think it is fair, in cases where a farm that is cut in two by a national road, that farmers have no say as to what is “adequate” for their needs. The farm, split in two by the road, may itself be divided up into camps. Previously the farmer could claim to be given gates opposite each camp across the road. He had necessary access to the other parts of his farm. Now there is a change. He must accept a culvert or bridge, whether he likes it or not, if the Board so decide. It is true that the culverts will be built at no cost to the farmer. The bridge will be built for nothing. But remember valuable land has been taken away from him for the national road. Now if, instead of say six gates for the three camps on each side of the road, the Board decides to build one culvert or one bridge, the farmer may think that is not sufficient. But the Board will be the sole judge as to whether the access given is adequate. The farmer may differ from their opinion vitally, but he has no redress. I think it was one of the hon. members on the other side who pointed out, during the second reading debate, how wide some of these culverts would have to be. They would have to extend the whole underground width of the national road. If they were made only about 6 feet wide, it might make it extremely difficult for the farmer. But the Board can simply say, “In our opinion this is adequate ”, and there the matter would end. No matter what the farmer says, that decision cannot be reversed. I would like the hon. the Minister to consider objectively just how a decision or judgment in a matter like that may be arrived at. First of all let me say that I believe that the Board will always try to be as fair as possible. I am quite sure that most farmers will also be reasonable. But there is always a possibility of an arbitrary decision. I ask the hon. the Minister to try and picture how a judgment like this takes place: First of all, the Board members judging the adequacy of a culvert need take no evidence whatsoever; they need not consult anybody whatsoever; there need not be any examination of the evidence given; or of the site in question; they may come to a decision that is absolutely unreasonable; the law does not even provide that they should be reasonable. All the law says is that they should apply their minds to the problem, and who can prove that they did not. The possibility of upsetting a wrong decision is practically non-existent. You have to prove mala fides or that they did not apply their minds to the problem. So you see that our ordinary judicial processes of coming to a fair and impartial judgment need not exist in such a case. I think the hon. the Minister must agree that our suggestion is the fairest. I will only subscribe to his proposition if he can prove to me that in the workings of the original Act he and his Department, or the Board, were plagued by a series of costly court actions. I don’t believe he can prove that, and I hope therefore that he will agree to our reasonable amendment.

Hon. members don’t apparently realize the object of Clauses 6 and 7. The object is to control access to national roads.

For safety purposes.

Yes. All the reasons that the hon. member advanced himself in his second reading speech why it was necessary to take this control point to the necessity of this provision. Now the hon. member wants to weaken the Board’s control over access and egress. What would be the purpose of making an effort to control egress and ingress to national roads when I have to accept an amendment to really abolish that control? If I have to accept this amendment, it would simply mean that subways or bridges or gates must be constructed which will be “adequate”. Now who is to decide what is “adequate”, the farmer, or the National Road Board?

Circumstances.

What circumstances? The hon. member does not realize that the National Transport Commission has had an experience of almost 25 years, in administering this Act, and for 25 years the provision was “reasonable access ”, and there was no provision to say who had to decide what is “reasonable access ”, and because of all the difficulties that arose during the past 25 years, I am now coming along with an amendment in order to improve matters. That is the whole purpose of this Bill.

May I ask who in the past decided how many gates were reasonable?

There was nobody to decide.

Were there many court actions?

No, because the National Transport Commission found it much cheaper to provide a gate on the insistence of a farmer than to enter into expensive litigation. That is what happened, but there was no control really, and they were simply compelled to supply gates, and to-day it is not merely a question of supplying gates, it is a question of constructing expensive bridges and subways. That is why this amendment is being introduced so that the Board, not unreasonably, can decide what in its opinion is “adequate access If the hon. member could devise some amendment to provide resort to a court of law in the last instance, I would probably be able to consider that. But to leave the matter open as it was in the past would nullify the intention of the Bill completely, and the intention of this amendment is to have more effective control over ingress and egress in respect of national roads.

I would ask the hon. the Minister to give the matter reconsideration, because there is of course not just the one aspect to consider, that of control by the Board itself. It is the right of the land-owner that has to be taken into consideration as well. This side of the House is concerned with this aspect of the right of the owner of land. You see, Sir, I submit that there is really no need to deprive the owner of land of this common law right that he has always had of reasonable access to a public road. The law as it stands now in Section 14 gives recognition to that right by the use of the words “as may be necessary”. All we are asking is that should remain the position. Because whilst the hon. the Minister says that the Board has had some 25 years of experience in regard to this question of access, all I can say is that the courts have had experience of this very problem for very, very much longer. You see, a right of access to a public road is really a servitude. Once the right of access is agreed to, a servitude has been created which is a real right and which the owner of the land is entitled to have registered against his title. Now what we are doing here is to make the Board the arbiter in regard to this right of servitude. It is not going to be an arbiter who is impartial. The Board is going to be the arbiter in its own cause, because, obviously, the Board has an interest in the matter. All we are trying to do is to preserve the position as it stands now that it should be “reasonable access” determined by “necessity

What is “necessity”?

The word “necessity” as my hon. friend there knows, has been interpreted by the courts quite explicitly. I may quote from the same text book by Maasdorp, in which he says—

That you have got to establish, the necessity. It goes on to say—

That applies to the position here. The fact that in this case access is to be governed by statute does not alter the nature of the right. The nature of the right is a real right, a servitude. I think the hon. the Minister should give reconsideration to this matter. By changing the law in this direction, you are doing two things. Firstly, you are infringing the existing right of land-owners, as I have indicated. But, secondly, you are also depriving the land-owner of having recourse to the courts. As I say, you are trying to make the Board the arbiter in its own cause, and as my hon. friends opposite who are in the legal profession know it is an elementary principle of justice that no one can fairly be a judge in his own cause.

The hon. the Minister has indicated that the Road Board will be reasonable. I accept that, but on the other hand, the owner of land is not going to jeopardize his assets by rushing into litigation. As the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) has indicated, nobody has been able to indicate that abuse has been made of the right of access to the courts in regard to this question of “necessity” in the past, and I see no reason why there should be any suggestion that the courts will be inundated with work or will be unfair. You see, Sir, once Parliament gives a body such as this discretionary powers to decide an issue, that means in effect that the courts are eliminated from the matter. Sir, when Parliament leaves the discretion to a body such as this to decide the issue, any decision taken in the exercise of that discretion is not open to question in a court. It is only open to question in a court if the body has exceeded its powers or has acted mala fide, and I can assure you that in practice it is extremely difficult to establish the second of these two grounds, namely that it has acted mala fide.

We are here concerned not only with a general right, we are concerned essentially with private rights, and the courts of law have always been the protectors of private rights. I say that it would be entirely wrong that those rights should now be left to the arbitrary control of the Government or a body such as contemplated in this Bill. Because what the Road Board in fact is, is that it is the servant of the Executive Government, and under those circumstances, it is depriving landowners of a right which they have held not for 25 years, as the hon. the Minister indicated, but very much longer, ever since there have been courts established in South Africa. I hope the hon. the Minister will reconsider the matter.

With all respect, the hon. the Minister’s reply did not cover the point of the amendment at all. The hon. the Minister says that if an amendment can be devised which gives access to the courts as a last resort, correcting an irregularity in a decision by the Board, he will favourably consider such an amendment. But, Sir, the only thing the proposed amendment does is to restore that very access to the courts, so that any wrong decision which the Board may take can be corrected by a disinterested body. That is all it does. It does not impose or give to the landowner or to the farmer any right which he did not have before. It does not pamper him or treat him more favourably in any way. It merely allows him to retain a right which he has under the existing law. Then the hon. the Minister says: Who is to decide as to whether access is adequate and as to whether a gate or a bridge is necessary? Of course the Board is to decide that. The Board has to decide whether or not by putting in a couple of subways the access is adequate. But in terms of our amendment, if the Board makes a mistake, you can put it right, whereas in terms of the Bill as it stands, if the Board makes a mistake no one can do anything about it, and that wrong decision will stand, it will be put into effect, and the landowner or the farmer will suffer.

If the thing has worked perfectly well in the past, and we are to understand that it has worked perfectly well in the past …

It has not worked in the past. For that reason I want to amend the Act.

How many cases have you had?

I understood the Minister to say in reply to the hon. member for Wynberg that there have not been cases of expensive litigation in this regard …

I said that the Board to avoid expensive litigation had given them the number of gates they wanted, but it did not work satisfactorily and that is why we are amending the Act.

The Board would only have given in in those circumstances if the proper view of the thing was that the farmer’s claim was just. If the Board was advised that it had a good case and that in fact the complaining farmer was in the wrong, the litigation would have gone on and the Board would have won it. It is that very sort of situation that this amendment is designed to protect.

Finally, I can see only one reason for the inclusion in this Bill of the words “in the opinion of the Board” and that is to take away the right of correction which at present exists in law. There can be no other reason for the insertion of these words “in the opinion of the Board” in the place of the former words “such as may be necessary”. That takes away this right of correction and we say that is a wrong step to take, and I would urge on the hon. the Minister to reconsider the matter and to accept our amendment.

If this amendment of ours does not work and the hon. the Minister can show us next session that it has not worked and that a lot of unnecessary litigation has taken place, there is nothing to prevent him from bringing in legislation to cancel the effect of our amendment. But up to now the Act has worked very well. The Board gave those gates because they found it was necessary for the farmers to have those gates in order to have access to their land. They would not have gone and put up unnecessary gates. But now, after this Bill is passed, they will be able to say: You must do as we say. You shall have one gate here, and there is no appeal to anybody else to show that we have been unreasonable. The hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) gave us a very fine example. Say a man has three camps on the other side of the road. They might be pasture for the time being, and one gate or one subway might be sufficient for the farmer to get his cattle across to graze those three camps. But later he decides to plough the centre camp and to make it wheatland. How is he going to get access to the two pasture-lands on each side if he decides to plough the land where the gate is. He cannot drive sheep or cattle through a wheat-field to reach the pasture camps on either side. These things to us as practical men are obvious, and I wish the hon. the Minister could see them. Then there is another point. We do not want to control the Board doing this job on the roads, but all we say is that we also want to protect the landowner who has to farm the land in an economic way. Why should the Board have the power arbitrarily to decide what the farmer needs? Surely if there is access to the courts, or to an arbiter, they will be much more careful to see to it that they are not unreasonable. But under this Bill they can be completely unreasonable, and as the hon. member for Wynberg again pointed out: Say they decide to have a 6 ft. subway because at that moment the farmer only has pasturelands or veld on the other side. and a 6 ft. subway is wide enough for animals. Now he decides to put it under the plough. How is he going to get his 12 ft. combine or his 14 ft. Windrows across? He can’t get it through the subway. At the time when the subway was put there, it might have been suitable, but in a few years time he may want to develop the land on the other side, but due to the width of gates or subway the farmer cannot take heavy machinery across. Then the Board can say that they will not give him a wider subway. It will come about and he will not be able to do anything about it; he will not be able to develop the other side. All sorts of difficulties may arise which cannot be envisaged by the House at the present moment. I am not speaking frivolously; I am speaking very seriously from personal knowledge. I do hope therefore that the Minister will see to it that there is somebody else other than the Board, who will act as arbitrator and who will then be able to say when the farmer has put his case: “I think the farmer is reasonable and therefore the Board must accede to his request.” You cannot get a 16 ft. windroller through. How will you cultivate your land on the other side. I appeal to the Minister; he is a reasonable man. He sees our difficulties. We are not merely trying to be provocative. We are talking in the interests of the people. We realize that these subways are necessary because too many gates on a national road constitute a danger. But on the other hand you must have sufficient access to make farming economic for the landowner. So I hope the Minister will accede to this request.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the farming members of the Government would not have remained so obediently quiet had they realized the real issues that are at stake here. This, Sir, is the traditional conflict in Parliament between the opposition insistence that we should preserve what we call the “rule of law”, and the Government’s willingness to bow down to the rule of the bureaucrat. We in Parliament assembled, possess the power either to delegate to subordinate authorities the right to make laws or to confer upon them the right to interpret our laws. In this Parliament, to-day, we are conferring upon the Board the right to make a decision that may affect a man’s livelihood or deprive him of his personal property rights. The democratic way is always to insist that, in the event of a dispute, a disinterested judge should decide the case. The assumption now made is that in such a dispute between a farmer and the Board only the Board can be the judge. If the Board is unreasonable its opinion still holds sway. Yet the farmer, in my opinion, may be vastly better equipped by experience to know what is reasonable access, from a farming point of view, from one part of his property to the other. The point is that as soon as one confronts Ministers or bureaucrats with a court of law one would think it was the devil facing holy water. They shy away from courts of law. Sometimes it is with the best intentions in the world from their point of view. They do not want the wheels of administration to be clogged. So they take the easy way out which is to avoid correction of the courts of law, to avoid delay, to avoid costs. It is sometimes done with the best of intentions, as I have said, and with the sincere wish to be always reasonable themselves. But a Minister cannot control every arbitrary action taken by the subordinate authorities whom he confers the powers of making quasi-judicial decisions. There is no compulsion that they should even act in a judicial way. There is nothing to compel them to examine any case thoroughly. I know they do so in nine cases out of ten. But the point is that disputes as to legal interpretation should always be properly examined in a judicial manner. What the Minister is saying to the farmer in the case of all disputes is this: “You have a national road going through your farm. Previously you had access by eight gates. The Board says one culvert will be sufficient. You can talk till you are blue in the face but you will still only have one culvert. I have spoken. You have no right of redress from my decision. There is no arbitration; you only have the doubtful help of a right of review.” The old pretence is held up that there is a right of review. It is also urged as an excuse that, if male fides is shown, if it can be shown that the so called judges have not brought their mind to bear on the problem, redress can be had to a court of law. As a lawyer the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) ought to know that protection is very nebulous at the best of times, very insecure indeed …

Have you tried it?

Have I tried it? How ridiculous. Have you tried it? Where do such silly questions get us? The hon. member’s experience is not half as adequate as mine on this particular point and he ought to know it. The Minister must not over-simplify the situation. The hon. the Minister has implied that, if he were to give access to the courts, the workings of this Act will be nullified, that he will not be able to control access to and ingress from national roads. But that is not the case. The Minister ought to be able to exercise control just as he has done it in the past. The only thing that might impede him is the fact that in giving the farmers proper access he must be reasonable. And he should be compelled to be reasonable. I know the Minister wants the Board to be careful of the expenditure of their funds. Previously when it had to put up only a few gates it was not a very costly matter. Now he is faced with compulsion to provide either a culvert or a bridge. This is a much more expensive affair but because it is more costly that is no reason why he should not still be just as fair. I do not think the Minister should say that we will be nullifying the workings of the Act. The Act will work as it has always worked and there will be the added safety on the roads he wishes to achieve. The essence is that the Minister will be forced in all instances to be reasonable. The access he provides for a farmer from one part of his farm to another must be adequate to that farmer’s needs. What could be fairer than that?

As I see it, the whole attack of the Opposition on this clause can be divided into three sections. The first is that they long for the old times. That, for example, was the case with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman). The second is that they want to protect the interests of the owners adjacent to the road. Then in the third place there is a disguised attack on the Minister, to the effect that he will act unreasonably. And they are not honest enough to say frankly that they do not trust the Minister and his Commission here. They say it will be much better if the court does it.

Order! The hon. member cannot say that hon. members opposite are dishonest. He must withdraw it.

Sir, I withdraw it and say that they are not quite sincere in their attack. If the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) has his way, a problem will arise—if there is a difference of opinion between the land-owner and the road authority—which in any case must result in a court case. Then the court can decide whether there should be an emergency road or not. It will then depend on the circumstances whether he grants an order or not. But he will have to prove that it is really an emergency. I do not know how much experience the hon. member has in this respect, but one man’s need is never as great as the others. It is one of the most difficult things to prove that there should necessarily be a road. The only way to prove it is by proving that one cannot get there in any other way, and the consideration that counts with the court is whether what he has is sufficient, whether what he has is adequate or not. Therefore we are not departing very far from the old position.

Then this other question arises—the interests of the owner himself. Now, Sir, you know yourself that no owner wants too many gates on his farm. He himself will therefore be prepared to have a limited number. Therefore the Opposition need not concern themselves about the rights of the owner. But what I really want to come back and reply to is the argument of the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell). He alleged that the Minister would not act reasonably.

I said that perhaps he would not act reasonably.

That is even worse. If he says the Minister perhaps will not act reasonably, he suspects the Minister of not acting reasonably.

It is the Board.

If the hon. member says it is the Board which perhaps will not act reasonably, he suspects the Board of not acting honestly. You know, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and what he knows about administrative law is dangerous. He and I have already crossed swords on this point before. He did not reply to a single one of the arguments which I used against him at the time of the debate in regard to delegated legislative and administrative powers. I want to put the matter to him again to-day, that if the Board acts unreasonably he need not prove that there were male fides on the part of the Board. He must simply be able to prove that a reasonable man would not have come to those conclusions on those facts. He must prove that the Board had a certain prejudice in respect of a particular standpoint. It is true that he will not get the judgment the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) would like, namely that the Board should be instructed to provide this or that form of access. But he will get an order that the Board must review the matter. Let me now tell him this, that when the Road Board or the Minister receive an order like that and have to pay the costs there will be such a fuss about the matter because the Board has not devoted its attention to it, that it will be very surprising if they do not provide that access.

Then the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) says that it may be that a person suddenly will find another use for the crossing which must be granted. But surely then it is clear that if he cannot pass through the subway with his combines and big machinery, that crossing or subway is not adequate; then it is not sufficient, it is not adequate. Then it surely means that the Transport Commission did not devote attention to the matter, and did not consider all the possibilities. That is how the position is. Mr. Chairman. the Opposition is really short of breath. They have a shortage of arguments.

They are not adequate.

Yes, they really are not adequate (adekwaat). The hon. member is quite correct. They are only angry (kwaad) because they cannot sit on this side of the House.

Sir, I want to give you the assurance that I hold no brief for the Transport Commission. I also have criticism against them. I can criticize them quite a lot. But I have no criticism against them in the sense that they act unreasonably or that they do not give consideration to a matter submitted to them, or that they are unable to consider anything properly. I repeat that if the Opposition longs for the past, they need not do so. If they think they are protecting the adjacent owners, that is not really within their mandate and they are making a mistake; and if the hon. member for Wynberg and those who string along with him think that they are thereby rendering road safety and the country a service when they discuss administrative law, they are also making a big mistake, because in that way they are besmirching our administration of justice by making these allegations (they are making) against the courts.

I do not know the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze), but having listened to him I assume he has some sort of legal qualification. Having listened to the hon. member I am very surprised to hear that he represents the constituency of Standerton which, I believe, is vitally affected by landowners having their property cut in half by national roads, However, Sir, the hon. member makes the point that he has told the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) on a number of occasions that the right of review which one had in a court of law over statutory bodies of this kind when they were given powers such as those that are given in this Bill, namely a discretion, gave relief to people who were dissatisfied in the sense that the Board had come to a wrong decision. The position is this, and I suggest that the hon. member asks any lawyer in Cape Town, that no relief is to be obtained by way of a right of review if the Board concerned has merely come to a wrong decision or a decision with which any other person faced with those facts would differ.

And if they have applied their mind to the matter?

That is the whole point. If they do not apply their minds to the matter of course you can have it upset. But I have yet to see it proved that a board has not properly applied its mind to a matter if it has any sort of competent legal advice on it at all.

I shall have to give you a lecture on administrative law.

I do not know when the hon. member was last in practice. If he has any experience of the practising of law at all he will agree with what I say in regard. It is not a question of the Minister or the Board probably mis-applying its mind or coming to the wrong conclusion. But the members of the Board do not go and inspect every culvert all over the countryside.

Then they are not applying their mind.

They have to rely on reports submitted by inspectors, inspectors who come to their own conclusions on the matter. They submit a report to the Board or the Minister and he has to rely on what they say. It is physically impossible for the Board to go round and investigate these matters personally in each case. It is quite easy to visualize how an inspector can come to a wrong decision, either because of his relationship to the individual farmer or because he is in a hurry or because the farmer is away when he makes his inspection or because he is not fully seized of the work and has not got all the facts before him. So he decides that one subway is sufficient whereas in fact three should be constructed. Having considered that situation the Board comes to the conclusion that one subway is enough and provided it has applied its mind to the matter, you cannot have that put right and all the reviews in the world will not rectify that situation as far as that farmer is concerned.

I accordingly suggest that the arguments that have been put forward against this amendment do not answer the point at all.

It would appear to me as if the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) has also heard something about the law already.

Order! The hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) must please confine himself to this clause.

Sir, I am coming to the clause. The clause provides that a certain decision will be within the discretion of the Transport Commission. The allegation against the clause is that discretion may be exercised improperly. The allegation is further that if the discretion is not excercised properly the aggrieved person will have no redress at all against that exercise of their discretion. I want to contradict that and therefore I say that it appears to me that the hon. member for Zululand has also heard something about this matter already, as to when one exercises a discretion properly or not.

I want to interrupt the hon. member. I allowed the hon. member in the first instance to discuss it, and I allowed the hon. member for Zululand to reply to it. The argument is now going to and fro, and I want the discussion to be confined to this clause.

Sir, may I then discuss the advisability of this particular clause, drafted as it is, because it leaves something to the judgment of the Transport Commission. In my experience it is quite true that when somebody alleges that a discretion was not properly exercised, he cannot obtain an order of court substituting the court’s opinion for that of the person who exercised the discretion. But I contend that when the allegation is that a discretion has not been properly exercised there are a number of grounds except male fides which the aggrieved person can advance to show why the discretion was not exercised properly. Such a person can obtain an order of court to the effect that the discretion was not exercised properly. That means that the body or person concerned has to reconsider the matter, and review it. That is what we will have in terms of this clause. When a person feels aggrieved by the opinion expressed by a board that the right of way is not adequate and feels that the discretion was exercised improperly, he still has redress to the court to ask that the matter be reconsidered. And when a person goes so far as to get an order of court, it means that there has already been such a fuss about the matter, as I said a moment ago, that the chances of receiving a favourable decision are very great. I concede that they cannot obtain an order of court to compel the Minister to do what the owner would really like him to do. I happen to know that much in regard to administrative law. But I repeat that it will not make the least difference in terms of this clause or in terms of the old position which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) wants to have.

Question put: That the words “in the opinion of the board” in line 28, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—92: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Die-derichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Faurie, W. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S.F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotzé, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labus-chagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Ser-fontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N.F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; 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, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J.H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: J. J. Fouché and D. J. Potgieter.

NOES—38: Barnett, C.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Eaton, N. G.; Em-din, S.; Field, A. N.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hughes, T. G.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moore, P. A.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Streicher, D. M.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendments negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I want to move a similar amendment as I moved to Clause 6. The point here is the same point which is made in relation to the previous clause …

Order! If the proposed amendment is similar in substance to the amendment which was negatived by the Committee on a previous clause the hon. member cannot move it.

But is it not possible that new argument may be adduced to persuade the Minister?

It is a question of procedure.

Clause 7 put and the Committee divided:

AYES—90: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Die-derichs, N.; Donges, T. E.; du Plessis, H.R. H.; Faurie, W. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotzé, G. P.; Kotzé, S.F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M.K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H.G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; 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, W.L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: J. J. Fouché and D. J. Potgieter.

NOES—37: Barnett, C.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.: Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hughes. T. G.; le Roux, G.S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moore, P. A.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Streicher, D. M.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O.N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 10,

It seems to me that Clause 10 is here because there existed some doubt whether the Commission could undertake, and play its full part in, basic preliminary planning of declared, national or special roads. This doubt is now removed by this Clause. It is quite clear now that this preliminary planning can be done out of the fund. It need not be left, as I think it was often left in the past, to the subordinate authority. It is a good idea. The Board should exercise some control from the very beginning. This basic planning is really necessary, especially in determining the route and the direction the road might take. As I said in the second reading, I approve of the necessity for giving these powers without making the Commission a road-builder. The Board partakes in all the actions preparatory to road building and can now charge the cost thereof to the fund. That is reasonable and acceptable.

We are coming near the end of the Bill, and the Minister will find we have been more reasonable than he has, and more reasonable than his “advocatus diabolus” from Standerton. That gentleman who sets out to protect the farmers’ interests makes us realize why they sometimes call lawyers “boereverneukers”.

Clause put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

I do not know what the position is here. Must I put the amendment again?

Yes.

Then I move—

This is a matter of procedure. The Bill was considered by the Senate and the Senate reserved a clause which had financial implications. Apparently it is parliamentary procedure to put it on the Order Paper and I must move it.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

To omit all the words after “with” in line 52, to the end of sub-section (1) of the proposed new Section 9bis and to substitute:

1. (a) the completion of the erection, construction, laying or alteration of or any addition to any structure or, other thing lawfully commenced prior to the date of commencement of this section:
2. (b) a structure erected by the Railway Administration on land under its control;
3. (c) a structure or other thing erected, constructed or laid in an urban area or on, under or below an erf or lot in a township;
4. (d) an enclosure, a fence or wall which does not rise higher than five feet above the surface of the land on which it stands;
5. (e) an irrigation work, as defined in the law relating to irrigation, a farm dwellinghouse, or any other structure or thing on a farm intended to be used in connection with bona fide farming operations;

and provided further, that any permission granted under this section shall not realize the doing of anything which is unlawful under any other law.

The object is to bring this particular clause into line with Section 9 (1) of the principal Act. There is an anomaly at the moment. In other words, certain exceptions were made in Section 9 (1) of the principal Act and I am bringing this clause into line with it.

Looking at the clause I find everything is in order except (b). I wonder what is the reason for including a structure erected by the Railway Administration on land under its control? Could the Minister give an explanation as to why the Railway Administration is brought in in that way? I know that they are brought within the general prohibition which applies to everyone else, but here it might be held that where there is a cross-road and the protection of 1,500 feet is insisted on, the Railways themselves could erect a structure on such land under their control and that structure might include advertising hoardings which it is expressly held to exclude. I would just like an explanation.

It is really an omission in the Bill. Section 9 (1) of the principal Act deals with the 300 feet prohibition and (b) reads that “a structure erected by the Railway Administration …” In other words, in regard to the 300 feet prohibition, farming operations as well as the Railway Administration are excluded. Now 9 (])bis is brought into line with 9 (1). Where you have the exclusion from the 300 feet, it is only right that it should also be excluded from the 1,500 feet, and the reference to the Railway Administration will only be in regard to essential works like the building of a railway line, if it arises. It is problematical that it will ever arise, but if it does railway work must receive priority over road work. The exception is made in regard to farming operations and the Railway Administration, to bring it into line with Section 9 (1) of the principal Act.

During his second reading speech the hon. the Minister pointed out that the 1,500 feet was applicable in the case where a declared road and another road crossed, the object of the Minister being that where a declared road crossed a minor road near a town, he wants to prevent the possibility of businesses being erected near the crossing along such minor road and thus attracting business and traffic away from the declared road to the detriment of the town which will then be by-passed. I think that is a very cogent reason but there are many crossings where a declared road crosses another road, crossings which are far away from any town, miles away in the veld, and I want to ask the Minister whether he will consider an amendment in the Other Place that will read “any other road further than five miles from the border of a local authority”. As it reads at the moment a limit of 1,500 feet is imposed in respect of all crossings throughout the country, whereas the reason for this limitation which the Minister has in mind is to protect those small towns which are close to such crossings.

I do not think the danger which the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) sees in this clause exists. There is also the right of appeal. I cannot for one moment think that the Board will act unreasonably. I quite agree that where a national road crosses another road far away from a town, even if a road interchange will only take up eight or nine morgen and it will be quite unreasonable on the part of the Commission to reserve 70 morgen for a road interchange that will only take up eight morgen. It is obvious, therefore, that they will act reasonably and that the National Transport Commission will not insist that no building or any work which is prohibited under this provision should not be erected within the 1,500 feet. Furthermore I am also inserting the right of appeal to the Minister. It has been omitted from the Bill but I shall insert it by way of amendment. In other words, if any person finds that an injustice has been committed, he will have the right to appeal to the Minister, and I can assure the House that if an appeal is made to me and I think that an injustice has been done to anybody, I shall certainly see to it that it is put right. I think, therefore, that we should leave it as it is at the moment. If there are cases where an injustice has really been done, we can always consider inserting some provision or other which will rectify the position.

Can the Minister give the assurance that this will not apply to posters, hoardings or anything like that?

I will give that assurance.

I move—

That is to bring it into line. There is an appeal to the Minister at present in regard to Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the principal Act and it seems to me quite an anomaly that in regard to 9 (1 )bis there should be no appeal, and I am making provision for an appeal.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

I move—

The object of the Bill before the House is to amend the original Iron and Steel Industry Act in four respects. In the first place we propose deleting a doubtful clause from the existing Act. As hon. members know Section 2 of the existing Act empowers the Iron and Steel Corporation to purchase, sell and own any movable and immovable property, claims, mineral-bearing property, mining rights, water etc. within the Republic. Nowhere else in the Act do you find this limitation on the Corporation that it may only have possessions within the Republic. It does not appear in the important Section 1 nor in Section 2 (b). According to legal opinion that we have obtained it does not seem either that the original object of the legislators was that Iscor should be limited to have possessions in the Repubilc only. We went through the Hansards of that time but the discussions that took place do not throw much light on the subject either. It would appear, therefore, that it is quite unreasonable to retain the limitation “within the Republic” in the Act. You will realize, Sir, that the way in which Iscor is developing today, it may probably find it necessary next year to acquire certain interests overseas, as in the case of Sasol. It may be that those interests will be in respect of the sale of Iscor products or the acquisition of machinery or any commodity which Iscor may require. That may make it necessary for Iscor to own shares, claims, rights and companies etc. overseas. That is why we propose amending the law by deleting that portion and stating clearly that Iscor will have the right to own these things outside the Republic of South Africa as well.

The second amendment which we contemplate in the present Act concerns the kind of preferent shares which Iscor may issue. Under the existing Act Iscor may only issue cumulative or non-cumulative preferent shares, subject to the approval of the State President. It is now proposed to empower Iscor to issue all kinds of preferent shares with the approval of the State President. It may be that Iscor decides to issue other kinds of preferent shares, such as profit-sharing preferent shares etc. but it is prohibited from doing so under the existing Act. You probably know, Sir, that since 1947 approximately 220,000 7½ per cent cumulative preferent shares of R2 each have been issued at 71 per cent. If this change is brought about, the way will be clear possibly to improve the position of these shareholders at a later stage by the issue of types of preferent shares other than the purely cumulative or non-cumulative 7½ per cent preferent shares of to-day.

In the third place it is proposed to remove certain restrictions which have been placed on Iscor as far as its borrowing powers are concerned. As you know. Sir, as the law stands at the moment Iscor may not pay more than 5½ per cent interest on loans issued against debentures. It may be that 5½ per cent on loans against debentures was a realistic rate at the time when the original Act was drafted, but to-day 5½ per cent is quite unrealistic and I propose deleting this provision from the Act.

The final amendment which is proposed is in connection with the borrowing powers of Iscor. Under the existing Act Iscor may only borrow up to 50 per cent of its fully paid-up capital. As you know, Sir, due to the development that has taken place and the increase in its reserves, Iscor has funds at its disposal to-day which are approximately five times as much as its paid-up capital, and it is unreasonable to continue to limit its borrowing powers to 50 per cent of its paid-up capital. Iscor is on the point of embarking on a great expansion programme. It will require money for that. Some of that money will have to be raised by way of loans overseas and we propose, therefore, to increase its borrowing powers to an amount equal to its paid-up capital.

These are the proposals which I submit to the House. I do not think they are contentious and I therefore move.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House accept the explanations the hon. the Minister has given as the reason for introducing this amendment to the Iron and Steel Industry Act. The provisions of Clause 2 are exceedingly widely stated. Sub-clause (4) which has to be inserted into the Act goes far beyond what the Minister seems to have mentioned. It means that Iscor can carry on any of the operations outside which it can carry on in South Africa. Iscor could, theoretically at any rate, start carrying on business as iron-masters or steel-makers anywhere else, e.g. in Japan. But we appreciate that notwithstanding the very wide terms in which this sub-clause is framed, the scope of activity which a national body of this nature can undertake outside the boundaries of South Africa would naturally be governed by practical considerations. Therefore we have no objection to the Bill, widely stated as the terms of this clause may be. With regard to the other clauses of the Bill we accept that they are designed to facilitate Iscor’s operation; we are satisfied that they are designed to make provision for present needs and accept the explanation given by the Minister. Clause 4, which gives practically a 50 per cent increase in the borrowing powers is also somewhat widely stated, but here again it is a practical matter. It is a matter in which we on this side of the House certainly do not want to put any difficulties in the way of Iscor borrowing sufficient capital to carry on its operations. The limitation at one stage was £4,000,000. That was then altered to half of the paid-up capital and it is now to be extended to the full amount of the paid-up capital. As I say, those are practical matters and we on this side of the House will lend our support to the second reading.

I move—

The object of this Bill is to establish a separate organization as a corporate body which can develop scientific inventions to the stage where they can be put to use in the public interest. What is envisaged here in the first place is the scientific developments of the C.S.I.R. itself, but also that the scientific inventions of other persons or organizations like universities can be entrusted to such a corporation for development, and utilization.

The main object of this Bill is, when a scientific invention has been made, to develop that purely scientific invention further to the stage where it can be commercialized. Hon. members will know that a mere scientific invention, in theory, is not always fit for commercialization. For that much more investigation is required; it must firstly be ascertained whether that scientific invention can be made practicable and economical, whether it can be marketed, and that complete development from the time it is invented until it is commercialized is usually a complicated and expensive process. The work of commercializing scientific inventions at the moment rests with the Inventions Development Section of the C.S.I.R., but just recently the work in this sphere has increased so much, and there have been so many inventions to be patented, with the risk of possible litigation ensuing, together with the necessity for a large measure of negotiation, where business principles have to be applied, that it is felt to-day that it is not correct that a scientific organization like the C.S.I.R. should concern itself with matters which have more of a business character. What is actually being proposed here is that certain activities which are now being carried on by the inventions section of the C.S.I.R. should be transferred to a company which will be based on a business foundation.

I may just mention that a very thorough study has been made of similar organizations in Canada, in the United Kingdom and in India, and the proposals now before the House do not go as far as similar proposals in other countries because they have been framed in the light of local conditions. The C.S.I.R. sets out from the standpoint that it is a body established by public funds; that it is its duty to make inventions available to the people, and that it is not its duty to make too much financial profit out of inventions when they are put to practical use, but that it should always receive a reasonable percentage of those profits. However, it also sets out from the standpoint that it is obvious that such provision has to be made to compensate the proposed corporation, if not fully, then at least partially, for the funds it invests in developmental research. The position to-day is that when the C.S.I.R. has done research in a certain sphere and when certain inventions have been made, those inventions are published in all kinds of scientific and technical publications. But it has now been found that the mere publication of a scientific invention is not enough to ensure that this invention will be commercialized, and that certain further steps are necessary to bridge the gap between science and practical experience in industry.

This commercialization of an invention is generally accompanied by great financial risks, because hon. members will appreciate that a business man will not readily invest money in a scientific invention unless he has a fair degree of certainty that this scientific invention is likely to lead to something practical in industry. The first task therefore in regard to any invention is the patenting of that invention. Hitherto the development section of the C.S.I.R. has to a large extent concentrated on the patenting of new inventions. But this patenting is only an intermediate step in order to ensure the practical application of a new invention or discovery. Before an invention can be commercialized, it is almost always necessary to undertake further developmental research, which is very costly. These costs are often ten to 100 times as high as the cost of the original research and this, together with the fact that the opinion of a business man is necessary in order to select projects for further development, makes it even more necessary that the C.S.I.R. should not do too much in this respect. This corporation which is now being proposed will therefore have the important function of handling the business aspect of the invention up to the stage where it can be put to practical use. It will have the duty of patenting a scientific invention. Its duty will also be to awaken public interest in such an invention, and it will have to undertake further research in that field.

In order to explain the importance of this matter, I want to refer to something of which hon. members surely have knowledge. I refer, e.g., to the tellurometer which was based on research done by the C.S.I.R. itself, the tellurometer which to-day is one of the most important instruments and which has earned great respect in the world for the scientific research done by the C.S.I.R. The C.S.I.R. has had attractive offers for this tellurometer, but because of the policy it applies it decided to have this tellurometer manufactured by local industry, with the result that to-day we have a South African institution which manufactures this tellurometer and exports it to various countries of the world.

Another example I would like to mention is in regard to the projects for desalting water which are being carried on now. That is of great interest to our country. In order to co-ordinate the activities of all the bodies which are dealing with this water desalting project, it was recently necessary for the C.S.I.R. to call together a large number of interested bodies and to have no fewer than ten agreements signed. This involves much time and trouble and it is not something which should be done by a scientific organization.

I repeat that the object of this foundation is to form a corporation to do all the work which this scientific organization is now doing, particularly in view of the business aspect of it and because of the fact that it involves patenting, with the resultant risk of possible litigation. I think hon. members will agree with me that it would not be wise for the C.S.I.R., as a scientific organization, to be involved in litigation.

A further example of what the passing of this Bill will involve is the provision of more freedom of movement in regard to the development of inventions and the fact that it will facilitate the taking of urgent decisions on a business basis. In view of this, it is therefore the intention to appoint people with the necessary business experience on the board of directors.

I do not think it is necessary for me to say more about the desirability of having such a corporation, in view of the fact that the wording of the Bill is very clear, but I just want to mention a few other important provisions.

To the extent determined by the Ministers of Economic Affairs and Finance the C.S.I.R. will be the only shareholder in the corporation about to be established. They will therefore also be the only body to nominate directors, with an official or member of the C.S.I.R. as chairman of the board of directors. The number of directors will vary from four to eight, and the Council must appoint these persons for their knowledge of science, technology, industry, finance or the administration of patents. In regard to the erection of buildings, the lease or the purchase of sites, etc., in order to promote the object of the Corporation, the provisions of this Bill are mainly on the same basis as in the case of other corporations. Except for the manager and/or managing director the staff of the Corporation will consist mainly of personnel seconded from the Inventions Development Section of the C.S.I.R. Furthermore, hon. members will note that the Bill provides for a share capital of R200,000. The intention, however, is that in the beginning only R50,000 of this capital will be taken up in shares by the C.S.I.R. It may perhaps be asked why the capital should be as much as R200,000. The reply to that in the first place is that the C.S.I.R. is at present dealing with a large number of inventions which will soon be transferred to this proposed Corporation, and the further development of those inventions to the commercial stage will involve heavy costs. Secondly, funds will be required for the urgent patenting of inventions and possibly for litigation, and thirdly it is necessary for the prestige of the Corporation that it should have an appreciable capital.

The Corporation will also be empowered to build up reserve funds, and the reserve funds may only be built up with the approval of the Ministers of Economic Affairs and Finance. The Bill also provides for the payment, subject to certain conditions, of bonuses or other financial compensation to inventors or discoverers who are officials of the C.S.I.R., the Corporation, State departments or other State-aided bodies. In the case of inventors or discoverers who do not fall in this category, the Corporation is free to negotiate with such inventor or discoverer in regard to the financial participation of the latter.

It is also provided that the C.S.I.R. is not compelled to hand over all its inventions to the Corporation for development. This provision is necessary because it often happens that the C.S.I.R. has to investiage and to develop certain projects at the request of departments such as the Department of Defence. Such projects might be of a secret nature, and if the C.S.I.R. is compelled to hand everything over to the Corporation, a delicate position might arise.

In order not to place the proposed Corporation in a preferential position as against other similar private undertakings which already exist or which may be established, it will be subject to the payment of income tax and to all the provisions of the Companies’ Act which are not in conflict with the provisions of this Bill. The Corporation will also have to repay to the C.S.I.R. every year such surpluses as may be available after provision has been made for reserve funds in consultation with the Minister of Economic Affairs and Finance. The possibility that the Treasury, after having made the original financial provision, will be compelled every year to provide the C.S.I.R. with more public funds for the implementation of its work than if the functions which the Corporation will now carry out were to remain with the C.S.I.R., is therefore limited to a minimum.

Finally, a further provision contained in the Bill is that auditors’ reports and annual reports and all the accounts must be submitted to the Minister of Economic Affairs every year, as in the case of existing State Corporations, who in turn must Table it in the House of Assembly and in the Senate. This provision will ensure the possibility of having Parliamentary control.

These are the salient points of the Bill I am introducing. I understand that hon. members opposite would like us to postpone the discussion of the Bill to a later stage. If they should make a suggestion, I will be prepared to accept it. I feel that this Corporation, when established, will be of great benefit to our industry and therefore I have pleasure in moving the second reading.

We saw this Bill for the first time to-day and we have not had an opportunity of going through it, nor have we had an opportunity of discussing it with organized commerce and industry. I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will agree to the adjournment of the debate to give us an opportunity of examining the Bill more fully. In the circumstances I move—

I second.

I move—

This Bill is very short. It follows the pattern of other Bills that we have had before the House in previous years. The sole object of the Bill is to increase by two the number of members of the Electricity Supply Commission. which from the beginning has been a minimum of three and a maximum of five. Hon. members will recall that last year we asked for the right, in respect of the Iron and Steel Corporation and in respect of the Industrial Development Corporation, to increase the number of directors by two.

We are now putting forward the same proposal here in respect of the Electricity Supply Commission, and my reason for this proposal is firstly the fact that since its inception this organization has developed so enormously that it is perhaps too much to expect three to five members of the Commission to bear the full responsibility of carrying out this work. If therefore the membership of the Commission is enlarged, as proposed here, to a minimum of five and a maximum of seven members, we believe that it will facilitate the opportunity for a specialization of functions and of responsibilities, with resultant greater efficiency.

I should like to mention a few figures, which may perhaps interest hon. members to place on record the enormous development which Escom has undergone since its inception. In the year 1933, for example, Escom had only four power stations: in 1961 there were 20 power stations. In the year 1933 its capacity was approximately 260,000 kilowatt; in 1961 it was 3,750,000 kilowatt. In the year 1933 its loan capital was R 17,500,000; in the year 1961 its loan capital was R566,000,000. In the year 1933 the number of units sold was 974,000,000; in the year 1961 it was 16,000,000,000. From the figures which I have mentioned here briefly, hon. members will realize what enormous development this commission has undergone in the short period of its existence, a development which has resulted in the consumption of electricity in South Africa being more or less equivalent to-day to the consumption per capita in Western Europe. I think it is a fact of which we in South Africa can be proud that the per capita consumption of the entire population—White and Black and Brown—is equivalent to the per capita consumption in Western Europe. I would also add that in the next few years great expansion is anticipated in this sphere. We believe that plans which are in operation already will involve an expenditure of R400,000,000 in the next ten years in further expansion of the activities of this Commission. I mention these things only to indicate the scope of the growth and development of the Commission, and to emphasize the necessity of enlarging the directorate, as we usually call it—the Commission—which now consists of a maximum of five members, to a minimum of five and a maximum of seven.

That is the main provision of this Bill. The other provisions are purely consequential, except for the last few which are only designed to remove certain printing errors which crept into an earlier edition of the Act.

This is a short Bill as the hon. the Minister has indicated, and we on this side can deal with the matter shortly. We are satisfied that the provisions included in this Bill are mainly of an administrative nature and we also accept the statement made by the Minister that the time has come to increase the executive body of this Commission. The Minister has indicated that there is a need, because of the expansion, to provide for a distribution or a delegation of duties amongst members of the board, and we agree that is a reasonable arrangement in a body of this nature. I presume that one of the functions of this delegation will be to ensure that in supplying electricity adequate consideration is given to both country and town. As the hon. the Minister has said, once you have increased the numbers, there are certain consequential alterations which have to be made; they are acceptable to us. As far as the last three clauses are concerned, it is quite clear that they are merely designed to correct printing errors. We will support the second reading of the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.