I move—

That the Bill be now read a Third Time.

I will not keep the House very long on this. We approve of the Bill, but I would like to take the opportunity of drawing the Minister’s attention to the storage of archives with which this Bill deals, particularly in the archives situated at Pietermaritzburg. There are in those archives some of the most important documents relating to the Natal heritage, concerning the settlement and the disputes with the Zulus. I refer particularly to the Secretary for Native Affairs files, including the period during which Shepstone was the Secretary for Native Affairs of the Colony, and especially the period between 1845 and 1910. One obviously cannot stress enough how important these papers are, because of course they are the only papers remaining. The early papers, especially those before 1850, are in such a shocking condition that something must be done about them. The hon. the Minister has the power to do something about it and I believe something should be done. Do you know, Sir, that when one looks at those papers one is given the original papers? It seems to me that they should all be microfilmed and that copies should be made available. I have seen this myself; I made a journey there to see what was happening. The Minister has the power to deal with the matter in terms of the Act and also in terms of this Bill. These papers should not, in my submission, be available to the public as such. They should be stored in one of these depots which are going to be set up, and the public should be provided with copies.

The only other point I wish to put to the hon. the Minister is to ask him whether he will not consider, in dealing with archives in South Africa, setting up something similar to what was set up in Britain as the result of the Waverley Report of 1952, namely some provision that before one may export Africana, documents and books of great national value, a permit should be obtained. I say that because we are losing a lot of our Africana. We are losing a lot of our heritage and of our documents to foreign countries. I say that we should have them here. If in fact someone is going to house them properly, it is better for them to be housed here. We should have those documents here and I think it could be provided that these documents, which are in fact archives, should not be exported without permit and that an option should be given to a museum or to the archives to buy those papers and documents at a fair price. If they want to buy them at a fair price, they should go into the archives and should not be exported. I hope the hon. the Minister will give his attention to this. I think it is a subject which is worthy of his attention. As the Minister knows, there are some institutions such as libraries at some of the American universities, who can pay twice the amount of money that anyone else can pay for them, with the result that we lose a lot of these things. With those few words may I add that we will support this Bill.

I am very glad that the hon. member for Durban (North) has specifically drawn attention to this particular case of the Natal Archives. This legislation quite rightly makes it possible for intermediate depots to be established where proper depots do not exist. I also agree with him that it is essential for these documents to be microfilmed, because some of them are becoming worn and they deteriorate to such an extent that the original documents are, eventually lost. As a matter of fact, hon. members will remember that a certain amount was provided on the Estimates for the old Church archives of the first Church established in this country after the founding of the settlement by Jan van Riebeeck. Those archives have now received assistance from the Government to make microfilms, provided they furnish certain of those microfilms to the State archives as well. This, then, is the policy, and we must guard these things jealously.

The final point made by the hon. member is also a very good one, namely that we should ensure that these very important documents do not leave thé country, but are kept in this country. I thank the hon. member for those suggestions he made, and I can assure him that I shall point out to the Archives that drastic steps should be taken in this latter case as well.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when business was interrupted yesterday evening, I was on the point of making a few closing remarks, which I should like to make now within a matter of two or three minutes. This Bill seeks to place education on a policy basis on which, by implication, the whole existence of the nation will rest. Furthermore, this Bill, in the form it is before this House at the moment, recognizes the services of the provinces to such an extent that the work done by them in the past six decades or more forms an integral part of the whole. As an example I should like to mention the way in which education in the Transvaal has been aimed at the child, as is revealed by the introduction of vocational education as from Std. 3 in the primary schools. Under the present system a great deal of efficiency has been sacrificed, but we believe that under this Bill, when it has become law, this overdraft will soon be converted into a credit balance. There is sufficient common ground, in spite of differences, to allow of this legislation, with amendments in the Committee Stage and in the Other Place, crystallizing in its present form in practice, and to eliminate any difficulties which may reveal themselves later by means of subsequent amendments, as happens in the case of all legislation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your patience. I have been sailing against the wind to some extent, but I have not done so with a view to adopting a challenging attitude; I have done so in silent conviction, and I should like to assure you of my desire to be complaisant at all times. Therefore, Sir, my special thanks once more for your patience.

In his introductory speech the hon. the Minister made use of picturesque imagery here and there. He described the Bill which is now before the House as the missing link in a series of Bills. Sir, I think that those words were very well chosen. This Bill is indeed a missing link; it is a “missing link” Bill, and it will be known as such. It is a mutilated Bill, a “missing link” Bill. In my opinion it is a Bill which has come before the House in this mutilated form on account of the fact that our children in our schools have once again, for the umpteenth time, been made the victims of Nationalist Party politics.

You are talking nonsense.

The tragedy is that a Bill of this nature is in fact so urgently necessary—not this specific Bill, but a Bill in connection with the training of teachers. The problem is critical. The principal of the Pretoria Training College pointed out to the country last year that in one year alone 1,779 teachers had resigned.

Do you want to prohibit that by law?

No. I said it was urgently necessary that legislation of this nature should be introduced, that more teachers should be trained, that better training should be provided and that we should have better conditions of service for teachers. Dr. Gert Potgieter said that there would soon be a collapse of the entire education system; the position in connection with the shortage of teachers is so bad that an attempt is now being made by way of this Bill to do something about it. Then there is a man such as Professor Bruwer of the Paarl Training College, whose words are quoted in this report and who said that the position was critical in connection with the shortage of teachers, and that emergency measures had to be applied these days just to find someone to stand before a class in a school. The teachers themselves realize that the position is critical. Most of those who resign are men with B.A.—or B.Sc.—degrees. At some schools the turnover of teachers is as much as 50 per cent to-day. I know of a school in Johannesburg where they simply cannot find anybody to teach subjects such as science and mathematics, and where the children are getting 5 per cent and 10 per cent in their examination results. A Bill of this nature is of course absolutely essential, and it is such a pity that, while a Bill of this nature is so necessary, the hon. the Minister has come forward with this “missing link” Bill. Yes, a Bill of this nature is necessary. It is recommended that there should be a uniform system of diplomas and degrees. The position is so fantastic to-day that there are more than 114 various kinds of diplomas that teachers can obtain. There is no uniformity.

That is why we need the Bill.

That is why I say that a Bill is necessary, but not this one. Mr. Speaker, over the years there have been warnings in the Transvaal Provincial Council, in the Natal Provincial Council, and, I am sure, in the Cape Provincial Council as well, in regard to the training of teachers and the critical position we have reached. That is why I say that this Bill is almost too late. Something of this nature should have been introduced years ago. There was a delay of four, five, six years before a Bill of this nature was introduced; we should have had it long ago, and now we get it in this unfortunate, mutilated form.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister painted a beautiful picture to us of how this Bill allegedly came about; how Bill No. 1, as the hon. member for Kensington called it, came about, and then Bill No. 2, and then Bill No. 3. One would say that things developed wonderfully smoothly and that this Bill was the culmination of purely normal negotiations between teachers and the Department. But we find that the Gericke Commission makes the following statement in its report—

We should like to hear more from the hon. the Minister in connection with that “clash of views charged with emotion”, because we have heard a great deal about what was going on there, and perhaps the hon. the Minister could clear this matter up for us. We heard of an Administrator who used hard words towards the Government: we heard of people racing from universities in the north here to the south, and of urgent appeals being made to the Prime Minister in connection with the previous Bill; we heard of virtual threats being made against the National Advisory Education Council, of serious objections of that council and of its chairman. I believe that the objections of the National Advisory Education Council are so strong that Professor Rautenbach is communicating with the hon. the Minister in that regard. Is it true that he is going to stay on as chairman; if so, how much longer is he going to stay on? Perhaps the hon. the Minister could tell us something in that regard. I hope he will do so.

You always come along with gossip.

Order! Is the hon. member not straying too far from the Bill?

Sir, I am referring to the National Advisory Education Council, who submitted evidence in connection with Bill No. 1 before the Select Committee last year. That is in fact what I want to come to, because it forms part of the actual history. I promise you, Mr. Speaker, that I will not go as far back as my hon. friend, the member for Pietersburg, on that side did. That Select Committee was appointed under the chairmanship of the present Minister of Immigration. Of course, there was a majority of members from that side of the House on the Select Committee, and I think that that Select Committee did very good work. That Committee would have been prepared to be converted into a commission and to work on that Bill during recess, but then the news came like a bolt from the blue that that committee had been discharged. Yes, every one of the members of that Select Committee was given a slap in the face. There the hon. member for Germiston is sitting.

No, I did not get a slap in the face. If you want to put on a different face, you may do so.

Later, virtually on the last day of the debate, we heard the hon. the Prime Minister announcing here that the Select Committee would be replaced by the Gericke Commission.

Order! That point has been made repeatedly. The hon. member must return to the Bill.

Then I just want to ask this question in connection with that first Select Committee: Why did the hon. the Minister not take the step every other Minister would have taken after that repudiation, i.e. to resign? I think he should have resigned.

What does that have to do with this Bill?

The hon. the Minister said in his speech in connection with Bill No. 1 that that commission had done the spadework. Yes, Sir, they had done the spadework and, like people who do spadework, they had received their wages and had been discharged. Then we had the Gericke Commission, which was a good commission too and which issued a good report. If this Bill before the House had been based on their recommendations, I am sure that we could have built on it in order to place a good Bill on the Statute Book, but then the hon. the Minister found himself in a dilemma. On the one hand there was his National Advisory Education Council; on the other hand there was the Gericke Commission: and then he tried to satisfy both by coming here with a “missing link” Bill. We now have that Bill before us, and the hon. the Minister has not satisfied either of them. He pretends that all the recommendations made by the Gericke Commission are embodied in this new Bill. This is simply not true, Sir. Let us see what recommendations by the Gericke Commission should have been embodied in this Bill. One of the matters this Bill should have provided for and to which we refer in our amendment, is a professional council for teachers. Virtually all the witnesses, or the vast majority of the witnesses who gave evidence before the Gericke Commission, asked for this professional council. They wanted it.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

I wish that hon. member would read the report itself and the reasons given in the report …

Order! I wish the hon. member would return to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am discussing the first part of our amendment, which refers to a professional council which should be established. The Gericke Commission gave a number of reasons why such a professional council should be established. One of the first reasons was that the majority of the witnesses were in favour of it. The second reason is that a body of technical and professional experts in the education field was necessary in this case—a special separate council, not a subdivision of the National Education Council which is now going to be established, a council on which persons are appointed from the education bodies, and from the faculties of education, and which would really have been a professional council for the teachers. It is clear, and it is stated in the evidence in the report of the commission, that the teachers do not regard the existing National Advisory Education Council as one which is at all representative of the teachers. However, the hon. the Minister said that he was now going to appoint technical and professional people to this new National Education Council, which would then become a representative council for teachers. That is not what it is. It is either more than that or less than that.

We must bear in mind that in this council a new executive committee, consisting of seven members, is to be appointed. Each of those seven members will be appointed by the hon. the Minister. Three of them are going to deal with matters concerning the training of teachers. That committee will be the key body of this new National Education Council, but each of its members will be appointed by the hon. the Minister. He has the final say regarding the persons to be appointed. In other words, he can again do as he has done in the past, and the sound advice of the Gericke Commission, which wanted to see to it that the teachers get a representative body, is being totally rejected. The professional council we want, as the Gericke Commission also recommended, must not only be advisory, but must also give the teacher status and be able to do executive work as well. It must be a real council, and not merely consist of a few persons who are appointed at the discretion of the Minister and whose term of office on that council depends on him. The proposal that has been made is patchwork. It is patchwork against the background of the events of years and years of struggle between one province and another, and I think that the Bill now before us is one which will not be approved of by the teachers as a whole, which will not be approved of by the country as a whole, and which will not be approved of by the ordinary parents of South Africa.

The hon. the Minister is now proposing a joint advisory and co-ordinating committee. He will probably also tell us that this is what the Gericke Commission recommended. The Gericke Commission did recommend a body of this nature, but one with clearly defined powers, what they may do and what they may not do. The hon. the Minister’s advisory and co-ordinating body is a vague council and one he will probably want to regulate by way of regulation. I think the country is entitled to know why the hon. the Minister is now putting forward a Bill in which a differentiation is made between primary and secondary education as far as training is concerned. Primary education is just as important as secondary education, and in some cases even more important. Why is the primary teacher not accorded the same importance as regards university training as is accorded the intending secondary teacher? Do you know what it is, Mr. Speaker? It is not a matter of merit, because the Administrators wanted to force the hon. the Minister to take certain steps. The hon. the Minister knows what his relations with the Administrator of the Transvaal, Mr. Sybrand van Niekerk, are like. We all know. That is why we are getting this Bill. It is for thjs reason that I say that, in its present form, this Bill is a “missing link”. I therefore do not want to go into this Bill any further, because it is a poor one, and I support our amendment. I want to conclude by saying that I regard it as totally wrong that the child of South Africa should become the victim of the National Party, should become the subject of politicking, the victim of one province against another, the victim of Calvinists against super-Calvinists, and the victim of “verkramp” against “verlig”. It is the child of South Africa who will suffer as a result of this.

Mr. Speaker, the longer I am in this House the more I am surprised from day to day at the hon. member for Orange Grove. I remember the hon. member referring last time to another hon. member on this side of the House who had already cleaned the stables. However, I am afraid that the hon. member dragged a most delicate matter into the mud here and then splashed around in that mud. He referred to emotion a moment ago. It is due to people such as the hon. member for Orange Grove that we get emotional arguments and reasonings which have no foundation, in respect of a delicate matter such as this. He referred to a mutilated form and said that the child was the victim of Nationalist Party politics. I shall come to the attitude of the hon. the Minister, as well as the attitude of the various bodies that have dealt with this matter, in a moment. One moment they say we cannot hand education over to the provinces, and the next moment they say: Hand it over to the provinces. The hon. member referred to the select committee, but the National Party in fact removed this matter from party politics, and the Presidential Commission that was appointed was under the chairmanship of Dr. Gericke, who is the Moderator of the D.R. Church. If this matter was not placed on a sound foundation by doing that, I do not know what can be placed on a sound foundation.

I now want to address myself more particularly to the hon. member for Kensington, of whom I can take notice as an educationist. The hon. member quoted the new section 1A (1) and the section 1A (3) here yesterday, and said that a differentiation was being made between the training of secondary teachers and that of primary teachers. The hon. member will agree with me that Professor Rautenbach is an authority on education. When the select committee sat last year, I asked Professor Rautenbach the following question—

Professor Rautenbach then replied as follows—

This is what it is about. I want to associate myself completely with Professor Rautenbach in this regard, and the principle of the Bill in fact links up with this. It was also recommended in the report of the National Advisory Education Council, as well as in the report of the Gericke Commission. We cannot start teaching professional knowledge at teachers’ colleges. We would then be making 16 additional universities of the 16 teachers’ colleges. Universities deal with certain, and a much wider field of, faculties. The hon. member for Kensington knows this, and other hon. members of the Opposition who are teachers, know it too. What is envisaged with the training of secondary teachers at universities, is precisely to obtain a greater influx and to encourage people to take an interest in it.

Unlike the hon. member for Orange Grove, I note with gratitude the good work that has been done by the hon. the Minister so far, as well as by the National Advisory Education Council, the various committees and the Presidential Commission. I see this amending Bill as the point of departure for greater things and the development of our national education system. This amending Bill has made no provision for a radical change. Because this is such a delicate matter it was approached with care, and the hon. the Minister and the Presidential Commission always adopted the attitude of rather pacifying than rebuking. It is gratifying to know that the two considerations that always turned the scale were always acceptability and feasibility. These are the principles which are taken into account every time. For any matter there must be justification and a need, and it must serve a good purpose. It is also important that a start should be made and that such a matter should develop from that start to full maturity. There must be no radical change, because “a live dog is better than a dead lion”. A further question which is important is the attitude and spirit in which this matter was tackled. In the first place, as regards the hon. the Minister, he took very careful note of the numerous discussions he had, as well as of the advice of the National Advisory Education Council, the Select Committee and the Presidential Commission. In the first instance the Commission again appealed through the Press to all parties to give evidence and to submit their views. They performed a difficult and major task in a very short space of time. You will allow me just to say by way of summary that this Commission investigated six possibilities in connection with the training of teachers. The first possibility was to maintain the status quo, and the hon. the Opposition will agree with me and with the Presidential Commission that renovation is necessary. In other words, this possibility was excluded. In the second place there was the possibility of the institute idea. This was unacceptable to provincial administrations, and the Commission could not at that moment recommend such a drastic extension of primary training.

The Commission found that it would be better that every institution should continue with the kind of training for which it was best organized and equipped. A third possibility was to hand over all teachers’ training to the universities. The Commission found, however, that the universities were at that stage not yet able to take over the entire responsibility for teachers’ training immediately. The fourth possibility was the development of teachers’ colleges to full-fledged tertiary education institutions. By its very nature a university presupposes a variety of fields of study, as I put it at the outset. The fifth possibility was the establishment of co-ordinating institutes, such as those existing in England and Wales. This is what the hon. member for Kensington pleaded for yesterday. But despite the advantages which these institutes have over teaching institutes, they may cause difficulty in practice, because the control and organization thereof are complicated and time-consuming. It is therefore not merely a question of transplanting such an institute to the Republic. The sixth possibility was a system in which the basic ideals and objectives of the British co-ordinating institutes are integrated on a local level without their complicated machinery or the institute as a physical institution being taken over. This possibility was considered thoroughly, and the Commission came to the conclusion that on account of the stringent academic requirements secondary teachers have to meet, they have to be trained at universities as a rule, and that primary school teachers should be trained at training colleges in collaboration with universities. This forms the central principle of the legislation.

Here we therefore have the proof of a sincere search for the correct method of training teachers. The question as to where and by whom they should be trained is in my opinion properly dealt with in this Bill; also the considerations of acceptability and feasibility. Now I want to appeal to the Minister to set machinery in motion as soon as possible to terminate the present system of having two kinds of matriculation certificates, i.e. the A stream and the B stream, so that all matriculants can go to university. We will decidedly have to raise the standards, also for prospective teachers. Then I also want to plead that all bodies concerned with education as a whole should co-operate closely with the Minister in order to make a success of this matter. The Minister must see to it that this matter will develop and grow step by step to full maturity. I am gratified to note that now for the first time the profession as such is also getting a say as regards the training of teachers, i.e. through the National Education Council. This will cause education to be education-orientated. Pupils can now be taught in the first instance to become good citizens of heaven, then to become good South African citizens, thirdly to become good citizens of the Western civilization, and in the fourth place to become good world citizens. Together with the amendments of which the Minister has already given notice, I gratefully want to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, what did we have from the hon. the Minister and from hon. members opposite in the course of this debate thus far? Let me tell the House what we have had from them: A series of vague promises of what the Government may do in the future and a lot of pious platitudes —nothing else. None of this does the Government any credit at all.

It was you who came with those “platitudes” in the first place.

I think that hon. member does not know what a platitude is. The Minister chose to go back in history as far as 1911 and cited the recommendations of various commissions. Sir, we have had all this so often in the House before—year after year on the subject of education. As a matter of fact, one sometimes gets the impression that the Minister produces the same speech year after year. I, for my part, shall restrict my historical references to the years in which this Government has been in power, years which the locusts have eaten as far as the education of our country is concerned. The remarkable thing about this whole protracted story is that no one seems to have been prepared to accept anybody else’s proposals. The Minister ended his speech yesterday by saying that this Bill introduced a new and dynamic phase in the training of teachers …

That is so.

It does nothing of the sort. On the contrary, the situation regarding the training of teachers is far from being clarified by the introduction of this Bill. During the past 20 years it has been a commonplace for us on this side of the House to make an impassioned plea to the Government, and to this Minister in particular, to do something about the steadily deteriorating situation with regard to education, particularly teacher training. A similar plea has been made throughout the country for years now by national gatherings of the chambers of commerce, the handelsinstituut, sakekamers, trade unions, teachers’ associations, academies, scientific bodies, university professors, women’s organizations, church bodies—the lot.

This Bill purports to provide an answer to what has become a crisis situation with regard to our teachers, but I wonder what type of answer the Minister in his heart of hearts thinks this Bill is. For the purpose of my speech in this debate I looked through a series of notes and I came across a series of Press reports, the headlines of which I should like to read, to remind the Minister of the seriousness with which this matter was regarded by the general public. I know 1956 is a long time ago but let us see what happened in that year. I came across the following headlines for that year alone: “Teacher scarcity—independent inquiry urged;” “Salarisse en werwing in onderwys gevra”; “Need for more teachers—plea by the S.A.T.A. conference”; “Onderwyserstekort dreig om krisis te word—Raad van die S.A.O.U. en die S.A.T.A.”; “Teacher shortage causing examination failure in the Cape”; “Ministers ondersoek die tekort aan geleerdes”: “Teachers just not paid enough, explains U.C.T. professor”; “Skoolhoofde is al moedeloos—aangehaal uit ’n brief geskrywe van die dekaan van die fakulteit opvoedkunde van die Universiteit van Stellenbosch, prof. Gunter”; “New call on scarcity of teachers—serious harm done to children, Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations”; “Red ons van ondergang—Onderwysraad vra beter salarisse en hulp van Staat”; “Teachers scarcity a calamity”, etc.

All this was reported in 1956, Mr. Speaker. In 1958, Dr. Otto du Plessis, then Administrator of the Cape Province, announced with alarm in the Provincial Council, of which I was a member at the time, that there was a shortage of 1,600 teachers in this province alone. In 1966, only three years ago, the Superintendent-General told us that in 1965 the shortage in the Cape was 33.47 per cent and in 1966 36.9 per cent—a shortage of 2,177 teachers. Furthermore, in 1966 the enrollment of student teachers was the lowest ever.

This Bill is now supposed to do something to improve this position. But how does the Minister think this Bill will in practical terms deal with the situation? We have had so many spurious promises from Ministers of Education over the years. Let me remind this hon. Minister of some of these. As far back as 1961 his predecessor raised the alarm. Minister Serfontein said at the time: “I personally should like to see education and the teacher taking a very important place in the development of our State” and that “this is a matter which calls for our fullest attention”. But eight years later, by 1968, nothing at all had been decided and the country’s teachers had no idea where they stood. The background to this Bill is the need to improve standards, the need to produce more teachers and to improve their status. In the no-confidence debate in this House during 1964 the Leader of the Opposition said that 38 per cent of our mathematics teachers, 28 per cent of our physical science teachers and 26 per cent of our biology teachers were not properly qualified. In fact, almost one third of the country’s teaching staff could be regarded as temporary staff. Since then another five years have gone by. The present Minister himself said in this House in 1964 that if he had the time he could convince this House and the country that this Government had planned ahead systematically to meet all our requirements. He contended that with the schemes already in operation and with all the plans being carried out then they would have no difficulty in coping with these problems and the shortages.

Referring to which problems?

The teacher problem.

I am afraid you are quite wrong. Please quote my words in their proper context.

Now, 20 years after this Government assumed office the chairman of the Select Committee on the original Bill on teacher training last year put a question to Professor Rautenbach, principal of Pretoria University and chairman of the National Education Advisory Council. The chairman said this in paragraph 321:

This was Professor Rautenbach’s answer:

They took 5½ years, and the Chairman admitted it. After all the cries of alarm way back in 1956! It was no trouble at all!

The hon. member for Kensington referred in his speech to three bills. But the evidence of this committee refers not to three bills, but to nine different draft bills. I want to quote from paragraph 236, page 112 of the Select Committee’s report. The chairman asked this question:

Professor Rautenbach replied:

Now we do not have three draft bills, we have nine. The plot thickens and the muddle continues. That, in fact, is the position. Let us compare the activities of our four ad hoc education committees on the position of the teachers, which were appointed in 1962, with that of the Robbins Commission in the United Kingdom. The Robbins Commission, whose report is one of the most highly thought of educational reports in the world to-day, was appointed in February, 1961. They handed in a 28 chapter report with a whole host of annexures in April, 1963, two years later. Eleven members served on the commission. They held 111 meetings in two years. They formally interviewed 90 organizations and 31 interested parties. That is a total of 121. They received 400 written submissions of evidence which had to be analyzed and assessed. They achieved all this in two years. What were their terms of reference?

They had no United Party people.

It has nothing to do with United Party people. You go and ask “die verligtes en die verkramptes” who were behind all of this.

The Robbins Commission was dealing with higher educational proposals for a population of 55 million people in the United Kingdom. We have to deal with million Whites in terms of this Bill. It is pathetic. The terms of reference of the Robbins Commission, perhaps the hon. member knows, were to review the whole pattern of full time education in Great Britain and in the light of national needs and resources to advise the Government on what principles its long-term development should be based. In particular, they had to advise the Government, in the light of these principles, whether there should be any changes in the pattern, whether any new types of institutions were desirable and whether any modifications should be made in the present arrangements for planning and co-ordinating the development of the various types of institutions. They had to deal with higher education throughout the United Kingdom. It took them exactly two years to decide what they were going to do about it. I would say that our own devastating delays in a similar inquiry are not due—let us be fair—so much to inefficiency on the part of the people involved. I think they worked very hard indeed. I have no doubt about it. However, unfortunately our own delays were due to deep-seated internal differences of opinion within the Government itself. We have no control over these matters. We can only discuss them when they come before us in debate. However, my point is that in the meantime the whole fabric of our education is slowly deteriorating. By the end of 1968 Dr. Gericke’s report had not appeared and everybody was wondering what had happened. Considering all the factors, it has been produced fairly quickly. What I suggest is that the Government’s record in this instance is a shameful one. The public is now not only alarmed, but also extremely puzzled and I think with justification. All the relevant statistical information has long been available and the Minister knows it. Information regarding the recruitment, selection, training, certification, conditions and status of the teacher, which is similar to that of other academic professions has been in possession for some time. Meanwhile we have all been waiting for something dynamic to be done.

Can the hon. member not come back to the Bill?

Yes, Sir, I am talking about teachers.

We have been given such a long historical review of the historical situation.

But, Mr. Speaker, industry, banks, building societies and various other bodies are snapping up our matriculants who are potential teachers year after year and the loss is increasing to the profession.

I shall now refer to the teachers and this Bill. They are dissatisfied with the existing position with regard to their professional status and the hon. the Minister knows that well. When the Gericke Commission’s report was finally tabled in this House, seven years after the first study of teachers’ training had been initiated by this hon. Minister in 1962, we found that many of the recommendations of this report had not been accepted. The present Bill does not really take us very much further in regard to the practicalities. Its provisions are inadequate, although there are some minor changes which are reasonable enough. Unfortunately, it reflects quite clearly a conflict of interests of one kind or another; I do not want to go into the detail, but it is the type of conflict which has so often bedevilled our discussions on education in the Republic over the years. It is a pity indeed that we are so rigid in our training systems. The hon. member for Koedoespoort has talked about the training of primary teachers and how long it should take. But the Gericke Commission has made a study of what happened in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom they have institutions which are not bound by official instructions about syllabuses, text books or methods and there is considerable freedom for experiment in curricular reforms, many of these experiments being stimulated by the school’s council. The fact paper I have here says—

And this is important—

So there is freedom of syllabuses, freedom regarding text books and a variety of institutions which may train teachers. It seems to me such a pity that we cannot have something similar in this country. Several things have now been made clear about this Bill. The first is that the Minister has, I should say, paid the minimum attention to the recommendations of the Gericke Commission, despite the Press report which appeared afterwards. The Gericke Commission, in its turn, paid the minimum attention to the report of the National Advisory Education Council and it is also clear that the provinces have not been happy at all about this measure. Why, for instance, are the functions of the Committee of the Heads of Education so limited in terms of this Bill? They are all professional people and yet they are to have the minimum say when it comes to policy matters. To what extent will the Administrators be consulted? Perhaps the hon. the Minister will go into some detail in his reply. To what extent will the Administrators be consulted when the Minister decides on policy matters? Will it be real consultation? That is the live issue as the hon. the Minister knows, or will he follow the precedent set by the hon. the Minister for Community Development who told us that his idea of consultation with the Administrators in a previous debate, was to send the Administrator a letter simply telling him of his intentions and of what he was going to do.

Now, why was this select committee abandoned and a commission appointed to take its place? This hon. Minister said himself in the House—I will not waste time quoting Hansard, but he said this in the House himself last year—that the select committee would be converted into a commission during the recess, which is the usual practice, and a report would be tabled during the following session of Parliament. But the matter was taken out of the hands of the Minister by the hon. the Prime Minister, and a commission, governed by the terms of the Commissions Act, was appointed, before which, of course, evidence could only be given in secret, whereas if the select committee had been converted into a commission that evidence would have been available to the general public, as it should have been. In the long run, in terms of this Bill, who really does the training? Special permission has to be obtained from the Minister by the provinces before they can really go ahead; their hands are tied. [Interjection.] Oh yes, they are. I have had many discussions with people behind the scenes and I can assure the hon. the Minister that that is how they feel about it. There is a severe limitation on the powers of the provinces in the present Bill. In other words, what the provinces feel is that even the local people, who know the situation and the requirements of their own provinces, will be hamstrung by ministerial control in terms of this Bill.

Then there is the question of the Teachers’ Council before I conclude. The hon. the Minister has rejected the recommendation of the Gericke Commission in this regard. The former hon. member for Witbank, who was here in this House as a Government member for many years as chairman of the governing party’s education group, was very keen on this question of a teachers’ council. He was Chairman of the hon. Minister’s Select Committee in 1962, which decided on the form of the National Education Advisory Council. What did the then hon. member for Witbank say in this House as representing Government policy on the question of a professional council for teachers? I quote from Hansard of 15th May, 1963. He said—

Then what did he say further?—

That is what the hon. member for Witbank who formerly sat in this House, the Minister’s nominee as Chairman of the Select Committee in 1962, said expressing Government policy. But now the Government has thrown it completely overboard. With great respect to the Minister, I want to end up by saying that he quoted the Press statement issued by Dr. Gericke in the House here yesterday afternoon as agreeing, more or less, with the terms of this Bill. Well, the following comes from Die Burger, and this is Dr. Gericke’s own statement—

You misunderstand that totally.

But that cannot be construed as acceptance. But I have not finished quoting. He then went on to say this—

That sounds fine, but what he is saying in effect is what the Minister has said throughout this discussion, namely that we must not have revolutionary changes; they must be evolutionary and in fact the terms of the Bill are such that it hardly improves the position of teacher training in the Republic at all. All the teachers are getting to-day is a form of representation on this National Council, two representatives of their own, and others who are nominated. Where is there any real prospect of a dynamic forward-looking policy from the Government in this regard?

My final word is this. The Gericke Commission endorsed entirely what the former member for Witbank had to say in this House. They set out very clearly in their draft Bill their plan for this professional council of teachers, within the framework of policy laid down by the Minister in respect of teacher training and after consultation with the Administrators, the universities and the Department. The teachers themselves would have had the right to determine the following things The minimum requirements for admission to training; the minimum content of the course for the attaining of a certificate; the composition and nature of the courses of training; the names of certificates and endorsements on certificates; the minimum qualifications to be held by any person for appointment as a member of the teaching staff of any training institution, and, subject to the approval of the Minister, the council could appoint committees whereof persons other than members of the council might be members to do research work in any specific field. That would have meant the constitution of a proper professional body, exercising supervision over its own members, as is done in any other body of professional people in the Republic. I do not believe that the Minister’s Bill provides an answer to any of the requirements in regard to teachers’ training which this country really needs.

I must say that in this debate the Opposition truly has revealed more ignorance than it has revealed in any other debate we have ever conducted in this House on education. I have come to the conclusion that very few of the hon. members who participated in this debate had made a study of all these reports. It is very clear that they paged through the reports and made random extracts of what they thought would come in useful. Only the first two speakers on the opposite side really had anything to say in connection with the Bill itself, but thereafter—the hon. member for Berea led the way—they took so many sidetracks and false tracks, that eventually, with the hon. member for Wynberg, they landed themselves in the middle of a maze. I want to say at once to the hon. *member for Wynberg that it seems to me she has no idea whatsoever of the way in which a Bill sees the light of day. If Professor Rautenbach had spoken of so many Bills and if there were another three at present, it would not make any difference whether there were 24, because the very intention of presenting a Bill is, after all, to invite comments. After one has received comments, one introduces improvements, and after one has listened to the comments, one eventually arrives at the final product, which, in that case, is a well-considered Bill. I want to deal with the hon. member for Wynberg in a few words only. She complained that we had been struggling for 5½ years to do something. The Robbins Commission had given its 50 million people sound advice within a period of two years. But the United Party started its. attempts to do something in 1911, to be precise, and by 1948 still had not achieved anything at all. For 37 years they blew hot and cold, dawdled undecidedly and made no progress whatsoever. But immediately in 1948, when this Government came into power, it started an entire process of reformation. As the hon. member for Waterberg said, if one does not introduce reformation into education, one does not get anywhere. This is not something in the nature of the work of a housewife who sweeps her home, prepares the meal and then relaxes with her crochet-work saying all the work for the day has been done. This is a long process. I made an interjection here Those people did not have the United Party to contend with into the bargain. Since 1910 we have had our provincial institutions. We have granted them many powers. These have become vested powers, and it is no easy matter to demolish what has been built up and to say the very next day that something new has been built up. To my colleague, the Minister of Finance it is an easy matter to say that a certain system of taxation will apply up to a certain day and a different system from the following day, but in education one cannot do this. Here one touches on the most tender strings of all concerned in education. Therefore this is a kind of accusation which actually does not get us any further.

I should like to say one thing only in reply to the question of the hon. member concerning the method of consultation with the Administrators. The consultation with the Administrators is in fact over-consultation and not under-consultation. There is constant consultation by means of either personal contact or contact by letter or by telephone or in any other way. Just to give you an idea, Sir, I want to say that in order to have these principles of policy proclaimed, before a proclamation is issued, correspondence is conducted three or four times on the same subject until such time as unanimity can be reached. I shall deal with the consultations we have had on this Bill a little later.

I feel I should first clear up a few minor matters before coming to the crux of the matter. The hon. member for Kensington objected to the fact that different kinds of teacher were being trained at different institutions. This is quite correct. One has nursery school teachers, kindergarten teachers, primary school teachers and secondary school teachers, and there is nothing wrong with this. The method and the practice of training these people differ to such an extent that one cannot possibly train all of them in the same kind of institution. This has been the position throughout the years; this is the position everywhere. This is the position in all civilized countries. Why then should South Africa be different and undertake professional training in that specific way? The hon. member for Kensington made another statement which I should also like to get out of the way first. He quoted a certain sentence from the report of the Committee of Educational Heads and stated that the Committee of Educational Heads was not very enthusiastic about this Bill either. This is not true. That does not refer to this Bill at all, because the Committee of Educational Heads saw the Bill for the first time when it was introduced in this House, provided it had not been shown to them by the Administrators with whom I had prior consultations, whereas the report of the Committee of Educational Heads had been written, translated and completed in January this year. Therefore that could not possibly have been a reference to this Bill to condemn it. I am merely mentioning this as a minor matter which we have to get out of the way.

The hon. member for Houghton made two points. She was very concerned about our pursuit of uniformity. She was not in favour of uniformity but in favour of diversity. There is no uniformity. At present no such thing as uniformity exists. As far as teaching is concerned, there will never be deadly uniformity. One does not find this in Grade I nor does one find it in matric, because if one were to destroy the individuality of the teacher and the lecturer, one would be making a “verkrimpte” business of education, as the hon. member once said here. She said we were not “verkramp” but “verkrimp”. If one were to destroy the individuality of the teacher, one would be shrinking education until nothing remained. This is the last thing we want to do. What one does strive after is not uniformity, but syllabi which may serve as a nucleus; one wants to have a final point at which both the child and the teacher would know that a certain amount of knowledge was the minimum amount of knowledge which ought to be acquired in a certain class or within a certain period of teaching. Consequently there is nothing of this kind, i.e. that we are striving after uniformity. In addition the hon. member once again said that our major task should be to bring about bilingualism. She advanced the old solution of dual medium instruction at training colleges and said she was in favour of dual medium instruction for that reason. I should like her to try this at the Johannesburg College of Education. She will not achieve any success; they will reject that. It is not the task of such an institution to make people bilingual. This is the task of the secondary schools; it is the task of the parent in the home and it is the task of every one of us, but this is not a task we have when we train people for the teaching profession. The hon. member should not be so concerned about this matter. The Afrikaans-speaking section provides the teachers for the English-medium schools and the Afrikaans-speaking people are the ones who are bilingual. If the English-medium schools did not have Afrikaans-speaking teachers to save them from their dilemma, they would have had to close down. The Afrikaans-speaking people are the ones who are bilingual and who are doing this work. The purpose of education is not to promote bilingualism; the object of education as far as languages are concerned, is to promote multi-lingualism, and not for political purpose as the hon. member desires. Throughout the ages dual medium education has proved to be a hopeless failure. Dual medium education was tested here in South Africa, and before the National Party came into power, the English-medium high schools were the ones who made representations to the Government for dual medium education to be abolished; they were the ones who wanted to do so as educationally it was an unsound principle. If one wants to overcome a problem it is an unsound principle to make two problems of one, and one does make two problems of one when one wants to convey new knowledge to a child through the medium of a language which is not that child’s mother tongue. One’s task of promoting bilingualism lies in a different direction.

Then I come to the hon. member for Berea. I shall not reply to all his oblique attacks on the question of the salaries of teachers and all the other points he raised here, but I just want to tell him that he grossly exaggerated the question of the establishment of education councils. The hon. member should at least give a true picture of the history, and this is what I should like to do for the sake of the record. The first time that anything was done in regard to centralizing and nationalizing matters pertaining to education on a better pattern was with the passing of Act No. 86 of 1962, the National Advisory Education Council Act. I became Minister in November, 1961, and we passed the Act shortly afterwards. The task of that council was to work out this national pattern, and in 1967 it produced three Bills. When the first Bill was presented, I intimated, as I said in my Second Reading speech, my disappointment about the fact that the training of teachers had not been included in that Bill. But after the massing of Act No. 39, a new council obviously had to be established, and this new council commenced to operate on 1st January, 1968. If the training of teachers had been included in Act No. 39, it would not have been necessary to-day to establish a new education council instead of the professional council.

Sir, the hon. member for Orange Grove became very excited here. He said a Bill of this nature had to come. We are pleased that he contradicted his colleague, the hon. member for Kensington, in this connection. The hon. member for Orange Grove said a Bill of this nature had to come, and the hon. member for Kensington said that that was not necessary and that all these minor matters could have been arranged administratively. Well, this is something for the two of them to settle between themselves. The hon. member for Orange Grove merely wanted to have a different Bill. Naturally he does. He would not have been sitting on the Opposition benches if he did not want to have a different Bill. I do not hold that against him. But what surprised me was the ignorance of the hon. members, because they said that they did not really want this Bill, but that they would readily have accepted the Bill of the Gericke Commission and would have given it their support. Yes, they would have given it their support, and I am going to prove to you a little later, Mr. Speaker, that there is no difference between these two Bills; the one is like the other. But the study which the hon. member had made of this matter, was not sufficient to make him arrive at this conclusion, and the pathetic thing about this debate to me is that they did not discover this fact. Sir, I now want to prove to you how the hon. member himself actually provided the ammunition for shooting down his argument. Suddenly he was upset because of the fact that in terms of this Bill all members would be appointed by the Minister whereas Gericke, he said, had the right idea, but in clause 3, page 54, of Gerioke’s Bill, the following provision appears—

These words, just as they are, have been embodied in this Bill.

I was referring to the executive committee appointed by you.

I have always appointed the executive committee.

Mr. Speaker, we now come to the real crux of the matter; in this connection there is complete misunderstanding. I should like to begin with the utter confusion which exists in the ranks of the Opposition in connection with this legislation as a whole. This is very evident from their amendment. The amendment has two parts. In their amendment they state that they decline to pass this Bill, firstly, because it fails to implement the more important recommendations of the Gericke Commission, especially the recommendation to establish a South African Professional Council for the Training of Teachers and, secondly, because the Provincial Administrations are relegated to a position of inferiority in the proposed plan for the training of teachers in their own provinces. This amendment has two legs. Sir, sometimes people have one crippled leg, but here we have two crippled legs. And if one has two crippled legs, one cannot even limp; one cannot walk at all. I am now going to prove that these two legs are both so pulverized and maimed that no Opposition and nobody else can stand on them. The complaint of the Opposition now is that the Provincial Administrations are being relegated to a position of inferiority. The procedure I followed with regard to this Bill was to forward confidential roneod copies to the Administrators and members of their executive committees for their perusal and comments. They subsequently submitted a joint memorandum to me in which they stated their views on this Bill. They had several meetings with their executive committees, Natal as well. In this joint memorandum they addressed various requests to me. My amendments on the Order Paper flow from the reasonable comments made by the Administrators on the Bill. The statement was made here that I had drafted such a bad Bill that I myself had to place a number of amendments to my own Bill on the Order Paper. But these amendments flow from the reasonable comments of the Administrators as contained in their joint memorandum. I replied to this joint memorandum, and in my Second Reading speech I mentioned the fact that I subsequently received additional individual comments. For example, the Administrator of the Cape Province, presented a reasonable case to me and I accepted his proposal as well and embodied it in an amendment. Sir, here I have the official documents in front of me. Only a few of the recommendations contained in this joint memorandum were left in abeyance, one of which was the recommendation in connection with this professional council, about which they felt very strongly, and the second was that they also wanted to have the right to train secondary teachers in training colleges. In the third place they also wanted to have the right to select students who wanted to study at a university. These are the only recommendations that were left in abeyance. Now is it possible for any one to understand any Opposition coming here and telling the world, “One of the reasons why we do not approve of this Bill is that the Provincial Administrations are being relegated to a position of inferiority?” Now is it possible for any one to understand the Administrations welcoming it that the Opposition has been so keen-witted as to have noticed this? Can one understand that in this joint memorandum which I received from the Administrations not a single word was said about anything contained in this amendment, and can you, Mr. Speaker, imagine the Administrators not availing themselves of this opportunity to air this problem of theirs? Sir, it always is a problem when one tampers with vested rights. One must expect some dissatisfaction on that score. But has the Opposition overlooked the fact that the task which the training colleges are doing for us is in point ot fact being done under licence? You see, Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa provides that all post-matriculation education is higher education and that the provinces are not charged with any task in higher education. The Gericke Commission stated and settled its problem in connection with this point. In my Second Reading speech I referred to the Financial Relations Act, and hon. members should simply consult my speech again. When the vested rights of Provincial Administrations are affected, one must expect them to be somewhat touchy about the matter. Because you see, Sir, these are vested rights. But how did we affect them? In three of the provinces we did not take away any of their rights. In the Cape Province, the Free State and Natal we maintained the status quo, i.e. that universities train secondary teachers and training colleges primary teachers. The only province is the Transvaal which has progressed a long way. The Cape Province has started a four-year training course for secondary teachers now. In the new section 1A (2) the Minister provides that, in the event of problems being experienced with producing the required number of teachers, he may grant permission for teachers to receive their training there. The status quo is being maintained, but what my hon. friends do not realize is that the spirit of the entire Gericke Report was that a point of departure had to be found somewhere to a station further along the line. The 1968 legislation sought to establish a certain point of departure and sought to make us proceed from that point by express train to the establishment of institutes. I know the hon. member for Kensington strongly favoured the institute idea, but precisely beoause of the vested rights the slow course had to be taken. The Gericke Commission has already proposed that course to achieve their goal, but it wants to do so by travelling by slow train and by stopping at each station. This is the whole spirit of the report. The whole spirit of the report is that all training of all teachers should gradually be undertaken by the universities with the closest co-operation. This gradualism must be developed. How long this is going to take and how long it is going to be, no one knows, but this legislation establishes machinery which will ensure the coming of this cooperation.

The co-ordination is too vague.

No, it is not too vague. This is the first leg. The second leg really is the major point which the hon. the Opposition tried to make. Hon. members opposite. who know something about this, made much of it and those who know nothing about it tried to make something of it; what they eventually dished up was a bowl of cucumber salad. In this regard there was confusion amongst hon. members opposite. I do not believe they did so deliberately, and I want to give them the benefit of the doubt. They confused the South African Professional Council, as it is called in the Gericke Report, with a teaching council or registration council advocated by the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations. The best way of rectifying this matter is to make an analysis of it. In this connection I refer hon. members to a report, i.e. the Consolidated Report of the National Advisory Education Council on the Teacher. I hope hon. members accept that this report is a scientific-academic one. Four volumes of this report were published and on page 14 thereof we find the standpoint of the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations. This body requested a teaching council or a registration council. The standpoint of this Federal Council was as follows—

Now we shall see the difference. The first power was—

Before leaving the teaching profession in 1945, I, too, was one of those who struggled for the establishment of a registration council of this nature. The matter, however, is not as easy as all that. It was an easy matter for hon. members to suggest it across the floor of this House. According to them, this professional council proposed by Dr. Gericke would allegedly be exactly the same as the Nursing Council, the Medical Council and the Pharmacy Board. The hon. member for Berea who is a chemist and druggist also said that this council would be the same. This cruel Minister would allegedly tell the teachers that they would not be given a registration council or a professional council, but that all teachers would be absorbed by this other body. What is the reason for that? Dr. Gericke gave his guidance in the report of the Commission. On page 24 of the Report on the Teacher a summary is given of the findings of the executive committee in connection with the registration council. There the following statement is made—

How does that strike you? I want to make a few further quotations at random—

There are six education departments and I want to quote the outcome of the executive committee’s findings in this connection. On page 26 the following statement is made—

The Gericke Commission used this report. When the Gericke Commission investigated this matter, they did not make any proposals in this connection. What gives hon. members opposite the idea that the appointment of this professional council which they are advocating so strongly, will be such a definite step in the right direction? In this connection the proposed Bill of the Gericke Commission, on page 55 of its report, reads as follows, “The Council shall function in an advisory capacity”. Now I have to go to the trouble of reading to hon. members the functions entrusted to this council by this commission. Hon. members should then tell me what function entrusted to this council is missing from the Bill at present before them. [Interjections.] There is nothing in a name. Whether a child is called Adoons or Piet, he still has blue eyes and fair hair. That does not make any difference. Here I am not concerned with a name, but with what the task of this council is to be according to the Gericke Report. This report says the council has to do the following—

This is a very important matter!

I want to read this, because this is the first time the Opposition is hearing …

Or understanding.

… or understanding this. The provisions continue—

We know about those.

This is what the Commission says, not I. I proceed—

The final function is the only one which for very good reasons, I have not included in this new Bill. It reads as follows—

Only in this final point is the question of the professional registration council raised. This provision should not be in the Act. I want to say to-day that my first instruction to this new council, as soon as it has been established, will be to investigate the possibility of appointing a registration council for teachers, because I, too, am strongly in favour of the appointment of a registration council. As I have already said, even prior to 1945 I struggled to have this old profession recognized as a profession, and I shall continue doing so, and that is another reason why I am introducing this legislation. It is, however, not such an easy matter. If hon. members opposite want to go to the trouble of making a study of these two matters and particularly of the Consolidated Report on the Teacher, they will see what the problems in this connection are.

With this, I think, I have proved that the two legs of this amendment are both crippled legs. Each time an hon. member of the Opposition addressed this House, they accused me of having departed from the recommendations contained in the Gericke Report and from the Bill of the Gericke Commission. I requested my officials to compare that Bill to the Bill at present before this House in order to ascertain what was lacking. We found that everything contained in the Bill of the Gericke Commission was also contained in the Bill at present before this House. This is a challenge I am issuing to hon. members opposite. The hon. member for Wynberg and I may take a private bet on this and settle the matter over a cup of tea if she wants to do so. Then the hon. member should point out to me what is lacking in this Bill as compared to the Bill drafted by the Gericke Commission. Not a jot or tittle is lacking. The provisions have been arranged in a different way. The Gericke Commission did not have a law adviser to advise them and it was not possible to introduce the Bill as drafted by them. When the law advisers have checked a Bill, consequential sections always have to be added. We may discuss this during the Committee Stage. I am quite prepared to reply every time an hon. member asks me during the Committee Stage the reason for the insertion of a certain clause, “The reason is that it appeared in the Bill of the Gericke Commission, and consequently it should also be in this Bill”. This is a challenge, and I shall do this.

I want to furnish another reason why these two councils have been merged into one. The reason for this is that there would have been overlapping had there been two councils. I just want to mention a few small points so that, if hon. members would take the trouble, they might understand what overlapping there would have been. If hon. members would look at the new section 1B (2) on page 6 of the Bill and at the new section 4 (3) on pages 8 and 10, they would see that if there had been two councils it would have meant that these matters would have had to be dealt with separately by two councils. Just think what a waste of time, power and energy that would have been.

There is yet another reason. The hon. member for Kensington was very concerned about the fact that I now wanted to appoint 29 members. But do you know, Sir, that he wanted to have 32 members. The Gericke Commission proposed 13 members. That was the ideal Bill which he supported. I already have 19 members on the National Advisory Education Council. This means that there would then be 32 members. Now at least I am reducing that number from 32 to 29. Therefore there will be three members fewer. If the hon. member for Kensington were to get his way, there would be eight members on the executive committee, five on the teaching council and three on the professional council. Now there are seven, i.e. one fewer.

There are many other reasons. There is, for example, the administrative staff one requires as well as the matter of furniture and office space. All the points I have just mentioned, are reasons for this and nothing sinister is involved. We saw to the inclusion in this Bill of every small thing the Gericke Commission entrusted to the professional council.

Sir, with this I think I have replied fully to the main objections raised. The other small matters which were raised concerning the National Party, etc., I shall reject with the contempt they deserve, and consequently I shall say nothing more about them.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. H. Torlage, G. P. van den Berg and P. S. van der Merwe.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and T. G. Hughes. Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It has become necessary to take stock of certain outdated and changed circumstances, and accordingly to effect certain amendments to the Universities Act of 1955. In sections 13 and 19 of the Universities Act, 1955, reference is made to “approved posts” at universities. The approval of posts for members of the teaching and administrative staff has, however, become outdated through the provision for pension schemes in the Pension Fund for Associated Institutions Act. The obsolete provision in section 19 is therefore deleted by clause 6 (b) of this Bill, with the necessary adjustments in paragraph (a) of the remaining wording, and section 13 is brought into line with that by clause 4. Obsolete designations are replaced by clauses 1, 2 and 3, and in the case of the first-mentioned, provision is also made to exclude the Coloured, Indian and Bantu University colleges, once greater academic independence has been granted to them, from the definition of the word “university” in section 1 of the Act, except with reference to the Matriculation Board and the recognition boards for which provision is made in the Act, i.e. the Board for the Recognition of Law Examinations and the Board for the Recognition of Surveyors’ Examinations. The word “university” in the Universities Act, 1955, to-day means a university established by Act of Parliament, that is to say, the University of South Africa, which provides correspondence courses, and the ten residential white universities. Up to 1959 “university” also included the University College of Fort Hare, but the latter was then deleted. Now that the University College of Fort Hare has become a full-fledged university, certain provisions of the Universities Act, 1955, are again being made applicable to it and to the other four universities which have similarly outgrown their university college status. This is being done in order to grant them a joint say in determining the standard of admission for university students, to make provision for the appointment by the board of each of those universities of a member of the two recognition boards, and to grant those recognition boards the power to investigate whether the curricula laid down and the standard of training provided by the said universities meet the requirements of the professions concerned in law and surveying, respectively. The amendment of the word “university” so that it is extended to include the new universities for certain purposes, is the one upon which I insist at the request of my colleagues in the Cabinet under whom those new universities are going to fall. As a result of the actual expansion of the concept “university” it has also become necessary to adjust the composition of the Matriculation Board in section 15 by clause 5. Each university established for Coloured persons gets one representative, and the universities established for Bantu national units, collectively get one representative. The reason for this is that the universities insist on having the majority on the Jount Matriculation Board, as is in fact provided by the Act of 1955. This is a long-standing practice. The hon. member for Kensington knows that.

However, the representatives of the 11 existing universities and of their Committee of University Principals continue to constitute a majority on the Matriculation Board. The proposed amendment corresponds with the point of view of the Committee of University Principals, to which the text of this measure was referred and which found it quite in order.

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to trace the history of the meaning of a university as the hon. the Minister has done. I think he could have done it in a little more detail.

First of all, we come to the Act which we are now amending, namely the Act of 1955. What is a university under that Act? “A university means a university established by Act of Parliament and includes the University College of Fort Hare.” Therefore, as long ago as 1955, Fort Hare was recognized as a university. However, this Government could not tolerate that. So, in 1959, by the denigration of Fort Hare it became an ordinary university college like all the other Bantu colleges and the non-white university colleges that were established. That was the story of Fort Hare. Now Fort Hare finds itself in the same position as the other university colleges. The 1959 Act made it possible to create a number of university colleges. We had the university college for Indians, one for Coloureds and no fewer than three for Bantu. What happens to them now? We have had five Bills before Parliament to create five universities. When those Bills were introduced, we were assured that they were raising the status. We were accused of not assisting in the process. We said they were not given the autonomy which they ought to have had if they were universities. But the hon. Minister for Bantu Education assured us that these universities will have higher status. Now we come to the hon. the Minister of National Education. He will not accept them as being universities. Let us have a look at the new definition of a university. This will show us how far we have come since 1955. The Bill defines a university as follows:

Except for the amendment concerning the Matriculation Board and two other minor amendments—

The Coloured persons cannot call their universities “universities” under the 1955 Act.

Now we come to the constitution of the Matriculation Board. Surely if the hon. the Ministers of Bantu Education, Coloured Affairs and Indian Affairs assured us that they were now to be universities, surely they could have one representative each. However, we are told that the three Bantu universities together can have one representative.

This representative will not be appointed by the council but will be recommended by the council to the Minister. In other words, the three of them together will form a university. During the discussion on those universities we asked for the establishment of one university for Bantu colleges. This is exactly what they are doing now. Why was it impossible to do that? Why should we say that the University of Zululand, which has a handful of students, should become a university, while the Government themselves now admit that the argument we put forth then was valid? Now what lesson is to be learnt from this Bill? The lesson is that in South Africa we should have one Minister for Higher Education. All higher education should fall under that Minister. The hon. Minister of Education to-day is the Minister of Higher White Education. He should take all these universities under his wing. This should be quite a simple matter, because he has higher technical colleges. Why should he not take universities under his wing? It is because we have to have this artificial division of apartheid in the administration. For that reason it is impossible for him to do that. I suppose this Bill has to be accepted because it is consequential on the establishment of these universities which we at the time said were not universities as we understood universities to be. I suppose the Government has tried to be consistent and here we have the result. So, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive. Whom are we deceiving? Only ourselves. We are deceiving ourselves by the legislation which has been introduced and which has been called university legislation. There is nothing we can do about the Bill and therefore we will let it pass.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with everything the hon. member for Kensington has said except the conclusions which he has drawn on his own arguments. I do not at all see why we should accept this Bill, and I am certainly going to register my protest against it.

[Inaudible.]

Yes indeed, and I am going to do it on the very arguments used by the hon. member for Kensington.

It might be consequential for the Government to introduce this Bill, because the Government has established these separate universities for African, Coloured and Indian students. Surely, if it is logical for the Government to come forward with this Bill, it is logical for the Opposition which voted against the original Bills, to oppose this one as well. In other words, I am carrying this out logically; having opposed the other five Bills, I am going to oppose this one. In my speeches during the Second Reading of each of those former Bills, one of the objections I had to the establishment of the non-white universities was that there was an amending Bill to be introduced to the umbrella Act which covers all the white universities. I said that there was an amendment to be introduced which would exclude the new universities, which have recently been converted from colleges to universities, from the Committee of Principals of the white universities. It will also exclude them from all consultations held between the Committee of University Principals and the Government. I saw no reason, if the colleges were being advanced, as the Government put it, to the status of full universities, why they should not enjoy the privileges enjoyed by the Committee of University Principals and the consultations and all the arrangements which were reached between that committee and the Government. I was very much against it and therefore I am certainly not going to support this Bill. I think this Bill must be opposed for the reasons I mentioned. I do not think that the non-white universities, having been established, should be considered on any other status than the same status as that of the white universities and therefore I am going to oppose this Bill. I must say I thought I saw a wistful expression coming over the face of the hon. the Minister as he was listening to the almost final words of the hon. member for Kensington when he said that there should be one Minister for Higher Education. I thought I saw that expression on the hon. the Minister’s face when the hon. member said that the hon. the Minister, who is at present the Minister of Higher White Education and Technical Education, should also be the Minister for Higher Education for the non-Whites. I think I saw a wistful expression come over his face and I think he would like to be …

So you are a student of physiognomy!

I am practically everything. I have to be in this House.

The smile appeared on my face when I looked at you!

That’s very nice. I am sure when he was looking at me he was not thinking of education. [Laughter.]

Do you object to it?

Anyway, I am quite sure that he would rather fancy himself in the role of the one Minister of Higher Education and I think he ought to be, too, but of course I would like his basic ideas to be different regarding higher education. But I quite agree that we should not have this dichotomy of authority as far as education is concerned. Higher education, for heaven’s sake, which is surely on the highest level where we mean to place our young people, should be “education” whether it is for Coloureds, Indians, Africans or Whites. Anyway, for the reasons I have mentioned, I am going to oppose this Bill because I cannot accept that it is logical to accept this when one has opposed the other Bills.

Motion put and agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

The Bill before the House is something new in the sense that provision is now for the first time being made by way of legislation for pension benefits to members of statutory bodies such as the Wage Board, the Industrial Tribunal, the Central Native Labour Board and the Board of Trade and Industries. However, it contains no new principle, except that provision is also being envisaged for the payment of annuities.

For many years ex gratia payments to members of certain boards were authorized by the Treasury and as from 1st January, 1963, a gratuity system was put into operation which briefly amounted to this, that a member with at least three years’ service was paid a gratuity calculated at 6 per cent of his salary at retirement in respect of each completed year of service, together with interest thereon at 4½ per cent per year compounded annually as if the original 6 per cent had been a contribution which had been made annually. The boards or bodies have to be approved by the Treasury for this purpose, and widows of members receive two-thirds of the gratuity which the member would have received. This system has been in existence since 1963.

The need to expand the present gratuity system into an annuity scheme for such persons has been increasing and the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions made a thorough investigation of the possibility and desirability of introducing it. This investigation brought to light the following interesting facts: Firstly, that no uniform age of appointment or retirement was or could be prescribed to members of boards. Members might be appointed at a young age, but also at advanced ages, even above 60 years; a variety of persons with various ages are appointed to these boards. Secondly, periods of service for members of various boards vary and are of a random nature, and no pre-determinable period of service or average period of service could be established. The period of service also varies and therefore one cannot make provision in a normal way. Thirdly, the reasons for termination of service are sometimes widely divergent and do not correspond at all with those normally applying to employees in any permanent organizations. For the above-mentioned reasons especially it is not practicable or possible to include members of statutory bodies in any of the existing pension funds or existing schemes. Members of statutory bodies in full-time employment are usually highly qualified professional people, academics, technicians or businessmen from the private sector who do not find it possible, at their eventual termination of service, to return to their profession without incurring considerable expense. For such members, especially if they are under the age of 60 years, an annuity alone is not worth much. A reasonable cash grant better enables them again to buy a share in an existing practice or business, or to start a practice or business from scratch. Secondly, there are also members of such statutory bodies who serve to such an advanced age that they are subsequently not inclined or qualified or able to take up a practice or to do business again. Consequently it is deemed desirable that provision for annual pensions should in fact be made for such persons as well. It is realized that the personal circumstances of members make the granting of alternative pension benefits desirable, and it has therefore been decided that a threefold scheme as embodied in clause 3 of the Bill should be introduced. The particulars contained in clause 3 can be more profitably discussed in the Committee Stage.

The most important features of the scheme are that a member has to complete at least three years’ service in order to qualify for a gratuity, and has to serve for at least nine completed years to qualify for an annuity plus a gratuity or, alternately, for an annuity only. After nine years’ service a member has the option to receive either an annuity, or a gratuity, or both a reduced annuity and a reduced gratuity. Similar benefits are granted to widows on a two-third basis.

Hon. members will also notice that in terms of paragraph (b) of the definition of “statutory body” and clause 2 (3) (d) the scheme can also be applied to members of boards, corporations and other bodies established by law, which find their own moneys, provided that in such cases the expenditure is to be defrayed from the moneys of the institutions concerned. The general provision in the Government Service Pensions Act of 1965 which protects pension benefits against attachment, will also apply to the benefits under this scheme.

It is difficult to give an indication of the cost, but it is estimated that if the expenditure connected with this scheme were to exceed the payments in terms of the present gratuity scheme, it would be to a minimal extent, but the scheme will have great advantages for the people concerned.

We on this side of the House support this Bill in principle, as we believe it is the right thing to do to make provision for pensions, particularly where people are serving in a ful-time capacity. We realize that as far as gratuities are concerned, this is something which has been granted in the past, but the new innovation of paying an annuity is a matter on which we would like to comment.

Firstly, taking into account the provisions of this Bill, which outline a pension scheme for members of statutory bodies who have served in a full-time capacity, it is perhaps the most generous pension scheme that we have ever had introduced in this House. If we look at the provisions of the Bill, it soon becomes obvious that the Bill provides for a pension scheme which is on a non-contributory basis. This is a new principle which is being introduced, paying a pension or annuity on a non-contributory basis. It is perhaps a matter which the Government at a later stage will give consideration to in regard to public servants, who have to pay a contribution in order to receive an annuity. There is an important principle involved here. Those members in the Public Service are also obviously in full-time employment, just like these people referred to in the Bill before us. There is another important and generous provision in this Bill, because no age limit is necessary. All pension schemes, either in the private sector or the Government sector, are subject to various age limits. In terms of the pension scheme contained in this Bill, there is no age limitation. The Minister has indicated that in a number of cases the people appointed to these boards are perhaps older than a person in the ordinary form of employment.

Another important matter is the definition of “final salary” which means the annual salary payable to such a full-time member, and this may include any allowance regularly paid to him annually but excludes any allowance paid in respect of subsistence and transport expenses or entertainment expenses. Under most pension schemes, as the hon. the Minister knows, allowances are not taken into account as part of the pensionable salary. This provision that “final salary” means the member’s annual salary together with any allowance which is paid regularly to him annually, is a generous one Sir, the provision which is made here with regard to gratuities is also a generous one, although the Minister has indicated that this system has been in practice for some time. Clause 3 provides that a member can qualify for a pension or an annuity after only nine years’ service. When we refer to other legislation dealing with pensions, particularly the legislation dealing with the Government service pensions fund, we find that ten years is the shortest period laid down in any Statute to qualify for an annuity. In the case of the Parliamentary Service and Administrators’ Pensions Act the period is ten years or in certain circumstances, nine years and six months. In terms of this Bill, however, a member may elect to receive an annuity after nine years’ service. Clause 4 provides that the widow of a member may elect to receive a benefit equivalent to two-thirds of any benefit to which the member would have been entitled at the time of his death, or to receive two-thirds of the annuity which the member received if he was already in receipt of an annuity. This also appears to be a generous provision because a widow Can now qualify for two-thirds of the annuity that her deceased husband was receiving. It might be interesting to know also whether the Minister has taken into account the possibility that a woman might be appointed in a full-time capacity to a statutory board. She would obviously also qualify for the various benefits provided for here under clause 3, but in the event of her death what would be the position of a widower, because clause 4 only provides for benefits to the widow of a person who was a member of a statutory board?

Sir, there are other aspects of the Bill which I think perhaps deserve a little closer examination. As far as benefits payable to members are concerned, the Bill provides that in order to qualify for a gratuity or an annuity, the member must be employed in a full-time, paid capacity by the board concerned. That means that professional people who are appointed to these boards will have to give up their profession and take up full-time employment with the board. Sir, another matter which I believe deserves a bit of further discussion is the question of the period of service and the limitation in regard to the payment of benefits. I have made some calculations to try to ascertain what amount would be received by a member in the form of an annuity, which is one of the options provided for after nine years’ service. Clause 3 (1) (c) provides for the payment of an annuity calculated at the rate of three and one-third per cent of the member’s final salary for each completed year of his service, but not exceeding 20 years. This also appears to be a very generous provision. For instance, if a person who was serving in a full-time capacity and who is entitled to elect to receive an annuity, received R4,800 per annum, he could receive a maximum pension of R3,200 per annum after 20 years’ service. This is a very generous annuity in comparison with the salary he was receiving. Sir, who are the people who can qualify for the benefits provided for under this Bill? They include members of boards appointed by the Central Government or the Provincial Administrations or members of other boards who qualify and apply for inclusion under this Act. “Member” is also defined as meaning a person serving as a Commissioner-General to whom the Parliamentary Service and Administrators’ Pensions Act of 1965 does not apply. We know that as far as Commissioners-General are concerned, the practice generally speaking has been to appoint persons who are members of the House of Assembly or of the Senate. Take the case of a Commissioner-General who had had parliamentary service. Act No. 85 of 1965 makes provision for the payment of a pension to him on the same basis as that which applies to a Member of Parliament. He is entitled to receive an extra R150 per annum for each year during which he served as a Commissioner-General. He is put on the same basis as a Deputy-Speaker, a Chairman of Committees or a Chief Whip. A Commissioner-General to whom the Parliamentary Service and Administrators’ Pensions Act does not apply will now qualify for the benefits provided for in this Bill, hut where a Commissioner-General has had parliamentary service, he can qualify for a pension which will exceed the pension that would be payable to an ordinary Member of Parliament in terms of the 1965 Act. Sir, I mentioned earlier that “final salary” also includes an annual allowance regularly paid to a member, because this also has some bearing on the maximum annuity payable in terms of the Bill to a Commissioner-General who does not fall under the Parliamentary Service Act. The salary of a Commissioner-General, according to the Estimates, is R7,200 per annum, and he receives an allowance of R2,000 per annum, making a total of R9,200. My question to the hon. the Minister is whether the allowance that is payable to a Commissioner-General is taken into account for the purpose of calculating his pension or whether it is excluded. This is rather important. Even if it is excluded, a Commissioner-General, in terms of the scheme before us, who is entitled to take an annuity based on 3⅓ per cent of his final salary, would, after 20 years’ service, be able to receive a maximum pension of R4,800 per annum. If one takes into account the allowance of R2,000 which is paid to him annually, it means that his annuity would be based on a salary of R9,200 per annum and, at the rate of 3⅓ per cent for each completed year of service, he would receive a pension of R6,120 per annum. When one compares these figures with the ordinary pension which is payable in terms of the Parliamentary Pension scheme, one sees that this is particularly a generous pension.

Mr. Speaker, just before the lunch adjournment I indicated that the Opposition intends supporting the Second Reading of this Bill in principle, because it does afford an opportunity for a person to qualify for an annuity or a pension. We believe it is important that everybody should be covered by some pension scheme, or a scheme which would entitle them to receive an annuity. However, I indicated that there were certain observations that we on this side of the House wish to make, as we believe that this Bill is perhaps the most generous pension scheme Bill that has ever been presented in this House, due to the fact that it is not contributory and that a person can qualify after nine years. In certain respects the Bill does tend perhaps to be over-generous.

However, I was dealing specifically with the question of the Commissioners-General. If one turns to clause 1 of this Bill, one will find that it includes a Commissioner-General who is not receiving a pension or is not entitled to receive a pension under the Parliamentary Service and Administrators’ Pensions Act of 1965. It is therefore important to study the position in regard to the two groups of Commissioners-General we now have as far as pension purposes are concerned. One group consists of the Commissioners-General who have been appointed whilst members of Parliament or who are members of the Parliamentary Service Pension Fund. Now, in terms of this Bill, provision is made for a Commissioner-General who is not a member of that fund to qualify for a gratuity if his period of office as a fulltime member of a statutory board is less than nine years. If it is more than nine years, he may qualify for an annuity. So, it is a question of drawing a comparison between the existing Act, in terms of which Commissioner-Generals are covered and the new group which is provided for in terms of this Bill.

If one looks at clause 3 dealing with the benefits on retirement, it is obvious that as the annuity is based on 3⅓ per cent of his final salary for each completed year of service not exceeding 20 years, it does provide for a considerable maximum pension, as far as a Commissioner-General is concerned, based on his present salary, namely R7,200 a year. On this basis of calculation he would be entitled to receive a considerable annuity. If one takes into account a comparison, for instance, of the ordinary member of the Parliamentary Service Pension Fund, one would find that his basis of calculation is 1/25th for each year of service, based on a pensionable salary of R4,000 per year, so that at the end of 20 years an ordinary Member of Parliament would qualify for a pension of R3,200 a year, in respect of which he would have to make a contribution of R300 per annum, amounting to a contribution of R6,000 for that period during which he has contributed. If a Commissioner-General serves for 20 years at a pensionable salary of R7,200 per annum he pays no contribution whatsoever and will qualify for a pension of R4,800 per annum. So one can see that there is a difference. But it becomes more significant if one takes into account the Commissioner-General who remains a member of the Parliamentary Service Pension Fund; because here the comparison becomes far greater.

I intend to use this to illustrate the point that I wish to make, namely that the Commissioners-general in regard to their pensions, should be dealt with on the same basis, and perhaps all in one Bill, instead of having these two separate groups of Commissioners-general. If one looks at the position in regard to a person who has been a Member of Parliament, one finds that if he has been a member for a period of 10 years, he would then qualify for a parliamentary pension for such parliamentary service. If he continued for another 10 years as a Commissioner-General, he would then qualify for an additional pension in terms of the Act governing parliamentary service on the basis as indicated in this Act, which is 1/25th of his pensionable salary. Here it would be l/25th of R7,200, which would mean that after 10 years as a Commissioner-General, taking into account that he was a member of the Parliamentary Service Pension Fund, he would qualify for a pension of R2,810 per annum. In terms of the legislation, by section 10, he is put on the same basis as the Deputy-Speaker of the House or a Chief Government or Opposition Whip, and receives an extra R150 for every year’s service in that particular office.

So that would mean another R150 per annum over 10 years, which amounts to R1,500 per annum. It would mean that his 10 years as a Commissioner-General would earn him an annuity of R4,310 per annum, which is made up of R2,810 and R1,500 in regard to his position as a Commissioner-General. His pension would then be R4,310 per annum and, of course, he would be entitled to 10 years pensionable service as a Member of Parliament, giving him another R1,600 per year, amounting to a total pension of R5,910. I mention this so as to compare it with the position of a Commissioner-General who is being granted an annuity in terms of the Bill before us. He is occupying the same position as a Commissioner-General. Taken on the basis of 3.3 per cent of his pensionable salary for each year’s service, his pension for 20 years service would be R4,800.

If he has not been a Member of Parliament prior to being appointed a Commissioner-General, and therefore not a member of this scheme, or if he has less than 9½years service, when he does not qualify for a Parliamentary Service Pension, he is at a considerable disadvantage compared to the person who has been appointed direct from Parliament as a Commissioner-General. One can see that this is treating the whole question of the annuity payable to a Commissioner-General on an entirely different basis. It means that if a Commissioner-General who was not a member of the Parliamentary Pension Fund, filled that post for 10 years, he would receive a pension of R2,400 per annum for that 10 years servicp as a Commissioner-General. If he had been appointed while a Member of Parliament and of the Parliamentary Pension Fund, that same 10 years service would earn a pension of R4,310 per. annum, over and above his parliamentary pension. This, I believe, illustrates the necessity for a pension scheme for the Commissioners-General on the same basis, rather than the existing basis, whereby a Commissioner-General is a member of two different types of pension schemes or funds. The question arises whether it is wise that this should be included in the present Bill before us, and therefore dealt with on this basis, or whether the Commissioner-General’s position should not be treated on a different basis and brought into line with that of a person who has served as a Member of Parliament.

With regard to the other points in this Bill, I want to say that some of them consist of details which can be dealt with in the Committee Stage. However, I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister could give some indication as to which of the statutory bodies will be entitled to join the scheme and be covered by the scheme, and if it also makes provision for boards appointed by provincial administrations. There is also the fact that certain boards that wish to become members of this scheme may do so. That is also provided for in the definition of “members”. However, the hon. the Minister did not give any indication as to what type of organizations he had in mind who would also be able to enjoy the provisions of the pension scheme that is before us. It is mentioned too in the Bill that the payments will be made from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Then the Government will be reimbursed by the Provincial Administration, if it is a provincial board, or by the other board that has been affiliated with or has come under this particular scheme. So, it is important to try and get some indication as to what types of boards, bodies or councils the hon. the Minister is envisaging will be entitled to join in the scheme that is proposed by the Bill before us.

As I have mentioned, we support the Second Reading of this Bill. We believe that the Government has taken an important step forward in introducing a scheme which is on a non-contributory basis for people who are rendering full time service to the State. Perhaps at a later stage the Government will also be able to consider favourably the question of a non-contributory scheme for all persons who are in the full time employment of the State.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down, introduced his argument by saying that he and his Party subscribed to the principle contained in this Bill. He came back to that statement time and again, but each time he had a “but” to add to that, and we shall deal more fully with his “buts” a little later. I want to say that we on this side of the House not only subscribe to the principle contained in this Bill, but in doing so also want to add our gratitude and appreciation for the introduction of this particular Bill. The principle contained in this Bill bears testimony to the fairness, the deep humanity as well as the conscientiousness of the hon. the Minister and of the Government to be fair and just towards everyone. The people who will be effected by this particular Bill will in most cases be people who, because of their special abilities and capabilities, have been taken by the Government from occupations, professions or positions in which, had they not been so removed, they would have been able to make very good provision for themselves and their old age. But because their patriotism has caused them to push personal considerations into the background, I say, we fully subscribe to the principle contained in this Bill. This Bill remedies an injustice.

But the hon. member for Umbilo raised certain matters. What I am referring to is his “buts”. He said each time he supported the principle, but in one case the position was this and in another case the position was that. One of the points to which he referred, was the fact that the proposed scheme was a non-contributory scheme. He queried that as that would allegedly be such an excessive concession to the people who would benefit from the scheme. Now I want to say that, apart from the fact that we do not begrudge this group of people this benefit at all, I can imagine many technical problems arising from the conversion of a scheme like this into a contributory scheme. I say “technical” in the sense that it will be very difficult to administer a contributory scheme. In addition I want to point out to the hon. member that the hon. the Minister made specific reference in his Second Reading speech to what had been revealed by an investigation conducted by the Department.

The hon. the Minister said they had found that no uniform pattern of employment or retirement existed in respect of these boards. Because this is so, it must be extremely difficult to maintain and administer a contributory pension scheme. In addition he pointed out that another finding had been that it was impossible to determine the terms of office of these boards and of the individual members of boards. Moreover, there are boards with divergent functions. For these reasons the hon. the Minister stated explicitly that it was not possible to include these people under an existing pension scheme. I do not think that what the hon. member for Umbilo had in mind was the establishment of a separate scheme for them, something which would in any case be equally difficult to administer. For that reason I cannot understand how it is possible to argue that it would be wrong to make this a non-contributory scheme. In addition the hon. member linked this to a very cheap political argument, and that is that consideration may in due course be given to extending this kind of scheme to other groups of pension schemes. What the hon. member had in mind when he said that, was, of course, that we should become a socialistic state. But surely that is not the intention of this legislation.

The hon. member also referred to the provision in terms of which a person has to be a member of a board for nine years in order to qualify. The hon. member was opposed to that provision because that period was allegedly too short. But surely the hon. member knows that members of these boards are ordinarily appointed for three years. It was necessary to find some basis for the calculation of a minimum period. The minimum period on which the decision fell, was nine years, in other words, after a member had been appointed for two further terms of office of three years each. If we were to make this period ten years, as in the case of members of Parliament, it would mean that a person would be excluded from the benefits of this scheme even though he had completed three consecutive terms of office of three years each. Therefore, in my opinion, the basis which was decided on was a logical one. The requirement of a minimum period of service of 10 years with which members of Parliament have to comply, is, of course, two terms of office of five years each. But in this case as well provision has been made for the period to be shortened to nine years and six months under certain circumstances, simply to ensure that a member of the House of Assembly will not unnecessarily be excluded from those benefits. But why does the hon. member raise these things? What motive does he have? In my opinion there are two considerations which may have carried weight with him. In the first place I assume that he wanted to make out a case that this Government was playing “Father Christmas” in and out of season by distributing gifts in and out of season. If this was one of the considerations which carried weight with him, he would be doing a great injustice to the people who are to benefit from the scheme. But I am inclined to see another motive as the reason why the hon. member for Umbilo raised these matters, and that is that he subconsciously fears that with the passing of this legislation people appointed by the Government of the day may be benefited, and because all of them may possibly be supporters of the Government, he does not want to see that happen.

There is one aspect, however, in respect of which I associate myself with the hon. member for Umbilo, and that is to request the hon. the Minister to tell us what boards are going to be recognized for the purposes of this legislation. In this respect I have in mind rent boards, for example. According to my interpretation of this legislation, members of rent boards will fall under this legislation, and I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister will confirm this.

I am taking part in this debate with a good deal of pleasure, because this Bill contains an element for which I have longed for many years. My mind goes back to a debate of 1955 to provide Public Service pensions. During that debate I suggested to the Minister who was then responsible, then the Minister of Justice, to appoint a commission to investigate the whole system of awarding pensions in the Civil Service and that the system we were following, the system of a contributory pension scheme, was outdated. But the matter was not investigated and to-day when we look back over the intervening 14 years we find that the hon. Minister of Transport has been the pioneer because in awarding pensions to his non-European staff he awards those pensions as annuities. I have always been puzzled to know what the difference is between an annuity and a pension. In this Bill, I notice, “a pension” means a “gratuity” and an “annuity”. That is exactly what the hon. the Minister of Transport has introduced, and very wisely if I may say so. No pension in the Civil Service ought to be in terms of a contributory pension scheme. They ought all to be non-contributory. This is something I have asked for over many years, in and out of season. Why do we have contributory pension schemes? We have these because in the early colonial days people did not know whether the government they were serving would become a permanent government. Consequently, there was established a fund from which they were to receive a pension. To-day, however, we have a stable government and the Government is to-day responsible for paying pensions. The British Civil Service has never had a contributory pension fund. Their pensions are paid out of revenue, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. If I look at this Bill I see that the hon. the Minister has now introduced something for which I have pleaded for many years. According to the definition of “Consolidated Revenue Fund” in clause 1 of this Bill the pension account will come before Parliament every year, we will debate it and say how much money is to be provided for pensions. A similar provision is being made later on for the Railway and Harbour Fund. The Railways will pay pensions in a similar manner to members of these statutory boards. So, Mr. Speaker, we are making progress, progress towards a non-contributory pension scheme for the whole service. The hon. the Minister, who has only taken over recently, has already given indications that he has a receptive mind on these matters. Perhaps he is prepared to investigate the matter because the time is ripe for it. Our Civil servants are asking for more satisfactory conditions of service. What better can we do than to say to them that we are going to make a concession in regard to their pensions instead of giving them a small rise in salary?

Yes, but the hon. member is drifting very far away from the Bill.

There is only one other point I should like to make, Sir …

On the Bill, I hope?

Yes, Sir, very closely connected with it. As you could have guessed, Sir, I am very much attached to this Bill. The point I should like to come to is clause 2 (2) of the Bill in which provision is made for a pension payable in terms of this legislation to be paid, subject to the provisions of subsection (3), from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. There is the whole Bill in a nutshell; a non-contributory pension Bill. I am very anxious to hear whether the hon. the Minister in his reply will have any further suggestions to make in this direction. I congratulate him.

I should like to make one concluding remark. My remark is in regard to clause 4, subclause (3), which reads as follows:

I say very good luck to her. Where are they? That is what I should like to know!

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to assist the hon. member for Kensington in the search he commenced towards the end of his speech. Nevertheless, I want to deal with a few points that were raised by various members in this debate. I want to thank the Opposition for their support of the principle of this Bill. I also want to reply to a few of the questions put to me by the hon. member for Umbilo, the member for Springs as well as the member for Kensington.

In the first place, I want to reply to the question as to which boards or councils are going to fall under this specific Bill. It is impossible to furnish the names of those boards or councils now. However, I am going to mention a number of boards or councils by way of example in order to indicate which of them are going to fall under this Bill. The following are a few of them: the Wage Board, the Industrial Tribunal, the Central Bantu Labour Board, the Board of Trade and Industries, the National Marketing Council, the Group Areas Board, the Group Areas Development Board, the Rent Control Boards, the full-time Rent Boards, the Atomic Energy Board, the Prison Boards and so forth. However, the Bill also provides a loophole in that connection in clause 1 (xi) (b).

In other words, all those boards or councils, as well as all others we may not have in mind at present, but which will qualify under the broad principles of the Bill, will be included. This then is my reply in this connection, and also to the hon. member for Springs. I just want to thank him for his kind support and the excellent replies he furnished to most of the problems raised by the member for Umbilo, i.e. that the full-time rent boards, I repeat “the full-time rent boards” are actually incorporated in this scheme.

The second argument I should like to deal with is the fact that this scheme is a non-contributory one. This matter was raised by the hon. members for Umbilo and Kensington. To the disappointment of the hon. member for Kensington I want to say straight away that the fact that this pension scheme is a non-contributory one is an exception. This is not the first step in the development of a new policy. I am sorry to disappoint him, but this is the case. I want to furnish a specific reason for his. It is not my task to point this out to-day, but I want to say, nevertheless, that for various reasons which are quite obvious this pension scheme could not be made a contributory pension scheme. I said during my Second Reading speech that the age at which people became members of the scheme or at which they join or retire from the service, varies from case to case. In some cases it concerns a person who has a lifetime of service behind him, but who is such an expert in a. specific field that the Government needs him to serve on a specific council or board with this expert knowledge. In that case the person becomes a member of the council concerned at the age of 55 or 60 years. One cannot possibly expect him to contribute to a pension scheme. On what basis and according to What scale should his contributions be calculated? It is impossible. Other people again are appointed to such council: or board in the prime of their lives. After 9 or 10 years their work is-completed and their services are no longer needed. They return to the private sector then. How must one determine what contribution such a person should make every month in order to justify a pension?

The Parliamentary scheme, is a contributory scheme.

Yes, the Parliamentary scheme is a contributory scheme. The Parliamentary scheme, however, is also specifically linked to five or 10 years with the necessary previous service added. That is so. However, my problem in this case is decidedly something quite different. The dates of commencement and retirement are quite different. The age is quite different. To this I just want to add the unpredictability of the whole situation, but also, on the other hand, the fact that we have been paying a gratuity to these people through all these years. Since 1963 it has become the policy for them to receive a specific gratuity which is calculated according to a fixed formula. The result of this was that the fact that they were going to receive the gratuity without making a contribution, was taken into account in determining their salaries during the past number of years. The fact that no contributions are made has therefore been taken into account in determining their salaries. That is why. we can treat this matter on that basis. As regards the plea made by the hon. member for Kensington for a non-contributory pension scheme, I can just tell the hon. member that this is not even being asked for by the staff associations of the Public Service at this moment. On the contrary. They ask that their contributions to the pension fund must please not be discontinued. There is a very sound reason for this, namely that the moment they stop contributing to the pension fund they will loose their say or joint-say they have as regards the privileges of such pension fund. When that happens the employer becomes the dictator because he is the only contributor, arici he can then alter the pension fund arbitrarily, or whatever the position might be. As long as they contribute, they have a joint say, and they want to retain that joint-say at all costs. That is why they do not ask for a non-contributory scheme. On the contrary. History has shown that in countries such as Britain, which is the country that hon. member is so fond of quoting, an increasing number of contributory schemes are being introduced to supplement the existing non-contributory schemes, because practice shows that the non-contributory scheme is insufficient.

I am sorry, but the hon. the Minister must come back to the Bill.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I had to reply to the question which was out of order as well.:

Is that a reflection on the Chair?

No, the hon. Mr. Speaker said so himself.

The following matter I should like to deal with, a matter that was raised by the hon. member for Umbilo, is the question of allowances. The hon. member raised the point that the Act provides that certain allowances may be taken into account. I want to set the hon. member’s mind at peace immediately by saying that the R2,000 shown under Commissioners-General and to which he referred, will not be taken into account for this purpose, because this allowance is granted for the purpose of defraying costs. This allowance is not granted for services rendered. The allowances which will apply, are defined in clause 1 (iii), as follows—

In other words, if a person receives a specific instruction to perform a specific inspection and he receives a specific amount because he is performing the work on behalf of a statutory council, that allowance has been taken into account. However, this does not apply to the normal entertainment expenses or transport and subsistence expenses. These allowances are not included I hope the matter is clear.

The hon. member for Springs raised the question of the nine year’s term. We are dealing here with people who are serving a three year’s term on the boards or councils because the terms of most of the statutory councils are three years. That is why we feel that when a person has completed three terms in this capacity, or when he has completed two terms of five years, he may qualify for a pension on account of the work he did in that capacity. That is why the term of nine years was accepted.

As regards female members, I may just say they will enjoy exactly the same privileges as male members.

Hon. members also asked why clause 4 provided for widows of members of a statutory council and not for widowers. I can tell the hon. member that I am going into the whole question once more of widowers of members of the various councils. In this connection, arguments may be advanced for as well as against the matter. The argument may be advanced that the widower should not receive anything because he is the bread-winner, while the widow should receive something because she was not the bread-winner. The fact that we have introduced into this legislation as well as other legislation the concept that the widow retains the pension in spite of the fact that she remarries, which means that even if she should get a new bread-winner she would still be entitled to this pension, to a certain extent defeats that argument in the case of widowers of the surviving spouse after their spouse who was a member of a council had retired. That is why I just want to say that the entire matter as regards the widowers is being investigated at present. However, at this stage I am not in a position to give any final decision in this connection.

In conclusion I want to say a few words about the case mentioned by the hon. member for Umbilo, i.e. the case of the Commissioners-General. I want to say at the outset that the Pensions Act applicable to the Commissioners-General is linked with the Parliamentary Pensions Act at present, because most of them are former members of Parliament, whether Senators or Members of the House of Assembly. But we also have people who are Commissioners-General and who have not been members of Parliament, and who, therefore, if this Act is not accepted will not be entitled to any pension or annuity, but only to a gratuity. This is an injustice we felt should be rectified. That is why this Bill was drawn up and it has been made possible for persons such as Commissioners-General who do not fall under the Parliamentary pension scheme, to fall under this Act for a pension. I just want to explain this. It is easy to juggle with figures; anyone can do it. The hon. member mentioned the example of a man who had 20 years of service and he compared this to a person who had done 10 years of Parliamentary service and then 10 years service as a Commissioner-general. Thé example I want to use to prove the opposite is that of a person who has been a Commissioner-general for 20 years; he has never been in Parliament and he becomes a Commissioner-general and serves in that position for 20 years, which is the maximum. His position would be—and we are not referring to gratuities now; we are referring purely to annuities, because this is comparable—that he would receive the amount of R4,800 in the form of a pension, or two-thirds of his maximum salary. Now I want to turn the example the other way, and for it to be comparable I must do so as follows, i.e. that a person is elected as Member of Parliament and is immediately appointed as a Commissioner-general. and that he is therefore on the other basis for the full 20 years—Parliamentary, but also a Commissioner-general for the full period. I just want to put the matter in this way to the hon. member. In this case he will, after 20 years of service, be entitled to a pension of R6,800 per annum, because the figure I am taking here is the usual R160 per annum as an ordinary member of Parliament plus, not R150—because this has been amended—but R180 per annum as a Commissioner-general. This gives him R340 per annum and over a period of 20 years it gives him R6,800 per annum. In other words, he is therefore better off than this person because those circumstances differ considerably. The other argument is that in this case it is a contributory scheme, and in the other case it is a non-contributory scheme. The non-contributory scheme therefore gives him R4,800 and the contributory scheme gives him R6,800, which represents a big difference. The reason for the difference is that this pension fund is based on two-thirds of his maximum emoluments as his final product, if possible, while the other pension scheme referred to be the hon. member is based on his being able to come into line with his full salary in that capacity after 25 years.

I think I have now replied to the questions that were put. We can discuss this matter more profitably during the Committee Stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

I want to state, right at the outset, that the Law Revision Committee recommended that this Bill replace the existing Prescription Act. I also want to inform you that the principles of the Bill were subjected to a thorough discussion by that Committee before as well as after a draft Bill had during 1965 been published in the Government Gazette for information and comment. Comment was in fact received from the legal profession and other bodies, and were gone into thoroughly by that Committee. Because we are dealing here with a measure which is in fact of a technical nature, a draft Bill of the Law Revision Committee was considered and discussed even before the 1965 publication in the Government Gazette by the various universities at which there are law faculties, and at some universities symposiums were held at which the different branches of the legal profession could participate freely in the discussions. Therefore, in considering the subject of the Bill the Law Revision Committee also had at its disposal the benefit of the comment of our highest educational institutions in the country.

As you know, Sir, the Prescription Act of 1943 amended and consolidated the laws on prescription which had in the various provinces up to that stage, and in this way the legislation for all the provinces was made uniform. Over the years, however, quite a number of problems in regard to the interpretation and application of the law have arisen and it is as a result of this that the Law Revision Committee decided to reconsider the subject of prescription in its entirety. It also appears that certain aspects in regard to prescription are not governed at all or are not governed clearly by the existing law. In this way it appears that provisions are in fact made for the acquisition of servitudes by prescription, but not the extinction of servitudes by prescription, unless it is accepted that this matter is to be regarded as a kind of extinctive prescription. Nor is the principle of the calculation of the duration of possession in the case of possession by predecessors in title dealt with under the existing Act. Suspension in the case of the running of acquisitive prescription is not regulated in the existing Act either, while suspension is in fact regulated in the case of extinctive prescription.

Nor is there certainty in all respects as far as period of prescription are concerned. Some actions are mentioned by name, while no mention is made of other actions which are also specifically known in law. The question also arises as to whether actions for damages for which provision is being made in the existing Act include actions for damages for breach of contract and, if so, the question arises as to what becomes of the contract out of which the action arose if it is a written contract. In terms of the existing Act, the running of prescriptions between spouses is only suspended if they—to use the words of the Act—are not “living apart”. Apart from the fact that a spouse, unlike a piece of machinery, is not easily taken “apart”, it only creates uncertainty if, apart from the marriage, co-habitation is required as well.

According to the existing Act the running of prescription is interrupted—and I emphasize the word “interrupted”—by submission to arbitration, the lodging of a claim against an insolvent estate, the estate of a deceased person, etc., and prescription begins to run anew from the date on which the interruption occurred. It is not clear why these activities should interrupt the running of prescription and should cause a new period of prescription to begin running. It would be easier to understand that the actions ought to suspend the completion of prescription because the creditor cannot in such cases always suspend the running of prescription effectively by means of judicial action. One would be able to continue in this way and probably find other deficiencies as well.

This also explains why it was not deemed desirable to try to improve the existing Act by means of amendments, but rather to replace the existing Act with a new Act. Now it must also be made clear that in the case of an act like the Prescription Act, it is well-nigh impossible to find a detailed solution to every problem which could crop up in advance. In an act of this nature the legislator can only indicate the directing principles.

It is an old issue whether, in the case of prescription, one is dealing with one legal concept or with two branches thereof, viz. acquisitive and extinctive prescription, and whether we are in fact dealing with two independent legal concepts. However, it would nevertheless seem as if one were dealing with two independent legal entities. It is true that in the case of both legal entities the effluxion of time plays a role and that certain circumstances, which are related to the person against whom the prescription is running, are of use in the case of both legal entities, but nevertheless the two legal entities rest on different bases. In the case of acquisitive prescription one is dealing with factual rights where what is involved is not only the acquisition of a right by the one and the loss of a right by the other, but also with the appearance which could affect third parties in their relations with one or the other. The reason for the acquisition of factual rights by prescription is the perpetuation of a factual condition which has existed for a long period of time and on which third parties can also depend in their relations with the ostensible rightful owner. In the case of extinctive prescription one is dealing more specifically with the relationship between creditor and debtor, and prescription serves to protect the creditor against claims which might never have arisen, or have already been met. The union is by its nature basically a temporary relationship which is destined to be extinguished upon completion, and is besides a relationship between creditor and debtor in which third parties are only indirectly involved.

This also explains why the Bill is divided up into chapters. It would probably be possible to make provision for the establishment of servitudes by prescription together with the acquisition of ownership by prescription in one chapter, but because servitudes are also extinguished by prescription this is preferably being governed in a separate chapter. Chapter I of the Bill deals with the acquisition of ownership by prescription. Chapter II with the acquisition and extinction of servitudes by prescription. Chapter III with prescription of debts, and Chapter IV with general matters.

You will note, however that the principles of the measure can be discussed to best effect by referring to the separate clauses. The Bill is actually a summary of a series of principles on which prescription is based. You must therefore give me leave to deal with the separate clauses. I am beginning therefore with the clauses of Chapter I.

The requirement laid down by the existing Prescription Act that right of ownership can be acquired by a prescription by the continuous possession of something belonging to another person for 30 years nec vi, nec clam, nec precario, or rather, without force, openly and without permission, is being substituted in clause 1 of the Bill by the requirement that the said person shall possess a thing openly as if he were the owner thereof for an uninterrupted period of 30 years. It would appear that the expression nec vi, nec clam, nec precario was not applied by our old writers in regard to acquisition of ownership by prescription, but that it was introduced by the old jurisprudence. The requirement of nec precario, or possession without consent, is, in any case, in the light of our present day administration of justice no longer adequate, because besides precario the courts impose as an additional requirement for the acquisition of ownership by prescription the English law requirement of “adverse possession”. In this connection Chief Justice Watermeyer in Malan v. Nabygelegen Estates, 1946 (A.A. page 562), stated: “In order to avoid misunderstanding it should be pointed out here that mere occupation of property nec vi, nec clam, nec precario for a period of 30 years does not necessarily vest in the occupier a prescriptive title to ownership of that property. In order to create a prescriptive title, such occupation must be a user adverse to the true owner and not occupation by virtue of some contract or legal relationship such as lease or usufruct which recognizes the ownership of another”. Consequential upon these remarks, the following was remarked in a subsequent appeal court case—Swanepoel v. Crown Mines Ltd,., 1954 (4) 596: “The examples here given by the learned Chief Justice show the untenability of the contention that the elements of prescription enumerated in section 2 of the Act are exhaustive, for the Act does not mention adverse user, yet it is inconceivable that the Act could have intended that, e.g. a lessee or a usufructuary of property (who does not hold precario) should have become its owner if his occupation lasts for 30 years”.

The requirement of possession nec clam, or open possession, is retained, but open possession alone is not sufficient. The said person must possess as if he were owner of a thing. The retention of the requirement nec vi, or possession without force, does not appear to be necessary when we are dealing with a 30 year period of prescription. That requirement may have significance where one is dealing with a short period of prescription and it is conceivable that the true owner must not be able, within the short period of time, to take steps against the person who is withholding his property by force. Over a long-term period of 30 years it is hardly conceivable that a thing can be withheld by force from the rightful owner. The true owner does in fact have legal recourse if that should happen. In view of all these circumstances it is therefore felt that “open possession as if he were the owner thereof” must be used as a fundamental concept for acquisition of ownership by prescription. It defines clearly enough the objective, as well as the subjective elements of the position of the acquiror in respect of the matter. After all, the basis of prescription is the confirmation of what is apparent.

In terms of common law, possession for purposes of prescription need not necessarily be possession by one person only, and possession by a legal predecessor is added to the possession of his successor in title. Explicit provision is now being made for this aspect in clause 1, and all that is being required is that the possession of the predecessors should also have complied with the requirements for acquisitive prescription, that is, everyone should have possessed openly as if they were owners, and between a legal predecessor and his successor there should have been no interval. In addition a successor should have derived his title from his predecessor.

According to existing law, the running of prescription is interrupted if the object is, for example, stolen from the possessor or if he is forcibly dispossessed of the object by third parties or the true owner. There appears to be no good reason why a temporary involuntary loss of possession should interrupt the running of prescription, as long as there is no undue delay in regaining possession. Therefore clause 2 of the Bill is in this respect a new one and appears in principle to be in accordance with similar provisions—with those of other legal systems as well.

In clause 3 the suspension of the running of acquisitive prescription is dealt with. The existing Prescription Act does not deal with this matter, but does in fact deal with suspension in the case of extinctive prescription. According to common law, however, suspension also applies in the case of acquisitive prescription, and does serve in accordance with the principle that prescription does not run against any person who is unable to take action. As hon. members know, under common law the period of suspension is added to the period of prescription, with the result that the period of prescription is thereby extended regardless of whether the suspending conditions existed at the beginning or at any other stage of the period of prescription. For example, if prescription has been running for ten years against A, the owner of a piece of land, and A subsequently sells the land to B, a minor, and after 10 years B, whilst he is still a minor, sells the land to C, then the period of prescription against C is only completed after a further 20 years. In this clause there is a departure from this. Since prescription is the confirmation of an existing condition, there seems to be no reason to postpone the moment of confirmation simply because suspending conditions existed at some time during the period of prescription. If regard is had to the fact that suspension is only necessary because a person against whom the prescription is running is unable to protect his right and that his inability only becomes important when the period of prescription terminates, there appears to be all the more reason to suspend prescription only if the suspending conditions exist at the end of the period of prescription. This is now being done by means of this clause.

In regard to this clause, Mr. Speaker, I want to mention that we received comment from the Association of Law Societies, after the Bill was piloted through the Senate, in which it was indicated that there were cases of persons who should have been placed under curatorship but had not been placed under curatorship, and for whom provision ought to be made in clause 3. In this connection I want to refer to the expression “insane” in clause 3 (1) (a) which is intended to cover cases of this kind. Although this is for many persons a word which has emotional value, it is for the jurist a familiar, age-old expression which indicates a circumstance which makes a person incapable of acting. Consequently the Law Revision Committee paid careful attention to this expression and came to the conclusion that it should be retained. For the sake of interest we can mention to you that Voet, 27.10.3 says of the “insane” that these fall into two categories, viz. “those who are tame and without violence but lack the use of reason” and then “madmen who are violently insane not only those who utter much that is silly and laughable, but also those who show their state of mind by tossing the arms and head, and by making themselves a nuisance in public or private places to others by shouting and throwing stones”. [Interjections.] I wonder whether he was referring here to some hon. members of the Opposition?

Unlike in the case of the existing Prescription Act, clause 4 of the Bill makes explicit provision for judicial interruption in the case of acquisitive prescription. Of course the Prescription Act does in fact contain provisions relating to judicial interruption, but this applies only in the case of extinctive prescription. However, to interrupt prescription by the mere serving of a process without taking the matter further, would be completely at variance with the entire concept of prescription. The whole object of prescription is after all to effect certainty and this object would be defeated if the claimant, by the mere service of a summons, could time and again extend the uncertainty for a further 30 years. That is why it is required that the process should be successfully pursued to final judgment; otherwise the interruption lapses.

Since the period of prescription for acquisitive prescription is the same in the existing Act and in the Bill, extensive transitory provisions appear to be unnecessary. Clause 5 provides therefore that the provisions of Chapter I govern any uncompleted part of a period of prescription which may exist at the time of the commencement of the Act.

I shall now proceed to express a few ideas on Chapter II and its clauses. In clause 6 of the Bill the same principles in connection with the acquisition of servitudes by prescription apply mutatis mutandis as apply in clause 1 in connection with the acquisition of ownership by prescription. Therefore it is not necessary to elaborate on this further. The Prescription Act is silent on the question of the extinction of personal servitudes and praedial servitudes. According to Roman Law, and in pursuance thereof of the Roman-Dutch Law, certain praedial servitudes have by non-implementation and others by a positive violation of the rights of the entitled servitude holder been extinguished. The position here is not any too clear and for that reason it is now being explicitly provided in clause 7 (1) that a servitude shall be extinguished by prescription if it had not been exercised for an uninterrupted period of 30 years. In the case of negative servitudes there is of course no question of the exercise of the servitude, for a negative servitude is of course exercised by omission. In clause 7 (2) it is therefore provided that such a servitude shall be deemed to be exercised as long as nothing which impairs the enjoyment of the servitude has been done on the servient tenement.

By means of clause 8 the provisions of certain sections in regard to the acquisition of ownership by prescription are mutatis mutandis applied in respect of the acquisition and extinction of servitudes by prescription. As far as the interruption, by involuntary loss of possession of the acquisition of a servitude by prescription is concerned, it is pretty generally accepted to-day that the acquisition of a servitude by prescription can be interrupted by a relatively short interval. However, in view of the provisions of clause 2, read in conjunction with clause 8 (1) a short break will no longer be able to interrupt the running of prescription in the case of a servitude. However, one could scarcely accept the principle of involuntary loss of possession in respect of acquisitive prescription in the case of property and reject it in respect of the acquisition of a servitude by prescription.

Clause 9 is merely a confirmation of the existing law in regard to public servitudes, and there is therefore no need for me to dwell on this any further.

Chapter III deals with prescription of debts, and there are quite a number of important innovations we are introducing into our law. Clause 10 (1), Mr. Speaker, introduces an important new principle. As hon. members know, legal theoreticians distinguish between strong and weak prescription. Prescription is strong of the effluxion of time has the effect of extinguishing the obligation or the debt in its entirety, and the prescription is weak if the obligation is merely weakened by the effluxion of time, but remains in other respects so that it can form the basis of security, novation or set-off of debts. The present Prescription Act recognizes a two-stage prescription. First the action or the right of claim is prescribed so that the debt is rendered unenforceable and after a further effluxion of time the debt itself is fully extinguished. By means of clause 10 (1) this two-stage prescription is now being substituted by a provision in terms of which the debt is not only rendered unenforceable after effluxion of the appropriate period, but is extinguished by prescription. That is why Chapter III, as the heading indicates, deals with the prescription of debts, and no further mention is made of extinctive prescription. In clause 10 (3), however, it is provided that payment by the debtor of a debt. shall be regarded as payment of a debt. This is necessary for otherwise the debtor would be able to nullify the payment of the extinguished debt if he were to institute the condictio indebiti and in this way create a new source of controversy. The advantage of this new approach is that it is simple and clear. It is difficult to see what good purpose is served by the retention of a weakened debt which can only be of value to the creditor in circuitous ways. After all, the whole purpose of extinctive prescription is to nut an end to the uncertainty brought about by the effluxion of time. To maintain an old debt by weak prescription is anything but conducive to factual certainty. From a legal point of view it is also an anomaly that a prescribed debt obtained by means of extinctive prescription should be able to form the basis for a contract of suretyship, which is the position at present, while the creditor himself is no longer liable. Nor is it logical that a prescribed debt obtained by means of an extinctive prescription which can be done in terms of the Prescription Act, can be deducted from a debt which arose after (I emphasize the word after) the expiration of the period of prescription. After the expiration of the appropriate period the debtor can no longer be compelled to make payment, but payment is effected in an indirect way by means of set-off. As I said earlier, the whole purpose of extinctive prescription is to put an end to the uncertainty brought about by the effluxion of time. To maintain a debt for a further 27 years after the normal three-year period laid down for the institution of an action (apparently the debt only becomes completely prescribed after 30 years) just in case a debt may arise during that period and the first debt can now be paid in an indirect way, cannot be reconciled with the concept which applies in the case of prescription, viz. to have certainty. Although there are other viewpoints, it would appear, according to some of the old writers, that even in Roman-Dutch Law the debt was also extinguished by prescription after expiration of the period laid down by law as the period of prescription. In this connection we think of writers like De Groot, Van Leeuwen, Voet and Van der Linden.

Clause 10 (2) confirms a familiar principle of common law, for which provision is not made in the existing Prescription Act, viz. that subsidiary debt become prescribed together with the principal debt from which it arose.

In clause 11 the periods of prescription of debts are laid down. Section 3 of the existing Prescription Act, which should be read in conjunction with section 13, makes provision for a general period of 30 years, and for shorter periods of one, three, six and 15 years. If we were to glance at section 3 of the existing Act we would see that reference is made there to dissimilar legal concepts which become prescribed. Some are actions, others are contracts, others deal with the price of goods sold or delivered, and so on. Clause 11 now deals with one concept, viz. the periods of prescription of debt which arose from various causes. If we compare the periods in the Prescription Act and the Bill we find that the period of prescription for mortgage bonds, i.e. 30 years, remains unchanged. As far as judgment debts are concerned, only certain judgments become prescribed after 30 years in terms of the existing Act, although the kinds of judgments mentioned appear to be many. In terms of the Bill all judgments will now become prescribed after 30 years. No good reason can be found as to why a judgment which is not carried out within such a long period as 30 years should be maintained any further. Included in the 30-year period now are any debts in respect of any taxation imposed or levied by or under any law. Hon. members will probably be glad to hear this. Under common law extinctive prescription did not apply in respect of taxation owed to the State. In Peri-Urban Areas Health Board v. Estate Breet, 1954, however, the following observation was made, inter alia: “… if the claim is a statutory claim it would only be prescribed in 30 years as it would not be a claim for which a specific period is laid down in the Act”. Consequently it is assumed that the existing general period of prescription of 30 years also applies in respect of taxation, and at the request of the Secretary for Inland Revenue this matter is being confirmed beyond any doubt. I would like to emphasize this point. In section 3 of the existing Act, a long list of things are mentioned in regard to which the right of enforcement becomes prescribed after effluxion of a certain period and then, as a general period of prescription in regard to any action for which no period is stipulated, 30 years is mentioned as a period of prescription.

In the Bill provision is now being made for a general period of three years. Apparently this period is the most general in practice. In view of the purpose of prescription, i.e. to effect certainty where there might otherwise toe uncertainty, it would appear that for a general period a short period is preferable to a lengthy period. The 15-year period of prescription for which provision is being made in the Bill is for the most part in accordance with section 13 of the existing Act. As far as the six-year period of prescription is concerned, it will be noted that, in terms of the existing Act, a six-year period in respect of written contracts is prescribed, unless a shorter period is applicable in terms of the Prescription Act. Now, it is true that the six-year period does not apply to all written contracts. Section 3 (2) (c) (ii) makes provision for a three-year period in respect of any remuneration whatsoever or expenditure payable to any person, whether in terms of a written or verbal contract, for or in connection with services rendered or work done. The same applies in respect of the price of movable property which is sold or delivered, or food and accommodation provided, and so on. The three-year period also applies to interest which is payable in terms of any contract. In terms of the Bill the three-year general period will now apply to any written contract, while the six-year period will still apply to debts which might arise from bills of exchange or any other negotiable instrument. There appears to be no good reason why a six-year period should apply to all written contracts since, should a dispute arise owing to breach of contract, the proof of such breach of contract will of course be based on independent facts. Many less important contracts are sometimes committed to writing and a six-year period would only have the effect of extending the life of such contracts unnecessarily. Apart from that, the provision of a period in these cases is actually arbitrary. Notarial contracts are included in the six-year period because one is dealing here with agreements the formal execution of which in fact subjects the origin of the agreement to less doubt.

An important amendment in clause 11, Mr. Speaker, is that a debt which arises from defamation will now, owing to the provisions of clause 11 (d), become prescribed after three years instead of one year, as is provided in the existing Act. In this connection we can mention that on the Law Revision Committee itself not all the members were agreed as to whether a three-year or a one-year period of prescription should be prescribed. The protagonists of a one-year period believe that defamation suits should be discouraged because they arise from disputes and arguments, and evidence on the facts on which such a suit is based can easily go astray. The protagonists of a three-year period, on the other hand, allege that a person defamed must be given every opportunity of enforcing his rights and that there is no good reason why defamation, which is only one of the forms injuria can take, should be singled out for a particular period of prescription. As far as the legal principles are concerned, the latter standpoint is in my opinion the soundest, juridically speaking. It was subsequently recommended by majority vote that the three-year period should also apply to defamation. In practice it will probably happen that a person defamed will act with expedition precisely because he feels aggrieved and is probably still furious, and because his witnesses are available. Possibly therefore it would make no difference whether a one-year or a three-year period of prescription is prescribed. However, it must be borne in mind that defamation may also take a written form and that evidence, because it is in writing, remains intact. Apart from that, just as in any other case, the person defamed oan only succeed if toe proves his claim, and if he were slow to act he could prejudice himself for he also runs the risk of his evidence going astray. Because there do not appear to be any good reasons for singling out defamation for a special period of prescription the three-year general period of prescription might just as well apply to that, too.

Clause 12 provides the juncture at which prescription begins to run. It appears to be self-evident that prescription only begins to run when the debt becomes due, because after all the creditor cannot collect the debt before it becomes due. Section 5 (1) (d) of the existing Act also contains a provision in this regard. In regard to damages the question arises as to whether a claim for damages on the basis of delict becomes due at the moment the delict is committed or only when the damage takes effect. In the case of Oslo Land Company Ltd. v. The Union Government, 1938, (A.A.) 584, the Appeal Court ruled that prescription commences the moment the delict is committed and not only when the damage takes effect. Provisions which correspond more or less to those in clause 12 (2) and (3), appear in sections 5 (1) (a), 5 (1) (c) and 7 (1) (e) of the existing Act.

Clause 13 of the Bill provides in which cases the completion of prescription may be delayed. The general rule in the operation of suspension is that the period of suspension is added to the period of prescription, regardless of when the suspension takes place. In this clause, however, the running of prescription is only suspended at present if the grounds for suspension exist at the end of the period of prescription. The grounds which suspend prescription are all related to the creditor’s ability to collect the debt, and this ability is only of importance when the period of prescription nears completion. For that reason it is now being provided that the period of prescription is not completed before a year has elapsed after the said impediment has ceased to exist As far as the grounds for suspension are concerned, the pattern of section 7 of the existing Act is followed to a certain extent. However, the application of the expression “legally incapacitated” is avoided. The term “legally incapacitated” is in fact, juridically speaking, nonsense, for a person is according to law a bearer of rights and privileges, and to be legally incapacitated would therefore mean that a person could not be the hearer of rights, and would legally therefore be completely non-existent. Explicit reference is made in clause 13 (1) (a) to minority, insanity, or a person under curatorship, and superior force. In this connection I must point out that there is an Appeal Court decision which ruled that superior force included a statutory provision. During the Committee Stage I shall move an amendment to eliminate certain objections which hon. members on this side of the House had by ensuring that the term “superior force” shall also mean a statutory provision and a court order. I have already, under clause 3, dealt with the position in regard to “insanity”. What I said there of course applies here as well. Here I just want to add that where a person was “unconscious” upon the commencement of the period of prescription, and we are dealing with a debt which did not arise out of agreement, the provisions of clause 3 apply. That clause provides that a claim does not become due while the claimant has no knowledge of it.

Clause 13 (1) (e) is a new provision which is self-evident. Clause 13 (1) (f), (g) and (h) are mentioned in section 6 of the existing Act as grounds for interruption of prescription. It is not clear why these activities should interrupt the running of prescription and should cause a new period of prescription to commence. They appear to be more appropriate grounds for suspension of prescription, and that is why they are being included in this clause. Clause 13 (2) of the Bill makes provision for the period of prescription of reciprocal debts and needs no further elaboration. Section 6 (1) (b) of the Prescription Act makes provision for the ways in which extinctive prescription is interrupted by the debtor by way of an admission of guilt. The principle that an acknowledgment of liability interrupts the running of prescription, is retained in clause 14 (1), but it is not deemed necessary to specify the ways in which an acknowledgment can take place.

Clause 15 makes provision for judicial interruption. It is almost self-evident that prescription can be interrupted by timeous action on the part of the creditor. Section 6 (1) (b) of the existing Act also provides that extinctive prescription is interrupted by service on the debtor of a process by which means an action could be commenced. The rest of this clause follows mutatis mutandis the same pattern as clause 4 of the Bill.

In view of the fact that chapter III of the Bill introduces a new principle in this respect that a debt is now extinguished upon effluxion of the appropriate period of prescription, and not only makes a right unenforceable, as in the case of the existing Act, it is now being provided in clause 16 (1) that chapter III applies to any debt which arose after the commencement of the Act and the statutory provisions which applied to the prescription of a debt before the commencement of the Act were maintained by clause 15 (2). Hon. members will also note that in clause 16 (1) it is provided that chapter III is applicable save in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of any Act of Parliament. The reason therefor is that other considerations apply in regard to prescription provisions in other laws and separate legislation is being envisaged in so far as it may affect the institution of actions against provincial administrations and local authorities. The Association of Law Societies desires that all prescription provisions in all laws should be consolidated into one law, but this aspect has already been gone into, and I can now state here that it will not be practicable to include all prescription provisions in such a comprehensive act. Chapter IV contains a few general, regulatory clauses.

Clause 17 (2) of the Bill corresponds to section 14 of the Prescription Act, while the provision in clause 17 (1) makes it unnecessary, in effect, for the plaintiff to state in his pleadings that the debt has not yet become prescribed. The existing Act, except for certain exceptions, binds the State. This principle is being reconfirmed in clauses 18 and 19. As far as clause 18 is concerned, reference can for example be made to section 3 of the State Land Disposal Act, 1961, and section 9 of the Forest Act of 1968.

Because prescription is unknown in Bantu law it is provided in clause 20 that the provisions of the Act shall not apply where any right or obligation of any person against any other person is governed by Bantu law. The date of commencement of the Bill will be determined by Proclamation, particularly with a view to the fact that we will introduce legislation next year dealing with the provincial administrations and local authorities. With that, Mr. Sneaker, I think I have elucidated the most important aspects of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker …

Mike, when is your birthday?

There are some things that grow old. but never wither. I can not answer for myself, but I think the spirit that exists on this side of the House is one of them, and will never be subject to prescription.

Mr. Speaker, what I have to say will obviously be merely an epilogue to this interesting historical novel which the hon. the Deputy Minister has read to the House. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister must be congratulated for getting through this magnum opus without even having a drink of water. Despite the interjection of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, it ought to be quite clear to him now, after listening to the Deputy Minister’s speech, what the position is. But we are dealing here with a most difficult and very technical subject, a subject which history may well show has been made more difficult and less comprehensible by this Bill. That is something history might show. The Bill does seem to us to clarify many of the difficulties which existed in the past. To my knowledge, the Law Revision Committee has been busy with the subject of prescription for at least 13 years. That is sufficient indication of the technical difficulties which even their Lordships, the various professors and members of the legal profession, have had to deal with.

I do not really know what the urgency for this Bill is. I thought that the hon. the Minister would have indicated that a consolidating Bill would be brought before the House to deal with the prescription of claims against local and provincial authorities. That would have been a more urgent and necessary Bill to introduce at this stage. [Interjection.] It seems the hon. member for Houghton is having an effect not only on the Deputy Minister of Justice, but also on the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Éducation as well. One assumes that it is about justice. The hon. the Deputy Minister says he is going to introduce a Bill dealing with prescription of claims against local authorities and the provincial councils. I hope the hon. the Minister is going to do so very soon. That is perhaps the most important consolidating measure relating to prescription that we should have. We should have it urgently. The situation at the moment is quite impossible. One does not know from one local authority to another, from one provincial administration to another or from one Government Department to another when one’s claim against the State becomes prescribed. One cannot assume that it is after a certain period by looking at one particular statute. In one province it is different, as I say, from another and very often from one local authority to another, as well as from one Government Department to another. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will introduce that consolidating measure as soon as possible.

This Bill had been, as I said, before the Law Revision Committee for all this time. They attempted not only to consolidate the law, but also to codify it. One either believes in codification of our law or one does not believe in it. My own personal view is that codification is not necessarily a good thing. It makes the law a little more rigid than it was before. I do not think that there has ever been that much difficulty about the common law that it needed to be codified. In its codification a number of changes have taken place. Perhaps the most important one of all is that the expression nec vi, nec clam, nec precario in clause 1 has now been deleted from the definition that was in the old Act. What we want to know is why? Why is nec vi (one must possess without having obtained possession by-force) no longer to be part of our law in relation to prescription? The only reason the hon, the Deputy Minister gave was that none of the old writers in fact mentioned this. I do not think that is a good reason. I think it displays a predilection for old writers that is perhaps regrettable, that the common law must be codified in the light of what the old writers said. The whole conception of prescription, of nec vi, nec clam, nec precario has for centuries been developed, clarified and added to by our Judges in our courts.

Now, Sir, every single judgment that there has been on the subject of prescription will have to be re-examined in the light of this Bill, because all those judgments proceeded on the basis that you had a prescriptive right, provided you exercised it nec vi, nec clam, nec precario.

And adversely.

Yes, and adversely, as for instance in the judgment on the Nabygelegen Estates case which the hon. the Deputy Minister quoted. There the Chief Justice said that it must be adverse to the owner and not only nec vi, nec clam, nec precario. One would have thought in any event that all these tests which had been developed and applied would have remained in the Bill which is before us.

There is another change which the hon. the Deputy Minister did not deal with in his Second Reading speech. That is that prescription now extinguishes the debt, whereas under the present law, after prescription has run, your right to enforce your claim is extinguished. It becomes unenforceable under present law. In other words, if you have a claim against Smith and it becomes prescribed by the effluxion of time, you cannot enforce that right under present law. But if, after the effluxion of the period of prescription Smith then has a claim against you, you are in law now entitled to set off the debt which Smith owes you against the debt which you owe Smith. That would seem to be a very good and fair rule of equity. That is why it was an unenforceable right and not an extinguished right. You could always set it off against a claim or a debt that Smith had against you at a later stage. Now it is extinguished. The debt is now, in this Bill, extinguished. You no longer have the right to set it off. The hon. the Deputy Minister did not deal with this. I hope he will in his reply.

I did deal with it.

I am sorry, The hon. the Deputy Minister did not justify why the right of set-off as a rule of equity should now be abolished. We should like to hear the hon. the Deputy Minister on that subject.

Mr, Speaker, there are other aspects of this Bill which obviously we will have to deal with in Committee. I should, however, like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister now about a certain expression which is used in clause 1. This is, after all, a most important clause. This clause, inter alia, reads: “… any periods for which such thing was so possessed by his predecessors in title …”. Should this not rather be “… his predecessors in possession” rather than “in title”? Title indicates ownership. Possession is that which makes up your ownership after 30 years. I am just making that point but it is an important point because there are many other such words which exist in the various clauses of this Bill, which we think need examination in the Committee Stage.

I also wish to refer to clause 13 which deals with the interruption of prescription. I cannot think of a more difficult way of expressing the simple thought that prescription is interrupted by certain events. The present Act is very clear about this. It is very clear on the point as to when prescription is interrupted, whether it be the lodging of a claim with the executor of a deceased estate, or an insolvent estate, or a company in liquidation. The words that appear in clause 13, to say the very least, are somewhat unclear, especially those used in subsection (1) (i) and the last part of that clause. We will come back to that in the Committee Stage.

Perhaps the most important change that is being made by this Bill is that rights under written contracts are now prescribed after three years. Under the existing Act your rights in terms of a written contract only become prescribed after six years.

Not all, only certain contracts.

The existing Act mentions “written contracts”. Now it is to be bills of exchange and the other contracts that are mentioned. Surely the ratio of prescription and one of the justifications for it, is that if in the case of a contract, you have not enforced your rights or done anything about it after (say) three years, then you do not deserve to have the right to do so, because you have not taken any interest. But the basis of that thought is in fact that the evidence by that stage is somewhat old. You cannot rely upon it. If it is evidence of an event some three years before, then it becomes a matter of public policy that your rights should be prescribed after that period. People do not remember and a trial would produce all sorts of other difficulties in connection with such a contract, A written contract, however, is in writing; it is there and it remains. The evidence of that contract remains. There seems to us, subject to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s explanation, to be no justification for reducing the period of prescription of a written contract, because the evidence of the contract is always, there. This is one of the reasons why people enter into a written contract, because it is sure and the evidence of that contract is certain and will remain so throughout a very much longer period of time.

But as I have said, this is a Committee Stage Bill. There are all sorts of aspects which we would like to discuss. I should like to mention some of the sort of things we would like to discuss. Clause 10 (2) for instance reads—

Now, the expression “arose from” is an unusual one. Will the hon. the Deputy Minister perhaps indicate to us what sort of debt he has in mind? What sort of subsidiary debt arises from a principal debt except interest? Interest is the one that comes to mind immediately.

Surety.

No, but with surety there are two people involved who have the same debt. The surety has the same debt as the principal. It does not arise-from the principal debt.

And if it arises from a judgment?

A judgment?

It is a subsidiary debt that arose from a judgment.

A judgment is a subsidiary debt of what?

Of the original debt on which you sued.

No. A judgment and the costs that flow from the judgment is a debt …

The costs that flow from the judgment.

Yes, but the costs that flow from the judgment are costs that flow from an Order of Court, not from an obligation. This is the sort of thing which we would like to deal with in Committee to get some clarity as to what exactly these words mean.

I also wish to refer to clause 19 which reads: “This act shall bind the State.” Now, I remember that in 1961 we passed the State Land Disposal Act, Act No. 48 of 1961, which provides in section 3—

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could tell us in his reply just how this clause 19 is likely to affect that provision; whether it does affect it; whether it is intended to affect it and whether in fact, the drafters of this Bill had this in mind when this provision was put in?

One appreciates that the hon. the Deputy Minister will be somewhat wary about amending this Bill, because it comes from the Law Revision Committee. However, I think there are aspects of it which deserve the attention of this House. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will indicate to us whether he is prepared in fact to consider these amendments in the Committee Stage, having regard to the fact that the whole web was weaved by the Law Revision Committee. This is a Committee Stage Bill. At this stage we offer no objections to it because, as I have said, it produces clarity to at least the reader of the Bill. At Committee Stage we will seek further clarification. Then we will move what amendments we feel will make it clearer and accord with our views of what we think prescription should be.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban (North) actually left us in doubt; the kind of doubt of which he said there were numerous examples in the Bill. He kissed the young lady, but refused to become engaged to her.

In the first place, I want to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister who has introduced his first piece of legislation as Deputy Minister of Justice.

It was his second one.

Then it is a very good second one. I want to say that this Second Reading speech he recorded in Hansard as a scientific contribution towards our legal literature. It vas an exceptional contribution which other members in this House may have found highly technical or possibly boring, but one which was extremely interesting to lawyers. While it deals with prescription and while the hon. member for Durban (North) complained that nec vi. nec clam, nec precario has disappeared, we should nevertheless grant the hon. the Deputy Minister that he had introduced this legislation, that he advanced the reasons and that he changed the law nec vi. nec clam, and possibly even with precario.

What does that mean?

Do hon members want to know what that means? Nec vi. nec clam. means without force and openly without doing it in secret.

We on this side of the House want to thank the Deputy Minister for having agreed to the amendments we had asked for and which appeared on the Order Paper. I did not hear quite clearly whether the Deputy Minister also said that he was prepared to extend the amendment as it appeared on the Order Paper, namely after “force” to insert “including any law”, to include an order of court as well. We thank him in advance for that concession. As has been said by the hon. member for Durban (North), we shall of course discuss matters further during the Committee Stage.

Although this matter is such a technical one, I think it is essential that the fact should be stressed that this should not be regarded merely as a field of practice for lawyers. I think it is essential that hon. members in this House as well as the public outside should realize that we are dealing here with a Bill which affects all of us. It affects the landowner, it affects the owner of any business undertaking which one may sell or possess or inherit; it affects every creditor and every debtor; it affects every buyer and seller where credit is given. It also affects the relationship between spouses; it affects the position of minors as well as people who are mentally disordered. It affects people who want to submit claims for compensation because they have suffered damages, whether as a result of a delict or as a result of a breach of contract. This Act therefore virtually covers the whole field of our activities in both legal and commercial traffic. Therefore it does not only serve as a field of praotice for lawyers, but it is legislation which may affect all of us at one stage or other of our lives. This being the case, and while the hon. member for Durban (North) objected to a certain extent to what he termed the codification of the Common Law, I want to tell the hon. the Minister on the other hand that it was high time that we had certainty as regards certain aspects of the Prescription Act. I may describe this legislation as a measure which has the following features: consolidating, amending, and codifying. It is also a Bill which creates law and we want to express our gratitude on that score. Since the hon. member for Durban (North) did not feel very happy about the matter, I want to associate myself with and refer to an authority which may impress that hon. member as well. I am referring to the hon. Senator Cadman in the Other Place who said the following in connection with this Bill—

In the light of the opinion of such an authority in this connection, I trust that the hon. member for Durban (North) …

Is it not out of order for an hon. member to quote from the Hansard of the Other Place on the same Bill in the same session?

It seems to me they do not like it.

Order! The hon. Whip is hitting below the belt now! I want to refer the hon. member for Odendaalsrus to Standing Order No. 121. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, in the light of what I have said, I trust that the objections of the hon. member for Durban (North) will have become prescribed by the time we reach the Committee Stage. I want to agree that I do not believe that this Bill is and will be the last word that is said about the Prescription Act. The hon. the Deputy Minister also told us that it was not his object to solve every problem which may arise, but merely to indicate the broad guiding lines. Practice will show us where there may still be shortcomings. The hon. member for Durban (North) asked what the urgency was. I want to reply to the hon. member in the light of his own remarks. After all, certain things do become urgent. Surely, if the Law Revision Committee has been considering this matter for the past 13 years—and the hon. member mentioned this figure—the legal scientific investigation should come to an end and the matter should eventually be embodied in legislation. Particularly in the light, of what the hon. the Minister told us, namely that legislation is being considered in respect of the very problems he referred to, in respect of provincial councils and local authorities, I merely want to say that representations have been received from people in the profession asking for these discrepancies to be ironed out. There are discrepancies, for example, where one and the same action is conducted for a period of one month in one province and six months in another province.

This is so. and that is why I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we welcome the announcement be made. We welcome the announcement that those discrepancies will be eliminated. For that reason and because these are matters which apply to provincial and local authorities in particular, it is only right that he should introduce separate legislation. In so far as those who are in favour of a uniform period of time for certain actions ask for other legislation, we should take into account the fact that the existing Acts which laid down specific terms, did so for the sake of specific and practical considerations which are peculiar to the particular actions arising therefrom. For example, I have in mind here actions in terms of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, in terms of which a prescription period of two years applies. As was said by the hon. member for Durban (North), we have to meet one another clause by clause in the Committee Stage. There is no politics involved in this Bill. It is a Bill in respect of which we as lawyers in this House should do our best for the sake of what this Bill is trying to achieve, namely certainty in regard to the law, to turn the semblance of reality into legal reality. In conclusion, we say that we on this side of the House thank the Minister for having furnished us such a clear exposition of a most difficult subject.

I am grateful for the reception given to this difficult measure by the two hon. members who participated in this debate The hon. member for Durban (North) had certain misgivings and said we were in fact codifying the common law. I want to point out to him that the common law, as far as this subject is concerned, was codified to a certain extent by the old Act we now want to replace, and that it, was essential to do so at that time. I want to quote one judgment in which an hon. judge expounded his views on the old Act which we are replacing now, as long ago as 1955. In the case Swanepoel v. Bloemfontein Town Council in 1950, Mr. Judge President De Beer said the following—

And now he is referring to the existing Act of 1943—

It was high time we introduced legislation in substitution of that Act and therefore we considered it a matter of urgency to introduce this Bill at this stage after careful consideration has been given to this matter. The hon. member also had misgivings concerning the concept of nec vi nec clam nec precario for which we are substituting the concept that a man should have been in possession of something as if he were the owner. He said I had not explained why these concepts had become redundant. I tried to point out that in regard to the concept of nec vi, for example, one could hardly imagine a man having possession by force of another’s property for 30 years. If he were to withhold one from one’s property for 30 years by force, one would have a series of remedies to employ against him. The concept of being able to possess property by force over a period of 30 years, is completely outdated. With regard to the question of nec precario, I tried to point out that actually it was no longer necessary to have that concept, as that in itself, according to the decisions of our courts, was no longer adequate since the English legal concept of “adverse possession” had been brought in to give meaning to nec precario. Therefore the value of nec precario has in fact fallen away as well, while nec clam is included now in the concept of someone having had to have possession as though he were the owner. Therefore I think I did try to indicate that there was sufficient reason for us to do away with those ideas. The hon. member also dealt with clause 13 about which he had misgivings. I hope that during the Committee Stage, when we shall deal with clause 13 and when I shall move the amendment, his misgivings will fall away. In connection with his remarks concerning the running of prescription for a period of six years, i.e. in respect of certain contracts a period of prescription of six years will no longer be required but a period of three years, I should like to point out that in the existing Act the period of prescription, the difference between three years and six years, was not the period of prescription for written and oral contracts. The fact of the matter is that under existing law, numerous oral and written contracts have a prescription period of three years. There is a whole series of such contracts and there are a few exceptions, which would be written ones, in which case the period of prescription is six years. We are of the opinion that the six-year period should be sufficient for that practice which is applicable to negotiable instruments and for the solemnity with which an antenuptial contract has been entered into. The hon. member also had misgivings, as there were misgivings in the Other Place as well, about subsidiary debt, a debt arising from the principal debt. The only explanation I can find for his misgivings is that his concepts of law may be orientated towards English Law, but subsidiary debt is a very definite expression in Roman Law. A subsidiary debt is a surety contract. One cannot have a surety contract for a debt which no longer exists. If the debt for which someone had stood surety, was extinguished, surely no surety contract could exist in respect of an extinguished debt. This is a subsidiary debt which has arisen from the principal debt. There are other debts as well, for example, interest, which I mentioned, which arise from the principal debt, and one cannot pay interest on a debt which no longer exists. If the debt is extinguished and a judgement is given, then that replaces the debt and the subsidiary debt will fall away as well. I think we can settle those matters later. The hon. member also had misgivings about clauses 18 and 19. I should just like to point out that clause 18 deals with the matter which is referred to in clause 19. The matter ought to be clear to him now.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

When the debate was adjourned we were dealing with certain allegations made by certain members opposite in regard to the motor industry. I would like to tell the hon. members and this Committee that the Motor Industry Federation has in its eight divisions complaints committees and complaints of the nature brought to this House by the hon. member for Randburg could quite easily be dealt with by these committees. As I said before, I am pleased to note that the Minister is going to take up the matter with the Motor Industry Federation direct. Another point I think we must clear up as well is in regard to motor convoys. I do not think it is realized that the original background of these convoys was the lack of accommodation on the Railways to move cars. Furthermore, there are numbers of towns in this country which are not in communication direct by rail and of necessity cars have to be driven there.

What about motor transport?

Yes, they can go by motor transport as well. The position is that quite a number of owners go to fetch their own cars from the factory. If a person buys a car, no reputable dealer would hold back the fact that the car in question had been driven to his garage. The remarks I made in the Transport Vote on the special control instrument that is fitted to one vehicle in the convoy, and not on all—that does in fact happen. While there may be an irresponsible driver in a convoy, on the whole they are well controlled. Furthermore, these convoys are recognized by the provincial administration and special legislation has been passed to cover these convoys. The odd car that is damaged is one in a hundred, and that is replaced, it is never sold. No firm of repute would sell a car to anybody, if it was damaged or misused on the way.

The other point was in regard to the overtrading as far as filling stations are concerned. I think the Minister could tell this House, too, that the Government controls this very closely. They have a rationalization plan with the oil companies—not with the industry, but with the oil companies. The establishment of filling stations and garages is controlled by the Government, and they watch that situation very closely. While we may consider that there is over-trading in regard to filling stations, the Government’s policy is that of free trade, and I hope it is one which they will always maintain, and in regard to allowing new oil companies to come into the industry, that has been their policy and up to now it has worked. Quite a number of the new stations being built to-day by the oil companies are to replace those which have closed down. As a dealer myself, I would like to see less than there are at the moment, because it would be to my advantage, but at the same time my party and I stand for free trade and we would like to see that principle maintained by the Government.

In the few minutes I have left I would like to get back to our export trade. Since our last debate we have had rumblings overseas and we have seen a change in the value of the franc and to-day we know there are discussions going on at top level in regard to the revaluation of the mark. I think the House would like to hear from the Minister what the reaction of the Government is going to be and what effect the revaluation of the mark will have on our export trade to the Continent. Currencies will probably be revalued accordingly if the German mark is revalued. In regard to exports, I would like to pay tribute to the work done by Safto. They have done very good work, although our exports are down, but I should like to know whether the Government could not encourage, financially or otherwise, more trade delegations going from this country overseas. I am one of those who have the greatest confidence in the articles manufactured in this country, especially the motor components. I think they are good, if not better, than the articles manufactured overseas. If we could encourage this, as far as the motor industry is concerned, we could cut the cost of our cars in this country by a substantial amount. The very small demand for the parts manufactured in this country for our local content naturally puts the prices up and we should do everything possible and the Government should encourage exporters to export overseas. The best way to do these things is to have some contact. There is nothing like personal contact and the Government should encourage industrialists to proceed overseas to make these contacts. I would like to see it on an official basis with the Government’s backing, because a delegation that proceeds overseas with no real backing does not get very far. A trade delegation that goes overseas with the Government’s backing has the Open Sesame to the various official avenues of contact. It gives them a standing, and it is standing we want.

I would also like to see the Government encourage and assist the financing of trade exhibitions. At a lot of the trade exhibitions overseas, it has been said that in some places we are only represented by one or two individuals and by photographs; there is no live exhibition. In other words, we do not exhibit the articles we manufacture here. That is something we should go into, in order to encourage our exports. There are rio two ways about it that we cannot live within ourselves. We have to export. We have gold as an exportable item but we have to look at our secondary industries and we have to encourage our exports.

Sir, this session we are receiving official departmental reports just as debates are about to start; it seems to have become a habit. I was pleased therefore to receive this report on metrication. The report was only put into our boxes to-day, and it is difficult to examine the report in such a very short time. However, a quick glance at this report shows that the United States have not adopted metrication. I Would like to ask the hon. the Minister to encourage standardization to a large extent when we adopt the metric system. Lack of standardization in the motor industry, for instance, in items such as bolts, nuts, and threads, puts up the cost tremendously, and firms have to carry enormous stocks of various sizes. The world tendency to-day is to standardize as far as possible, and I hope that the Minister will prevail upon the board handling metrication to press for standardization. I understand that there is an international committee working on standardization and that we are represented on it, but this is something that we should watch. You see, Sir, it is going to be difficult to reduce costs to any extent until we can induce the United States to go in for metrication. [Time expired.]

Sir, there is one matter that I want to raise with the hon. the Minister and it is in connection with the question which I put to him earlier this session, about South Africa’s participation in Expo 70 in Osaka, Japan. The Minister told me in reply to my question that South Africa did not intend participating in this important international exposition. He said that the Department had carefully investigated the possibilities and the financial implications of participation, and he said that if the Republic were to erect a really meaningful pavilion at the Exhibition, the costs involved would be exorbitant. Sir, I think this is a very great shame. I say so because I was very sorry to see when I went to Expo 1967 in Montreal, Canada, that South Africa was not exhibiting at that Exposition, which was a magnificent effort in which something like 62 countries participated and something like 53 million people attended. Practically every country that one can think of was exhibiting, and was generally speaking advertising itself, if not its wares, to the rest of the world. Among the countries exhibiting were many of the African states, some of them absolutely minor countries in comparison with South Africa, and I thought it was a great shame that we were not represented there. Now I see that we are going to make the same mistake at Expo 70 in Osaka. However succesful the Montreal Expo was, I am quite sure that the Japanese are going to go all out to make this a magnificent international exposition. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the decision already taken cannot be reconsidered. As has been mentioned by the hon. member who spoke before me, it is essential for this country to increase her exports. Our industrial manufactured goods have to be exported. Gold is a declining asset and we are not likely for ever to be able to rely on gold as our major source of foreign exchange. Here we have a marvellous opportunity and we certainly can afford it. I do not believe that a country with our economic advantages is unable to afford to put up a meaningful exhibition at Osaka, Japan, next year. Sir, I want to quote the hon. the Minister’s own words. He encourages South African producers and exporters to prepare themselves for the possible adverse results which would follow if Britain were allowed to join the E.C.M. for instance (which is a much more decided possibility since the disappearance of Gen. De Gaulle.) Surely this is another aspect which the hon. the Minister ought to take into consideration. We are going to have great difficulty in finding markets if Britain joins the E.C.M., and it is important that we have alternative markets. Every country in the world will be shopping at Expo 70. Why is South Africa not going to exhibit there? Sir, we have exhibited at other international fairs. Quite recently we exhibited in the Comptoir de Martigny in Switzerland, in October, 1968 and I see from an article published in Commerce and Industry that during the nine days that the fair was open it was visited by some 65,300 visitors, of whom it is estimated 80 per cent viewed the South African pavilion. It is stated in this Commerce and Industry article that South Africa’s participation had no doubt contributed to a better understanding of South Africa and also towards making the Republic’s products known in this part of Switzerland. Sir, I am more ambitious. I think we should not only make our products better known in Switzerland; I am interested in our doing so at this huge international fair which is going to take place next year. I think it would be bad for our prestige, bad for our industrial development and bad for our export potentialities if we did not reconsider our decision and take part in Expo 70.

Then I want to ask the Minister whether his attention has been drawn to an article which appeared in the May 2 edition of the Financial Mail; it is entitled “Beads for Ivory Tusks”, and the sub-title is that “African shoppers are at the mercy of high prices and excessive finance charges. Consumer protection is urgently needed.” I do not know just what sort of inspectorate the hon. the Minister has at his disposal. Judging by the shortage of manpower in this country, it is probably not what is required. I do say that attention ought to be devoted to this because African customers are notoriously liable to exploitation. It is quite clear from the survey done by the Financial Mail that in fact they are being subjected to a lot of exploitation under hire-purchase agreements, where the maximum finance charges are not being observed by many of the people in the retail trade. This refers particularly to the furniture dealers. I will pass this article on to the hon. Minister, in case he does not have it.

I have it.

I hope he will take special note of the last little paragraph which says—

I hope that this will be taken up by the relevant Department. It may, of course, fall under Finance; I am not too sure, but it ought to be taken up by one or other of the relevant departments.

The final little point that I want to make is this: I was not here when there was a great deal of discussion on the handing out of licences to garages. I was not here unfortunately on Wednesday night. If I had been here I would have intervened simply to express the hope that if the Minister is going to consider this …

Where were you on Wednesday night?

I was addressing a jolly good meeting. The point I want to make is that I hope the hon. the Minister is going to review this and see to it that garages provide some sort of service over the weekend.

Order! That falls under Industries, not under Commerce.

How is it then that everybody else raised it under Commerce?

I told hon. members when they spoke about that it fell under Industries.

Then I shall write to the Minister instead.

The hon. member for Houghton referred to the article which appeared in the Financial Mail of 2nd May. i.e. “Beads for Ivory Tusks”. In that article it is claimed that excessively high finance charges were being levied in selling certain articles, mainly furniture. I want to point out that the Limitation and Disclosure of Finance Charges Act came into operation on 1st April, 1969. It is not clear from this article whether reference is being made to the position before or after the commencement of this Act. If it took place after 1st April, it is obviously an offence and this is the kind of offence of which the Police should be informed, because there is legislation under which steps can be taken. Certain calculations were made in this article and, if these calculations are correct, a higher percentage is being levied in respect of finance charges than is laid down in the Act. This is therefore a matter which can be referred to the Police when specific charges are made. If persons are aware of offences and they bring them to the notice of the Police, steps will be taken.

The hon. member also referred to the exposition in Japan, Expo 70, and wanted to know why we were not taking part in it. She also wanted to know why we did not take part in the one held in Canada. The position is that these international expositions, the socalled Expos, are of a prestige nature, as the hon. member rightly said. If we want to take part in such an exposition, it is estimated that it would cost the State in the vicinity of R1 million merely to provide the necessary building and facilities there …

It is worth it.

… and the question is whether it is worth the trouble. It is no use our erecting a prestige exhibition there if our exhibitors do not take part in it. Our exhibitors have learnt from experience that it is hardly worth the trouble to take part in this type of exhibition which is more in the nature of a prestige exhibition. The industrialist has to have his staff there; he has to deliver and exhibit his articles there, and therefore it costs a great deal. It was their experience that this was not worth the trouble. Consequently representations have not been made to us by industry and commerce themselves to the effect that we should take part in the exhibitions on a large scale.

The hon. member also referred to the exposition in Switzerland. That was not an Expo such as these; this was more in the nature of a specialized exhibition. Our exporters are far more inclined to take part in these specialized exhibitions. We have an amount of more than R200,000 which we are making available. We prefer to spend that money on helping industrialists in regard to exhibitions in which they are in fact interested.

The hon. member for Salt River also referred to our exports and to the importance of expositions It is always difficult to induce our industrialists to take part in expositions, but we have the co-operation of organized commerce and the industrial sector as well as Safto, to assist us in this effort. I do think that we have made progress in our attempt to persuade people to exhibit in countries abroad. The hon. member also referred to motor car component parts, and said that we should export on a larger scale. It is quite correct that although we are pursuing the policy of increasing our South African content, one of our basic problems is the question of quantities. The bigger the turnover the lower the units cost, and if it is possible to export, it helps to reduce the unit cost. Some of our industrialists are already exporting successfully with our cheap steel which is of good quality, some of our industrialists are competing successfully on the foreign market.Big industrialists from Europe have been visiting our country in recent times. It appears that they are more and more inclined to proceed to manufacturing certain articles here in South Africa and then to export them and build them into motor cars intended for the European Continent and for other parts of the world as well. Therefore the course the hon member advocated here definitely holds possibilities. It is desirable that effort be continued, and we on our part are giving our industrialists every support for continuing with it.

Sir, the hon. member also referred to the importance of metrification. This process of metrification is rapidly getting into its stride. The fullest co-operation exists in many sectors of our industries as a whole, and the hon. member may rest assured that the Metrification Board, as well as the staff assisting in the implementation thereof, are aware that this opportunity should be used for the purpose of standardizing as much as possible, and also in that respect we have the fullest co-operation of the private sector to help to accomplish this. The hon. member said that at the moment negotiations were being conducted in regard to the revaluation of the mark. He wanted to know what the possible effect of that could be. I understand that it has already been announced this afternoon that the German Bank and the German Government decided against a German revaluation. Therefore the position remains unchanged. At this stage I think that it is unnecessary to speculate any further on the possible effects of such a step.

The hon. member as well as the hon. member for Stilfontein, referred to various methods used for conveying motor cars. There are three methods. Motor cars can either be conveyed by Rall, or by road under their own power, or by lorry. Seven or eight cars are loaded onto such a lorry. It is quite correct to say that the Railways cannot convey all the cars. Nor can they convey these cars to all the various points. Consequently there must be alternative methods of transport. As I have said, there are two other methods. One of those methods is for such cars to be driven in convoys. I have been informed that these convoys are usually under the control of a person who accepts full responsibility for them. The motor car which leads the convoy, or at any rate the motor car of the person who is in charge, has an instrument whereby the speed is kept at a certain level. These cars are never driven for more than 12 hours per day. Every two hours all of them stop. Where necessary these cars are seen to. The objections that have been made, are to the fact that there are dealers who convey motor cars by road, after which they turn the speedometer back. I am not quite sure whether all of them do this, but the Motor Industries Federation have informed us that it is their policy that motor car dealers should indicate on the order form whether a vehicle has been delivered from the assembly factory by road, under its own power. This is a rule which must be applied. They are of the opinion that dealers ought to see to it that this is in fact done. In this way it is possible for a buyer to know whether a motor car has been conveyed by road or by lorry. It appears that there are certain buyers who, when they buy a new motor car, prefer the speedometer to stand at nil. In some cases a buyer is entitled to a few thousand miles’ free service. In such cases they know that when they start at nil, the car has to go back for a service at a fixed time. It may be that other buyers, in turn, would prefer the original mileage to be reflected on the speedometer. However, we shall follow up these representations with the Motor Industries Federation to see whether a more satisfactory arrangement can be made as far as this aspect is concerned. The other method of transport is, as I have said, by lorry. If this is done one can be sure that these cars have not been driven. But then it is also being claimed that before leaving the factories, these cars are in any case being test-driven. This can be regarded as part of the test so that motor cars may be repaired if any further defects in their assembly should come to light. I have also been informed that the Motor Industries Federation, as well as Rondalia and the A.A., also assist as far as caravans are concerned. It is also seen to that they do not contravene any traffic ordinances, that they do not drive too fast and that they comply with certain minimum requirements agreed upon mutually. At this stage there is only a small percentage of motor cars which are conveyed by lorry. This may be something which will become more extensive. As regards the objections on the part of the public against speedometers being turned back, this is a matter which we shall investigate.

The hon. member for Pinetown referred to the allegedly different criteria applied by the Price Controller as regards requests for price increases, even where the very same article was concerned. He said that there might be discrimination in applying the Price Controller’s criterion. I want to point out that there are two systems. One of them is the system of price control when a price for an article is determined, and in other cases one has the freezing of existing prices. When price control is introduced, it is usually as a result of representations made by a group of industrialists for the price of an article to be determined on a national basis. Then they apply it as a group, and in that case one finds, as one does in the Case of cement, that the basic price is determined. In such cases, the Price Controller checks these prices with the whole industry. Average expenditure is taken into account, and an average price is determined in accordance with the average profits that are made. But when freezing takes place, the position is different. When freezing takes place, it may have the effect that one and the same article has different prices. Here I am thinking of the building industry, for instance. There are sectors of the building industry where prices are negotiated jointly, but there are also other sectors of the building industry where prices have been frozen. In such eases they make individual representations for prices to be adjusted or increased. In such cases this causes problems because the expenditure incurred by industrialists is not always the same. The one might not be as strong an undertaking as the other. In such a case the same price is not always determined. After all, we do find that there is a tendency, even in these cases, for organizations to approach the Department jointly. We welcome their approaching us in groups, because it may happen that two manufacturers of the same article may be competing in the same vicinity. Differences in prices may then develop. In such cases we are prepared to go into the matter if it is brought to our attention. We shall attempt to equalize prices wherever it is at all possible.

The hon. member also referred to factors which were being taken into account, such as inevitable increases in costs. By that is meant statutory wage increases, increases in the cost of raw materials—over which the manufacturer has no control—or rising transport costs, such as Railway tariff increases. In addition there are increases in municipal rates and taxes, etc. Then this question was asked “What about other wages?” The Price Controller is reluctant to take this fully into account at all times, because if one were to take normal price increases fully into account, it may have the effect that undertakings will steal employees from one another: This, in turn, will be the cause of higher costs, and when the Price Controller has to determine prices, he will have to take this into account as well. This may have an inflationary effect. That is why the Price Controller is not inclined to give, as a matter of course, full credit to that type of increase.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District referred to the legislation relating to monopolies which, as I said, we intend to introduce. According to the hon. member I was supposed to have said that “it is with the concurrence of Commerce on the question of mergers”. I just want to say that there may have been a misunderstanding. What I said was that we consulted with organized commerce and industries, but I do not wish to say in anticipation that it was with their “concurrence”. There are problems in respect of which we may not be in complete agreement. I did not want that statement to go on record like that. The hon. member also referred to the question of resale price maintenance. We have tabled the recommendations which were made by the Board of Trade and Industries and whch cover a whole series of articles; Legislation will no longer be necessary for this purpose, but a resolution taken by both Houses of Parliament will be necessary for confirming those recommendations. There will, therefore, be an opportunity in both Houses for discussing the merits and the problems of the recommendations made by the Board of Trade and Industries.

The hon. member also referred to the possibility that, once price control was abolished, those articles might be used as minimum prices, or so-called loss leaders. The British Act provides that when abuses take place and certain articles are offered in this manner in order to attract customers, the manufacturers may apply for a minimum price to be determined. I may just mention here that, although that provision exists in the British Act and that practice can be followed, it has not been implemented in Britain as yet. There has been no need for that as yet. But the danger did exist here.

The hon. member also referred here to the Monopolies Act and mergers which would be changed. I just want to repeat it here, since reference was made in the Press to what I had said, i.e. that I welcome this take-over of foreign undertakings in South Africa by domestic undertakings. But I added something to that at the time. I noticed that that part had not been quoted. That is why I want to emphasize it once again. The present Monopolies Act provides that, when monopolistic conditions arise which are detrimental to the public, because all monopolistic conditions are not necessarily detrimental, this Act may be implemented and steps may be taken to intervene. I did not comment on that. That is why I added the following in my radio talk [translation]—

I did not comment on the question of what its effects would be if it were to become monopolistic. But I did say that we would watch the position and see how it develops.

The hon. member for Port Natal referred here to Hellenic Lines, to the fact that we took certain steps to indicate that we were dissatisfied with what happened here and that we were discouraging our own importers from making use of Hellenic Lines. In this respect, I think, we should have regard to the full facts. Since before Union up to the present, the position has been that there have been conference lines, shipping companies all of which belong to a group and which act in an organized manner in order to provide us with a regular service, That agreement has the effect that we as the Government also have certain contractual commitments owing to the fact that we entered into an agreement with that group of shipping companies. When disruptive practices arise, it is our duty to protect these conference lines against those disruptive practices. It is our duty in terms of that contract. Hellenic Lines operates between Greece and South Africa. The hon. member emphasized that this arose as a result of the fact that a South African mission, including the Minister, has been there, had tried to promote trade and had pointed out that there was not enough shipping between Greece and South Africa. That may be the case. But now Hellenic Lines has, because of insufficient freight, called at Trieste and shipped goods from Italy. But it does so at a very low tariff. It is so low that even exporters from other countries of the Continent are sending their goods to Trieste in order that they may be shipped from there. The effect of this is that they are taking away freight from these conference lines. The fact that they are taking freight away and shipping goods at a lower tariff, which is up to 40 per cent lower, has caused other exporters in Europe to say, “Look, we are also going to export goods there, or else the conference lines will have to reduce their tariff to South Africa”. We are under strong pressure from other organizations which want this tariff to South Africa to be reduced. This has two adverse effects. In the first instance, it has the disadvantage that when there is a departure from these agreed tariffs, it means that it is possible for South African importers to obtain goods from abroad at lower prices than was the case before. Although we have a protective policy and the Board of Trade and Industries determines tariffs, this results in that protective policy not being wide enough in scope. Then South African manufacturers apply for this tariff to be increased so as to put them in a better position to compete with these goods. Consequently this has a disruptive effect on our whole industrial structure, as well as on our tariff structure. But apart from that we guarantee, in terms of this conference agreement, these shipping companies an 8 per cent return on their investment before tax, on condition that they provide us with a regular service. But what is happening now? If this becomes less profitable to them, if their freight decreases, they come back and say, “You guaranteed us a certain percentage of profit; now we want to increase the tariff.” Now they are bringing pressure to bear on us, not for the freight tariff to South Africa to be increased, but for the freight tariff to countries abroad to be increased. This is detrimental to our exporters. That is why our contract provides that the tariff be revised every two years. That is what has now happened once again. On the previous occasion we had to increase it. That was mainly because of the closing of the Suez Canal and the increased insurance, and so forth, which that involved. It has now become apparent that there is a small surplus over and above the 8 per cent return. We have now negotiated for a reduction. Because of Hellenic Lines very strong pressure was brought to bear upon us so as to induce us to reduce the southward freight tariff. We did not want to reduce that tariff. We wanted to reduce the northward tariff, in view of the fact that our éxporters of deciduous fruit, citrus, our canning industry and some of our other export industries were being affected very adversely. They are affected by any increase in freight tariffs. That is why we wanted a tariff reduction on the northward freight. We succeeded in getting a 5 per cent reduction. But the pressure was for the reverse to happen. It is for that reason, in view of the fact that this company, Hellenic Lines, therefore has a disruptive effect as regards our own industries and our conference lines, that we feel that we want to check it. It is our contractual commitment that we prevent our own shipping companies, our conference lines, from being affected adversely. This shipping line applied to the conference lines for admission. It was then told, “You may join us, but then you must adhere to the provisions. Then you may ship a certain number of cargoes.” But they were not satisfied with that, and are carrying on with this practice. But we also feel that we should, in the first place, try to promote our trade with Italy and the rest of Europe by means of these conference lines, of which our own shipping companies form part. We would rather promote the growth of our shipping company than that of another country. But as regards traffic between South Africa and Italy, I want to say that the Italian shipping companies are also members of that conference. The Italian Government prefers trade with Italy to be conducted by way of Italian ships, and not Greek ships. They are also a member of the conference lines. That is why, in view of the fact that we have international trade, we basically prefer it to be conducted either by means of our own ships or by ships belonging to the country with which we are trading. But I should very much like to know whether these representations which the hon. member is making, i.e. that we should not meet our commitments as far as the conference lines are concerned, are the standpoint of the United Party which he is propagating here. Or is it his own standpoint?

He does not know.

We are very interested to know whether these representations which the hon. member is making on behalf of Hellenic Lines also represent the Opposition’s official standpoint in regard to the conference lines which have served us over all these years and which have been built up to where they stand to-day.

Is there any reason why Hellenic Lines have not been admitted to the conference?

Of course, that is not a reply to my question. I want to know whether it is the official standpoint of the Opposition that Hellenic Lines should be admitted at all costs? The conference said that they could join on condition that they would only be able to ship a certain number of cargoes. They would have to adapt themselves to the general pattern. Hellenic Lines is not prepared to fall in with that. I feel that these conference lines are providing a very important and regular service. It is not an undertaking on which one can try to throw suspicion just like that.

Other hon. members referred to commercial practices. In this respect I should like to refer to what was said by the hon. members for Stilfontein, Turffontein and Potgietersrus. They referred to certain misrepresentations, to alleged, open defrauding and also to the downward trend in ethical standards as far as commerce was concerned. I assume that what they said here does not apply in general, but that they were referring to practices which were being applied by certain dealers only. I suppose that dealers also have black sheep in their ranks. It is misrepresentations of thisnature which result in the buying public being exploited. Since the buying public has to contend with these problems in certain cases, it is right to focus attention on them. In terms of certain laws of this country it is forbidden to take part in certain practices. I just want to refer to some of these laws. We have, for instance, the Price Control Act. Then we have the Weights and Measures Act. The regulations of the Weights and Measures Act were revised recently and promulgated once again. Then we also have the Trade Coupons Act as well as the Trade Marks Act. The Department is at present engaged in revising both of these Acts. This task will be completed shortly. Then these Acts will also deal with certain malpractices which exist. We may therefore look forward to certain pieces of legislation in this regard.

The hon. member for Turffontein also wanted to know whether a commission of experts should not be appointed to enquire into adverse practices. However, I think that once this legislation has been revised, it will cover many of these practices. But I do not think that this is adequate. The dealer himself must do something towards counteracting these practices. Some of the hon. members also referred to the speech recently made by the Secretary for Commerce and Industry in Johannesburg. In his speech he made an appeal to the dealers themselves to assist in setting high standards. They also had to devise formulas and help with the machinery. Reference was made to similar organizations in other countries, such as the Better Business Bureau of the United States and of Canada, as well as the Council of Business Practices of Sweden. It is interesting to know that Assocom has already responded to that. At their latest executive meeting they did in fact refer to it and said—

It is clear, therefore, that this proposal evoked a very favourable response there. This matter will definitely be taken further. But, in the final instance, I also think that the private sector itself, the buying public, should also co-operate. A South African Consumers’ Association is already in existence. They are also backing the representations which were made here. Therefore they are an important sector which must be enlisted in this attempt at protecting the public against these methods. However, I feel that the buyer always has the right to change dealers when a dealer is guilty of this sort of practice.

Reference was also made here to packaging and cases where there were only three peaches in a tin. But there is really no need for our public to fall for that. The mark of the Bureau of Standards is already being stamped on many of our articles which are packed. It is also stamped on canned products. I think our public may be assured of quality when they buy products which bear the mark of the Bureau of Standards.

Reference was also made here to the motor industry in so far as it concerns mechanical work which did not comply with standards. I pointed out that we had a shortage of experienced workmen. The National Association of Motorcar Distributors are engaged in seeing what they can do towards improving the training of these workmen. I think we can expect their co-operation in that regard.

Quite a number of speakers referred to certain malpractices, in that services which were being provided, did not comply with the required standards. I hope that businessmen will take note of the fact that there is some anxiety in this regard in this House. On the behalf of the Department we, along with organized commerce and industries, shall be prepared to go on trying to iron out these problems.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? He never replied to me in regard to the people dismissed as a result of mergers.

Mr. Chairman, I may just tell the hon. member for Port Natal that in cases of mergers, re-organization takes place. Then there is an opportunity for more effective utilization of labour. In such cases it sometimes happens that men over the age of 45 are on the losing side. In any take-over or in any merger it may happen that some rationalization takes place. In that process surplus labour results. This is a difficult situation because the older generation experience problems in obtaining other employment. I think that basically this is a matter in which it is for the Departments of Labour and Community Development to intervene as far as that problem is concerned. I think hon. members will be able to appreciate that, although we are contemplating legislation to amend the Monopolies Act, so that it may also cover certain forms of mergers, it is not in our power to determine that, when a merger takes place, it should be compulsory that all the employees be retained in service. I am afraid that I cannot see how it will be possible for us to make provision for this in the legislation we are contemplating.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 27.—Industries, R11,850,000, Loan Vote J.—Industries, R38,000,000 and S.W.A. Vote 11.—Industries R690,000

Mr. Chairman, I ask for the privilege of the half hour. I should like to direct the attention of the hon. the Minister to the question of the development of industry and his policy in regard thereto.

As a background I should like to refer to four documents. The first is a report which appeared in the Press giving a press summary of an address to the Sakekamer by the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs. The report appeared in the Argus on the 24th March. I welcome the Deputy Minister’s address where he said that risk capital was still wanted. I am sure he will agree with me that we have a long way to go before this country is fully industrialized. The Deputy Minister is as anxious as any one of us to see that the country is industrialized, particularly as industry will have to take the place of many of our gold mines when they close down. But the hon. the Deputy Minister said the following:

With that I agree. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister to what extent his department makes representations to the Department of Immigration to ensure that the technical skilled labour follows the investment. As I read the press report it seems to me that the hon. the Deputy Minister was particularly concerned with encouraging that type of industry which would bring improved skilled labour and technical knowledge to this country. If the hon. the Minister has any influence in regard to immigration I would suggest that he should ask that department to accelerate the granting of the necessary permits for technical people. I know of more than one occasion when industrialists and others have asked to get technical people out to this country and that there had been such a time lag that they have lost promising technical assistants and promising skilled labour. I presume that is the labour which the hon. the Deputy Minister was referring to. The second point made was the following:

Do I understand by that that it is partnership on legal basis, or does he mean by partnership that it should be with the Industrial Development Corporation? Will the industries which come out to this country and are not in partnership still be encouraged? I appreciate that there is the advantage of companies which are still in the experimental stage having the advantage of technical skill from the older countries and marrying their technical skill with the local knowledge of this country. This can vastly improve the position of existing South African companies. The Press report states further:

Will industries which do not go to the border areas still be encouraged? Or is it a requirement that all industries coming to this country must preferably be for border industry development? I ask this question because this Statement interests me “when it involves the question of big labour undertakings which could be established within the border areas”. The report then says:

With this I agree. I think we all want industries establish which could grow sufficiently to provide for the export market as well as the internal market. While I am dealing with the internal market, can it be understood that those industries which develop will not only have the export market available, but also the whole of the internal market? This is a matter which I have raised under another Vote. The other point in the report was:

With this I agree. The last point is as follows:

Do I understand from that that they will be required to undertake research projects in this country, or will they rely on research projects overseas? Many of the industries which come out to this country have the background of many years of research and it is that research which, we want to see in this country. I welcome this article by the hon. the Deputy Minister, but I want to ask for clarification of these points in the country’s interests. There is also another article, namely one dealing with the subject of South Africa and its economic independence future. The following was said by Mr. Jan S. Marais, chairman of The Trust Bank of Africa—

He was delivering a paper entitled “South Africa and its Economic Independent Future” … He said it was high time to place the matter of State competition with private enterprise in the limelight. “Competition by the State, both directly and indirectly, is a danger which has to be guarded against”. On the subject of retaining and fighting for a permanent free capitalistic system, Mr. Marais said, “This is a system which ensures maximum freedom of the individual and stimulates him to the highest achievements, and has built every great and prosperous nation.” With that I agree. Can the hon. the Minister give us the assurance that that is the ideal also of his department? Is Mr. Jan Marais on the right track when he suggests that there is too much Government interference? He went on to say:

That is fairly strong criticism by a man who is generally regarded in business circles as a man who has achieved particular success during recent years. We have to take this as a background when we study The annual report of the Industrial Development Corporation laid on the table a few days ago. In this regard I want to mention the Permanent Committee for the Location of Industry. We received these two reports shortly before the discussion of this Vote and we have had very little time to consider them. On page 7 of the report of the I.D.C. the following is said:

It is quite clear from this report that border development is slowing down and is not maintaining the same pace. On page 9 of the report the following is stated:

This report was issued by a corporation which falls under the control of the hon. the Minister’s department. It is true that the hon. the Minister does not control it as a department, but the hon. the Minister appoints the board and this is the only opportunity we have of discussing the report of the Industrial Development Corporation. This paragraph which I have quoted is veiled criticism of the Government’s activities. I would like to know what the hon. the Minister’s reaction to this is. The report states further:

Having regard to the amount of money which the I.D.C. itself has invested in the textile industry and having regard to the other capital invested in the textile industry one fails to understand why the department has not protected its own capital. Or is the answer that the Board of Trade which investigated the position found that the concerns were not sufficiently efficient to warrant the protection they required? On the one hand the criticism is that there is unutilized capacity due to the competition of more efficient countries and on the other hand there is a plea for protection. I should like to know where the hon. the Minister stands in this regard. Further on, on page 11 of the Report of the I.D.C., I read the following:

Therefore, I want to know whether the Minister intends to respond to this and whether it is true that there is over-importation when the investigations are about to take place. Of course it is true, but here is an implied criticism by the Industrial Development Corporation of the Department of Commerce and Industry for allowing a state of affairs where over-importations take place. I know it is the same Minister who has control of the Industrial Development Corporation, it is the same Minister who is concerned with the allocating of import permits and I fail to see how there can be over-importation if the question of import control is properly disciplined. I am not asking for any further control; all I am asking for is an explanation and the Minister’s reaction to a report of one of his own departments. In their report they go further to say:

This is a further implied criticism against the Minister and his department. Does the Minister agree that there is siting of industries on other than economic grounds or is the siting of industries done on ideological grounds where economics has to take second place? Does the Minister agree with that? It is an important matter, because this comes from a report from a board which was approved of and appointed by the Minister. Does he agree with these suggestions of this corporation that the siting of some industries is not on economical grounds? I ask this, because on page 12 we read the following:

Then some interesting figures are supplied. In the past 8 years some R314 million has been invested in the border areas. The report also states that some 54,000 Bantu were employed during the past eight years. If you divide 54.000 into the figure of R314 million you will find that the cost per head was R5.815. The report continues:

If that forecast is correct, on a basis of R5,815 per head it will mean that R136,652,500 will have to be spent annually to ensure that these 23,500 Bantu are established in the reserves. Is it the Minister’s intention to spend that amount of money? If only a portion is going to be spent, and it is suggested that only a portion will have to be employed through the auspices of the I.D.C., we shall have this position. On the same page I read the following:

On that basis R63,965,000 would have to be spent. In the following paragraph it says that capital participation of this order by the I.D.C. requires about R80 million. Therefore, if it is on the basis of R5,815 per head and 11,000 have to be employed, the figure is R63,965,000. It is obvious that the I.D.C. expects a higher figure for the 11,000 Bantu, namely R80 million, as from 1971. Is it the intention of the Minister to spend money at that rate? Is it in tended that the concentration in the border areas should be on industry? One of the biggest problems, as the Minister will know, is the infra-structure. The I.D.C. has helped industries, and I want to make it quite clear that I am not criticizing the officials or the staff of the I.D.C., many of whom have rendered the country very good service. I am criticizing the department’s policy and the policy of the Minister. I want to ask the Minister for an explanation, because we are concerned about this vast sum of money that is being spent, and we want to ensure that it is spent as efficiently as possible. If we examine some of the cases we shall see that money which is given to assist industry, is spent on housing in some cases. Sometimes the housing is provided some considerable time after the industries had been completed. However, money spent on the infrastructure is not spent at the same rate, although the infra-structure is a very important matter. It you go to an area I know fairly well, namely Hammarsdale, you will find that the factories were built and some considerable time later the services were provided in the way of sewerage works and public services of that nature. Only now are the houses being built. There are a few houses for Europeans, but some people who work in that area have to travel some considerable distance. When a border area is established, in order to get the requisite number of technical staff, the managers, the supervisors and the technicians, you have to provide them with houses. If you provide them with houses, you have to provide them with schools and all the local services which go with a modern society. If you do not provide those services, you have to provide transport over a very long distance. In addition to that you have to provide salary scales which are higher than those which apply to the metropolitan areas in order to induce these people to work in the country. If you enquire in some of these areas you will find that the biggest difficulties are schools for the children and facilities for the womenfolk during the day while their men are at work. There are no local facilities whatsoever and it is quite clear that the acceleration of the development of industry is causing problems. On page 3 of the report of the Permanent Committee for the Location of Industry it says—

Does that phrase mean that it is the I.D.C. which promotes confidence in the Government investments? To what extent has the Industrial Development Corporation been used to help one type of industry to compete against another? To what extent is the Government investment being used as a big stick to force mergers and to force takeover bids? I ask that because that is an important matter and reference to that has already been made under a previous Vote. On page 4 of this report, I quote:

Then they give a few figures in regard to Italy and Australia. But the Government has embarked upon this process of decentralization. Surely where it has embarked on this process of decentralization, it should have given an estimate of the cost; it should have considered the cost factor and should have considered all the problems. Or has it been a case of trial and error, pay as you go and see what happens? I am afraid, from what I have seen of this development of the border areas, it has been mainly concerned with getting the industries started there and insufficient attention has been given to the study of the infrastructure. This report confirms that the Government has found that the costs are a good deal higher than they anticipated What we find is this, that in the border areas we have a further problem. We find that the Bantu working in border industries can be sure of one thing: No matter how hard they train and raise their skills they will be paid less than other workers doing the same job elsewhere. You find men in the border industries acquiring skills and then doing everything possible to get similar work in the big cities where the wages are higher. How far does the Minister think this border industry will last? What is going to happen if the Government under the system of licensing or agency agreement, or whatever it may be called, promotes industries in the homelands? Will these border industries have to close? If there is competition, will the wage rates in the homelands be less than the wage rates in the border areas? Already the wage rates in the border areas are less than the wage rates in the cities. That is for the Bantu people. The Bantu people get a lower wage in the border areas than they could get in the metropolitan areas. On the other hand the White people get a higher wage in the border areas than they get in the cities. Now you will have a complete changeover, because that is what is happening to-day. You have to pay the White man in the border area a higher salary in order to induce him to go to work in that area, where he has a long bus journey, or alternatively, he must have a house in a suburb near there, which is a high cost factor because he insists on being near a school for his children. These are problems that must be faced.

What is wrong with that?

It is quite obvious that this matter is above the intelligence of that hon. member, but I know that when my children were small I preferred them to make a short journey to school and not a long journey, and then the traffic was not as heavy as it is to-day. I know that people are concerned and do not like to have the position where the children have to travel long distances to school, 30 miles a day. If they have a choice, any responsible parents would prefer their child to have a short journey to a long journey. But of course there may be irresponsible parents to whom that does not matter at all.

Then put the school there.

I am very glad to have that interjection. I would like to know what plans there are for schools at Hammarsdale, and I would like to know what steps that hon. member has taken to persuade the Government to give us schools there. [Interjection.]

Order!

These are important matters, because the area concerned does not have enough children to justify a school. It creates problems and those problems will increase the cost of the infra-structure; it will increase the cost of the services. These are all matters which should be taken into account. This Minister is responsible for the appointment of the Permanent Committee for the Location of Industries, and we expect him to indicate to us, particularly when we have the report of the Industrial Development Corporation indicating what their problems are and there is an implified reflection on the department concerned, what he is going to do. We have the report of the Committee for the Location of Industries, which indicates that the costs are a good deal higher than they at first expected. We have the final summing-up of the I.D.C., which indicates their difficulties, and we have the statement from the Committee for the Location of Industries which says that coupled with the reprehensible reluctance on the part of industrialists to adapt the location of their factories to changed economic circumstances, it can lead to the maldistribution of economic activities and the malutilization of resources. This is the report of a responsible department. It is to be found at the bottom of page 5. These are problems created as the result of the Government’s policy of diverting industry and while there are advantages to decentralization on economic lines, I want to know from the Minister to what extent he can adequately deal with the criticism of the I.D.C. and to what extent he can indicate that the department intends to spend the money it is suggested will have to be spent, because if the money required to be spent is not spent during that period, it will be an indication that the policy which the Government desires to follow cannot be implemented. It is important that we have an adequate reply from the Minister indicating what his policy is.

In the ten minutes at my disposal I cannot, unfortunately, reply to all the questions which the hon. member for Pinetown asked. I chiefly want to confine myself to two matters. In the past year, and this year again, we have heard quite a good deal from that side of the House in connection with the competition between the State and private industries. To-day he was still reasonably moderate in the statements he made, but there were members on that side of the House who put it much more strongly, such as the hon. member for Hillbrow who spoke of the State’s engagement in Socialism. I regret to say that, in terms of available facts, and facts which they could obtain if they wanted to investigate the matter, hon. members opposite have no right at all to accuse this Government of introducing socialism into our economic life or to accuse it of competing unreasonably with private initiative as a rule. I could mention figures which would indicate that South Africa was, in fact, still a stronghold of the system of private initiative. There are few countries—I think the U.S.A. is virtually the only exception—which, in terms of our gross national product, is proportionately a greater stronghold of private initiative. These two countries are really the strongholds of private initiative, and South Africa is much stronger, as far as that is concerned, than countries such as England, France, Italy and Canada. I can prove this; I do not merely want to make statements without proving them. In 1960 the number of people employed by the overall authority (the Government, the provinces, local authorities), the Railways, plus all public corporations, was merely 12.9 per cent of the total economically active population. If I take the public corporations, because this is specifically where the criticism lies, they constituted a mere .9 per cent of the total of the economically active population in that year. But I want to use still another criterion if hon. members are not satisfied with this one. In 1967 the contributions of the overall authority and public corporations to the gross domestic product was a mere 7.7 per cent, and for public corporations, about which most of the criticism has been levelled, it was a mere 3.2 per cent. I have obtained something in connection with the position in other countries and I am now going to make comparisons. I am going to quote from Fortune, an American publication, of 19th September, 1968. The heading reads “Creeping Capitalism in Government Corporations”, and the article goes onto state—

The rest are working for the Government.

No. The article goes on to state—

What justification is there then for the accusation that this Government, with its public corporations, is promoting State socialism? We realize that from time to time the Government must act with care. It may happen that here and there the corporations tread on the toes of private initiative. We are also in favour of private initiative calling the Government’s attention to instances where public corporations tread on their toes unjustly. But there is no justification at all for the assertion that the State is interfering too much in the economic life of South Africa. Sir, I have indicated to you that South Africa does, in fact, do very little in that connection by comparison with other countries.

I then specifically want to dwell on the second point and that is the question of border industries. The hon. member quoted here from the report of the I.D.C. Unfortunately I cannot agree with his interpretation of the report. He said that the points which were mentioned here implied criticism of the Government. He said that it meant that the Government was not affording sufficient protection. In a moment I shall also prove that his other conclusion is incorrect. All that the I.D.C. is doing here is to emphasize certain important aspects of industrial development, and it does this from year to year. The I.D.C. is merely emphasizing certain aspects here and if the I.D.C. makes certain statements it surely does not always imply criticism. It can mean that the I.D.C. does not always agree with the Government and that the I.D.C. is implying that more protection could be afforded. But it must be remembered that the I.D.C. is also a petitioner for protection. It frequently views the matter merely from the angle of one particular industry, while it is the task of the Government and its Board of Trade and Industry to regard the matter in broad outline. The I.D.C. has also applied for protection which was refused, although the I.D.C. prepares its case very well as a rule. It is the Government’s task to consider the general interests of the country as a whole, more so than the I.D.C., although the I.D.C. also does so as a rule. In this report the I.D.C. states––

The existing tariff structure is being examined by the Board of Trade and Industry …

Attention is being given to that—

Can this now be regarded as criticism? No, surely this is an exaggeration. The hon. member also referred to the development of border areas and said that, according to the report, there was a recession. Sir, surely this is true. Did the Government not state that it had to decrease the economic tempo of development with a view to combating the question of inflation? Surely this is necessary. There was not a decrease; there was a more gradual development. Sir, from the report of the Permanent Committee the member will see for himself that in the past year there was an increase of 7,000 workers in the border areas—5,000 Bantu and 2,000 Whites. The increase is greater than the previous average. What is more, if hon. members of the Opposition were keeping themselves abreast of affairs they would know that there is a very great increase—and I emphasize this—in the applications from industrialists for the establishment of industries in border areas. There is a tremendous revival …

Since when?

Since the new concessions were announced.

From September?

Yes. This increased number of applications will be revealed in the figures within a year or two or three because it usually takes time before one’s plans are put into effect.

Sir, before my time lapses I merely want to refer to the statement, which the hon. member made here, to the effect that it costs R5,815 to supply work to one employee in the border areas. The hon. member surely knows that when one develops new areas one must initially incur heavy costs for the construction of an infra-structure, especially in the first phase. Thereafter it costs less until one reaches a subsequent stage …

What does the infrastructure cost per worker?

The figures are not available. Besides, it differs from industry to industry and from town to town. The hon. member cannot ask such a general question. The hon. member said that “capital participation of this order by the I.D.C. implies that about R80 million will be invested in border industries annually.” Sir, it is contained in the report of the I.D.C. The report goes on to state—

In metropolitan areas, not in border areas—

It is very much cheaper, and he created the impression that it was very much more expensive. [Time expired.]

Sir, the hon. member who has just sat down was replying to a speech which was not made. He obviously expected a line of attack from this side of the House, prepared himself and was unable to change his line of thinking. Who referred to State socialism? The hon. member spent three-quarters of his ten minutes defending the Government against a charge of State socialism. He quoted Jan Marais. Does that hon. member think that Mr. Marais is accusing the Government of being socialist? Of course, the point is that hon. members opposite have a guilty conscience because their whole concept in regard to the Bantu homelands is one of State socialism. It is based entirely upon the idea of the Government, through its various instruments, controlling the whole development of the Bantu homelands, and what is that but State socialism? This is total socialism. It is very close to the communist idea, because except in a few instances, there are no Bantu entrepreneurs available to promote industrial development in the Bantu homelands, and therefore the State will be doing that work. But I want to deal with the other aspect, not with the development in the homelands which is of course absolutely nil …

That is also untrue.

Well, I will not say “absolutely nil”, but it is nil, comparatively speaking, in relation to the requirements. I want to deal with the development of industries on the borders, which the hon. member touched upon in the concluding part of his speech. Sir, I want to ask the Minister to make up his mind or to get his various organizations to make up their minds. When I read the 1968 report of the Committee for the Location of Border Industries, I find that this is what they say at the bottom of page 14—

Nine thousand a year. But the I.D.C. has a completely different figure. The I.D.C. figure is 23,500. These both fall under the same Minister. What is the truth? What are the facts? Is it what the Minister’s Committee for the Location of Border Industries says, namely 9,000, or is it the I.D.C.’s estimate of 23,500 from 1971? Because, Mr. Chairman, on this figure depends the whole existence of the Nationalist Party’s policy. Its whole policy, its whole right to claim to be entitled to govern South Africa hangs from this issue; what is the figure which the Government is going to employ on the borders of or in the Bantu homelands? If the figure is 5,000, which is what is being achieved, the Government is bluffing the people of South Africa when it says that border industries can absorb sufficient Bantu to even hold or reduce the number of Bantu in the White areas. If the figure is 9,000, it is still bluffing the people. It must reach the 23,000 mark, which its own Industrial Development Corporation forecasts, before it can say it is tackling the problem. What are the facts? The facts are as quoted by the hon. member for Pinetown, namely that the tempo slowed down. Last year there were only 31 new industrial undertakings and eight increased in size during the year, less than the previous year. The same number of additional Bantu were employed, 5,000 more Bantu, plus 2,000 non-Bantu. That means one-quarter of the target the I.D.C. sets. It is even less than a quarter, namely 5,000 of 23,000.

Is that not a great success as a beginning?

Mr. Chairman, this policy has been going on since 1960. In order to bluff the people that this is a great success, you will notice that the permanent committee never refers to what is done in one year; they always give globular figures. Since 1960 54,000 additional Bantu have been employed. During the past eight years R314 million has been spent. It is always a globular figure that is given, to try and make out that this is a wonderful success. I say that there are some of these border industry industries which are succeeding, but that is an economic matter. I say that where it is failing, is as an ideological policy to solve or even to make a material contribution to the solution of the problem of Bantu in White areas, of Bantu employed in White industry as part of the permanent economy of the White areas of South Africa. That hon member is, or should be, intelligent enough to know that. Here we are fiddling around with 5,000 new Bantu being employed.

But where are these areas? They are in Rosslyn, just outside Pretoria, East London, Pietermaritzburg, and Hammarsdale, all near to existing industrial areas.

Pietersburg.

Yes, Pietersburg one could say is an example of proper decentralization. But where this policy is working, it is working because there are towns or cities available to provide the housing, the services and the base upon which the White workers, the managers and the skilled leaders, can establish themselves. This is a bluff. This is misleading the people. I should like to see these 5,000 additional workers allocated to their centres. Let us see then where, in fact, the border areas are, the new frontiers. One draws a line round Pietermaritzburg, and it suddenly becomes the new frontier of White South Africa. Next to it is now Black South Africa. One draws a line around Hammarsdale and says that that is now Black South Africa. This is a frontier city, one of the pioneers, because the people can be driven out by bus every morning from the city of Durban, because when a machine breaks down they can drive into Durban in three-quarters of an hour to get a spare part or to have it fixed up. The I.D.C. itself on page 11 of its report emphasizes the economic grounds which must be necessary to justify the establishment of border areas. Why is it slowing down? Because it is moving out, away from the bigger cities it is slowing down. That hon. member says that there are no figures on the cost of the infra-structure. How does Italy get figures, if one cannot obtain figures on the cost of an infra-structure?

One cannot, it is a very difficult task.

Now the hon. member says it is difficult. A little while ago he said that there are no such figures because they vary. But here in this same report the figures are quoted. R140 is the cost in Italy for a population under 30,000. It goes up to a maximum of R400 for the major cities with a population of over 500,000. These figures are available. They can be worked out. I do not think the Government wants South Africa to know what the figure is. I do not think it wants the people to know how much is being spent for so little return. Or is it that they do not want the hon. member for Innesdal and the other “verkramptes” to get hold of this figure and to say: “Kyk waiter kafferboeties is ons mense! Hulle mors ons geld.”. [Interjections.] Let us face the reality. This is not a solution. I ask the hon. the Minister to tell us which figures he is working on and which figures South Africa must take as the true figures of border industry requirements.

Mr. Chairman, if anything has become clearly apparent from the speeches of the hon. member for Durban (Point) and his hon. colleagues this afternoon it has been that the multiplicity of South Africa’s problems cannot be solved by the simplistic political thinking of that side of the House. The hon. member for Durban (Point) had the audacity to quote Italy’s infrastructure cost figures. But he neglected to inform the House that those figures were not published or issued by the Italian Government.

Yes, the United Nations.

If he were to read the footnote at the end of page 4, he would see that it is a publication entitled “Establishment of Industrial Estates in Underdeveloped Countries”, the U.N. Report of 1961. Now he has told us that it was Italy who made the study. I am very glad that he quoted these figures. He neglected to tell us that the infrastructure costs in respect of a city, with a population of between 30,000 and 200,000, increases by 58 per cent above the infrastructure of a city with a population of 30,000. In addition, he neglected to tell us that, according to that report, the costs of the infra-structure in respect of a city with a population of more than 200,000 increases by 84 per cent above that of a city with merely 200,000 inhabitants. Thirdly, he neglected to say that the infra-structure costs …

It is untrue; I supplied the figures.

No, the hon. member did not supply the increases. Let me now also teach him something. The infra-structure costs of a city with a population of more than 200,000 increases by plus/minus 190 per cent by comparison with a city with a population of 30,000.

In a debate such a this, hon. members opposite reproach us every time about the great costs of the infra-structure and the investment. But they neglect to tell us that the costs of centralisation are tremendously high, as this report, from which the hon. member quoted, indicates. If he had read further he would have found that in a country such as Australia, for example, the costs of traffic congestion, a tremendous factor which costs time and money in our modern state system, costs a city with a population of 26,000 something like .01 Australian dollars. But for a city with a population of 163,000 those costs total 4.0 Australian dollars, an increase of 3,900 per cent. With a population of 2½ million the costs involved in traffic congestion alone amount to 64.8 Australian dollars, an increase of 1,520 per cent. If one compares the first with the last, i.e. a city with a population of 26,000 as against one with 2½ million people, one finds an increase, in the costs for traffic congestion alone, of 60,700 per cent. Hon. members opposite, with their claims that decentralization and border industry development are ostensibly prohibitive, neglect to draw our attention, and that of the country, to the costs of centralization. Thereby they are trying, as they always do, to draw a “red herring” across the argument. They are merely telling us half the story.

Mr. Chairman, let us be realistic. South Africa has two problems as far as industrial location is concerned. The one problem is not restricted to South Africa. It is a world-wide problem. It concerns the development of the underdeveloped areas. If the hon. member for Durban (Point), who was so eloquently erudite this afternoon, had acquainted himself with events in the rest of the world, he would have known that what is happening in Ireland, where blood is being spilled is concerned with unemployment and the underdevelopment of so-called “depressed areas” or underdeveloped areas. If Britain had but done what South Africa did eight years ago, i.e. established border area of peripheral area development, that blood-bath and those riots would never have taken place in Ulster. Let the hon. member read the British Hansard of 22nd April. Then he will see that in the British Lower House a Labour member for Ireland said what I have just said now. But this the hon. member does not tell us. He uses this specious argument that the costs are prohibitive and that our policy is therefore not a correct one. Then he has the audacity to drag in all kinds of additional motives.

South Africa has another problem, one which is more peculiar to this country. Few countries in the world can be compared to South Africa in this respect, i.e. the composition of its population. The hon. member and other hon. members on that side know that one is looking for trouble if one brings people together who, as a result of their cultural and educational backgrounds and their skills, economic dexterity or otherwise, are not on a par, but differ too widely in their levels of proficiency. Every year one encounters this difficulty, which not only costs a great deal of money, but also takes its toll in human lives. I do not want to revel or take delight in this, but I do not simply want to use arguments without supporting them. Research has been done by the “Centre for the Study of Urban Violence” at the University of Brandeis in the United States of America and it has been reported that in 1967 about 168 cities were hit by riots, as a result of which 18,800 people were taken into custody, 3,400 injured and 82 killed. In the same report the following figures for 1968 appear: 27,000 arrested. 3,500 injured and 43 killed. These are very different costs which hon. members opposite never consider or call to mind when the cost aspect of the establishment of border industries is being investigated. It is an important aspect, because those riots also result in a great deal of actual expenditure. In the riots of 1968 alone damage to the tune of no less than 45 million dollars was caused to insured property, apart from that to uninsured property. In order to bring those riots under control 68,887 troops were used. What is the cost of that? Hon. members on that side know that they are talking with their tongues in their cheeks when they try to discredit, on a cost basis, the policy of separate development and its implementation in terms of border area development. Now they are using another argument to illustrate the lack of success of this policy, i.e. by saying that a meagre 5,000 people a year were employed in the border areas over the past eight years. But surely hon. members know that in spite of the combined opposition offered by themselves and those financial powers in South Africa that share their political views, this border area development began in June 1960. Therefore, if we speak of the employment of labourers, we are speaking of the initial stage in which a painful start was made with the establishment of border industries, in the face of their opposition and that of the financial powers. And yet they say that Rosslyn is not a border industry area. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we have had a lot of discussion this afternoon on matters such as infra-structure, the cost of establishing industries on border areas, the decentralization of industries, etc. I was getting a little confused listening to all these arguments. When one talks about infra-structure which is necessary for the establishment of industrial areas, one is only talking about one small percentage of the cost of establishing new industrial areas. This is just the beginning. After that has to come the industrialist, the capitalist, the entrepreneur, the engineer and everybody else who will be establishing the factories which need the infra-structure to be able to live. One should take an overall picture of the total cost before one can say which is the most advantageous. I am sorry that in this report they have made so much about the cost of the infra-structure without dealing with the position as a whole. It is the same as the indirect charges which they refer to when they talk about the Australian situation. I would call these indirect direct costs. It may be true that if there is a population increase in a city additional outlays have to be provided so that traffic can flow and so forth. This is natural. However, on the other hand when a new township or a new area is established, there are other factors which require capital expenditure to provide normal amenities. I do not think these figures tell us very much.

The hon. member for Wonderboom dealt with the situation in England where there has been what they call “relocation of industry” and the development of these new areas. We have the same position in Italy. There are two fundamental differences between our approach to the problem here and the approach to the problem abroad. First of all, we established these border industries as part of an ideological policy. Basically the border industries had no economic foundation whatsoever. The idea was expounded by the previous late Prime Minister and by members on the other side of the House, that the main task of the Nationalists ideology was to remove the Bantu from the urban areas.

What is wrong with that?

The target date, as we all know, was originally set for 1978. It is a matter of nine years. At the present rate of progress, we will not have gone very far by 1978. However, let us leave that for the moment. Therefore, the first fundamental is that the establishment of border areas had no economic foundation. It only had a political ideological foundation. [Interjections.] I do not know why we are arguing. This is not a point of argument. This is a fact. The hon. members opposite know that I only deal with facts. However, that was point number one.

Point number two is that in Italy, in England and in other areas where they have decided on what they call “reallocation of industry”, they did not pick out established urban areas and said that they were going to reallocate the industry by crossing the street. That is what border industry is. Where is Rosslyn? It is across the street from Pretoria. That is all, only 12 miles. In a few years the two are going to merge into one. What did they do in Pietermaritzburg? I do not know the area, but as I understand they did not even cross the street. There is just a pavement in between. Then some very bold planner decided that he really had to do something. So he established Hammarsdale which is 20 miles away. This is not the concept overseas. The concept of the reallocation of industry overseas is not to take an area eight miles away from the metropolitan area of London and set up a new area there. They spread out from the main metropolitan areas. They spread out to the areas where there is unemployment. They have gone up to Scotland. In Italy the major development has been in the south.

What about Brits?

Well, that is an improvement. It is next to the town of Brits.

In Italy, as hon. members will know, the main industrial centres have always been in the north. This has been the industrial heart of Italy. This industrial heart of Italy in the north has been wealthy and rich. That is where development is taking place. The Government decided they had to do something for what is called the poor south. So, they established their factories in the south. It is a long long way from the north to the south! One cannot just cross the street. I should like to draw hon. members’ attention to a very interesting facit of this whole concept of reallocation of industry. I read an article by the chairman of the major bank of Italy. It is a very interesting article. I think the Government could give a little notice to this article. He said that the concept of establishing industries in the so-called poor areas, was a very good one. But what happened? You have the manufacturers and the industrialists from the north who established their industries in the south. That meant that in the south the people who were poor suddenly started to earn income. But what happened to that income? It was not spent in the south, because these people who were now earning income in the south through one or two factories, were taking this income and diverting it back to the north which was still the major industrial complex. Therefore, it boiled down to a reverse process with little good having been done. The time has come for my hon. friends opposite to stop this loose talk about what goes on in the border industries. They should get down to some of the facts of what is really happening overseas; what we should be doing here if we want to diversify and put it on a sound economic and not ideological basis.

There are also one or two other matters which I should like to discuss. I should like to come back to the question of the Atlas aircraft factory which was dealt with fairly fully by the hon. the Minister of Defence. However, there is one aspect which comes under the control of the Minister. I should like to hear something from him on it. When the Atlas aircraft factory was first established, there was an agreement entered into between the Government, Bonuskor and its associates whereby the Government would guarantee to the new company a 10 per cent return, before tax, on the total capital investment by the shareholders of Atlas aircraft Company. The Minister made that statement in 1965 to the House. This guarantee was given for two years. We know that Atlas has now been taken over by Armcor. The hon. the Minister of Defence told us that he has bought the shares at par. He was very lucky to do so, because I think he said there was a substantial profit. What I should like to know from the hon. the Minister is whether it has been necessary since Atlas was started for the Government to honour its guarantee. In other words, were any sums of money paid over to the owners of Atlas? If so, how much and in what years?

A dividend was paid.

There is another matter which I should like to raise. If we look at the Estimates, we find that we have R750,000 voted this year for the Kunene project in addition to the money which was voted last year. However, there is no mention made of the Cabora Bassa Scheme. I think the House should like to have some information from the hon. the Minister on what is actually happening with this scheme. It is a matter which has been discussed under Foreign Affairs, because it has foreign affairs implications. I do not want to deal with those matters, I would simply like the hon. the Minister, if he can, to tell the House what progress is being made in regard to this scheme. There were some small items that have appeared in the Press after the visit of the Prime Minister of Portugal to Lourenco Marques. There was some suggestion that South Africa would not participate in this scheme any more. I think we should have the matter clarified.

There is one last matter which I should like to raise. That is in regard to the question of motor cars. I want to start at the beginning, as I have tried to tell my hon. friends opposite to do, namely at the factories who manufacture the cars. In a number of cases to-day, the public are very bitterly disappointed with the product that they are being given. The A.A. had an article about it some four or five days ago. There has been a number of letters to the Press complaining about the standard of the manufacture of cars. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am glad of the opportunity for taking my ideas further. I want to begin by saying that we do not take the hon. member for Durban (Point) seriously because, if I were to award an Oscar for exaggeration and even blundering, I would award it to him. I merely want to mention one example. He said that it was strange that we always indicate the global figures and not the specific figures for the year. If the hon. member had but read the item concerned, he would have seen the following on page 11 under the special heading “Granting of Aid for the Calendar Year 1968” (Translation)—

Then the report enters into details in respect of each item and indicates what aid was given. They first give the global picture as it should be. After the global picture has been given they give specific figures. It is typical of all the statements which that hon. member makes. They are wrong; he blunders. It is still not clear to me what the Opposition wants. Are they in favour of border industries or are they opposed to them? Can any of them tell us?

We are in favour of them on economic grounds.

Good, they are in favour of them on economic grounds. They are in favour of them for strategic reasons. Is that correct?

Yes.

Good. They are in favour of them for. sociological reasons. Is that correct?

Yes.

Good. They are not in favour of them for political reasons.

No.

Now I merely want to ask a question. If I eat vegetables because I enjoy doing so and another man eats them, not because he enjoys doing so, but because they are good for his health, can one be opposed to vegetables?

That is a bit stupid.

That is not all. In this case, more than in any other, we find that the political, economic, sociological and strategic factors all point in one direction, i.e. towards industrial decentralization. I am amazed at that side of the House. Recently a report appeared in the Rand Daily Mail of 3rd July, 1968, in which the Cape Town city engineer said the following—

We do not have a metropolis yet in South Africa.

That is what Dr. Morris of Cape Town said. Unfortunately the hon. member does not know what he is talking about. The hon. member for Parktown has now said that our policy of border area development “has no economic foundation”. But, Mr. Chairman, do you know that every proposition which is considered by the I.D.C. must be based on purely economic merit? It is an economic basis from beginning to end, and the I.D.C. will not approve a single proposition if the economic merits do not justify it, regardless of any other aspect. That accusation is altogether untrue! Are the hon. members in favour of industrial decentralization?

Yes.

One of the most important factors determining industrial location is the location of labour. This is the case today throughout the world and it is one of the most important factors. The hon. members speak of Rosslyn and Hammarsdale, but are they aware of the large concentrations of Bantu near Rosslyn, Hammarsdale and in the Bantu homelands?

How far do they travel to Rosslyn?

What does it matter? They live near Rosslyn. There are many places in South Africa which can be developed. There are many Bantu population concentrations, but we cannot tackle all of them at once. It is surely obvious that a start is made at the place where the least expenditure is involved and where the greatest successes have already been achieved. This is surely obvious! If you are drilling for water, do you drill at the most difficult spot or at the easiest? At the beginning they already want to go to the most difficult places.

They work in Hammarsdale and go home to Umlazi.

The report itself states that we began there; not only there, but in other places as well, but the time has now come for us to be able to go further. I want to say that as an economist I am surprised at the success which the Government has achieved with its border area development. Those hon. members are also surprised, but they simply do not want to admit it, because from the beginning they said that it was going to be a big washout. [Interjections.] Those were the words which members, who were present, used and they are the words which members, who are still sitting there, used. They said it would be a great economic washout but I can tell them that it is a great economic success. That within about eight years the Government has succeeded in providing employment to about a quarter of the population which has to obtain employment there is fantastic progress. Hon. members may read what happened in England and Italy; let them tell the hon. members how difficult it is to develop economically backward areas. They will tell the hon. members that they have been busy with that since 1948 and that to-day only a small portion of that problem has been solved. South Africa is here faced with a greater problem because we are faced with people who are economically even more backward. We must give them work, we must train them and what is the surprising result? Within eight years we have already given work to a quarter of the population, according to what the Industrial Development Corporation has said; I am referring to the 23,000 to which the hon. members referred.

Those who need work.

Yes.

A quarter of the new work-seekers.

That is what we are speaking about.

It is a great achievement!

The hon. members on that side have one characteristic and that is that when something is a success they attack it. In the years to come we shall throw these border areas back into their faces with figures and not with general statements. We shall show the hon. members what phenomenal success we have achieved.

Where?

In all the areas. The demand now exists in all the areas and within the next five years the hon. members will see what progress has been made.

Where?

In Rustenburg, Pietersburg, Pietermaritzburg, East London and all the most important areas. All the areas cannot be tackled at the same time. The hon. members do not want to acknowledge facts; they are so deaf they do not want to hear and so blind they do not want to see.

If it was so successful why did you need to get so many more devices for attraction?

That process is to be found in every country of the world. A start is made with a series of concessions, and that series of concessions is extended as the necessity arises. We achieved that success in spite of limited concessions, which are very much fewer than those of other countries. Those countries have to grant many more concessions. In spite of the increased concessions which were granted, we find that we are still giving very much fewer concessions than a country such as Northern Ireland. No. The hon. members do not have a case. The hon. members also said they were in favour of the decreasing of the Bantu in White areas. They also said that they wanted to keep the Bantu in their areas. Every constructive measure which this Government employs to implement this, however, they oppose. This matter is so important to South Africa, it is so important to our White population because political stability is an absolute requirement for economic stability. It is so important for South Africa, for the Whites and for the Bantu, that that side of the House should now realize its responsibilities. They must also do what other bodies are doing, what the Chambers of Industries are doing, what the Chambers of Commerce are doing, i.e. to support the idea of border industry development based on economic, political and strategic reasons. Then they will be doing their duty. They have that responsibility and that duty towards South Africa. It is a task affecting the future of all of us What are they doing? They are opposing it!

They consider it their task to make mischief!

Those hon. members on the other side of the House stand virtually alone to-day and then they are even divided among themselves as well. Ask those hon. members whose constituencies are connected with border areas where they stand in respect of the border areas. They are also in favour of the development of their areas, while others are opposing it. They are divided! [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased indeed to have the opportunity to follow on the hon. member for Florida, especially in connection with the question of border industries and border areas. I think it is very necessary that we should get clarity on this matter. Our opposition to the border industries has throughout since their announcement, been based on the major fact that the Government is establishing industries on the borders of areas which are going to become completely independent foreign states. Now, that is the first reason for our opposition to the border industries. The most vulnerable part of our economy will now be the outpost on our frontiers with foreign states. We are actually establishing them there.

Nonsense.

Have you ever seen anything like that? Then the hon. member comes along and he talks of the success of the border industries at the moment. When we asked why Hammarsdale and Rosslyn and these places were next to the developed areas, he said, “Of course we start with the easiest first, who wouldn’t?”. If we were in the Government, as we shall soon be we certainly would not tackle the easiest first; we would tackle the area which requires it most first. Not just the easiest, but the area which requires it most. Then, may I say that where some of us talk as I am going to talk about the development in the Eastern Cape, then I am not talking in favour of border industries for the purpose for which that hon. member is putting it there, but I am talking of it in relation to the definition given by the hon. member for Parktown, namely the decentralization of our industries. We agree with the decentralization of industries and we stand for it.

I want to return to the Eastern Cape sector. I hoped that I should be in the position to-day where I could also have thanked not only the Minister, but the Government for the wisdom of their decision to place the third Iscor on the Berlin Flats. However, I am disappointed and dismayed because the hon. the Minister has not been able to do so. Not only that, he does not even make an announcement of some other major project which possibly could go there. I therefore want to use this opportunity, because I feel that the time is at hand for this announcement, to make a final appeal for the placement of a major project preferably the third Iscor on the Berlin Flats. I do not want to discuss, nor do I want to repeat the arguments in favour of this matter, as I have stated them often enough, but I think the Government must surely be aware of the dire need for some such project in that area. I am not being parochial when I speak of this, because it affects my constituency. The problem which is building up in my constituency is one of the major problems of South Africa and it just so happens that it is building up in my constituency. There we have this problem of an under-developed homeland where we have the problem of unemployment which is aggravated by the repatriation policy of this Government. This policy is causing what the hon. member for Florida said is happening in Ireland. The Government is actually bringing that about in my constituency. What is more, according to to-day’s standards, even the white area is industrially backward and neglected. Therefore, I contend and I believe that the Government is building up a powder keg which, if it were not for the good nature of the people concerned, would have led and will certainly, unless something drastic is done by the Government, lead to a major explosion. We are faced with the problem of what can and what must be done. I know the hon. the Minister will get up and reply that the Government is doing its utmost. The Government cannot take an industrialist by the scruff of his neck and put him there, the Government is giving these border concessions and it has even extended its concessions considerably, as he announced in September last year. I agree, the concessions are liberal. I also agree that these concessions have created a measure of interest as we have never had before.

Are you in favour of it?

But of course I am and I have explained why. But with this interest alone we are only scratching the surface of the problem in that area. The basic difficulty with these concessions is that they apply equally to all the border areas. Because of the disadvantages in relation to markets and raw materials which apply specifically because of circumstances to the Ciskei and the Transkei, which in the main one can describe as geographic, industrialists, despite the concessions, rather go to another border area than to the Eastern Cape or, as we call it, the proper Border. We all know that we have the concession of 25 per cent rebate on harbour dues and other port charges. We know that it has made some difference.