Mr. Speaker, I move—

With the passing of this Soil Conservation Act we want to allege that it is not so much what the Act contains that is important; it should rather be measured against the tremendous scope of the task of efficient veld and water conservation in this country. To mention an example of the fantastic scope of the task with which the Minister’s Department is faced: the 400 million tons of soil which are lost annually could cover 100,000 morgen of land in South Africa each year to a depth of one foot. So it is for example, claimed that certain parts of the Karoo have in the past few decades lost 30 per cent of their vegetation. In other words, ever greater importance can be attached to the thought that the desert is creeping ever nearer. At the Soil Conservation Congress at Bloemfontein last year even the hon. the Minister of Agriculture had to admit that the annual soil and water losses were undoubtedly greater than 21 years ago. In other words, the extent of this task has become so great that in order to take efficient arrestive measures the following requirements would have to be imposed upon the hon. the Minister and his Department.

Firstly, he was repeatedly informed, and it was also stated by his extension officers, as well as by that Soil Conservation Conference last year, that unless an adequate number of officials who were not tied down by office duties and who would spend a minimum of time doing paper work, could be found, the passing of this Soil Conservation Act would mean absolutely nothing. Those people are still requirement number one. In spite of his committees and the Soil Conservation Advisory Council, which the Minister hopes to nominate after the passing of this Act, if he does not have the officials to do the job outside, this Act will not achieve any success at all. A second requirement which must be laid down is that there should be no time wasted in tackling this task. An enthusiastic farmer’s zeal may not be artificially interferred with in that he cannot obtain the necessary information or co-operation from the Department. Steps are, in fact, being contemplated in this legislation to expedite the payment of subsidies, and we on this side of the House welcome this, but in some places soil erosion has reached such an advanced state that the individual farmer would not be able to execute that task on his own. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister that, in cases where the farmer as an individual cannot carry that task alone, the Minister should ensure greater participation by the State, since the Minister now has that power in terms of certain clauses. In other words, the task of constructing soil conservation works, which has thus far been done by the State itself, whether by departmental machinery or by means of contracts, in those parts where soil erosion has become so serious that the individual farmer cannot do so, will have to be extended in this respect and the State will have to do more.

Another important requirement for success in soil conservation in South Africa is undoubtedly that more attention be given to our extensive grazing areas, which a;re also usually very much more subject to exceptional climatic conditions such as violent thunder storms. Those areas will undoubtedly have to enjoy greater attention than has been the case up to now. We do not say this because the intensive areas are less important, but if one reads the reports it appears as if the problem in the intensive areas is reasonably under control. The intensive areas are also the smallest of the arable areas in South Africa. We know that the intensive areas are those with high agricultural potential and that they do not cover more than 4 per cent of the total agricultural surface area. Therefore it becomes far easier to check soil erosion in those areas. We therefore say that, owing to the importance of the extensive grazing areas, it is there that more attention should be focussed in the future, after the passing of this Act.

In addition, it must also be borne in mind that our land is constantly being set aside for purposes other than agriculture. In other words, what remains must be protected as much as possible, and this will be the extensive areas. But another important requirement for the success of this Act is the improvement of the economic position of the farmer himself. A well-to-do farmer usually does not have any problems, but those who have been financially handicapped by lengthy droughts will have to be treated most sympathetically under these circumstances. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, it is my considered opinion that the decline of soil conservation is closely related to the continual financial decline of so many of our farmers, and this matter will also have to receive greater attention if the hon. the Minister wants to make a success of this legislation. If the matter receives attention he will find the progress to be so much more dramatic. At the conference which was held in Bloemfontein last year one of his officials had to point out that during prosperous times when prices were good, many farmers could do more to construct the necessary camps, lay on the necessary water and build the necessary soil conservation works. If the economic position of the farmer does not receive attention then soil conservation will not succeed either because the two are closely related.

Apart from the requirements which we have imposed, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we on this side regret the fact that the Soil Conservation Committees are going to lose some of their functions and that they are to be merely advisory in nature. I want the hon. the Minister to have a good look at clause 10 where, in paragraph (a), it is provided that they shall be advisory in nature, and where, in paragraph (b), it is provided that additional duties may be imposed upon them by the Minister. I want to say to him that he should not use the provisions of paragraph (b) in order to decrease the functions of the Soil Conservation Committees, but rather to let them play a greater role in connection with soil conservation. Sir, the fact that they will be absolutely advisory in nature does not meet with the approval of those of us on this side at all. The Minister will find that he will have to extend their functions rather than decrease them. Therefore, after the passing of this legislation, the training of the Soil Conservation Committees will have to be priority number one. They will have to fill the gap which is caused by the shortage of trained technicians. It is regrettable that these people will be appointed by the hon. the Minister, and not elected by the respective agricultural associations. He will, in fact, appoint them after consultation with the S.A. Agricultural Union, but we on this side of the House regret that they will not, in the first place, be elected by those farmers which they will have to serve in the soil conservation areas concerned. The step which the hon. the Minister is contemplating with this legislation will delay rather than promote soil conservation, and I think that, within the framework of clause 9, the hon. the Minister will have to find a way of preferably having those people elected by the farmers concerned.

Sir, this legislation is once more a milestone after 23 years of a United Party Act which we have had on the Statute Book. For 23 years we have repeatedly urged the Government to take steps to promote soil conservation in South Africa. Repeatedly excuses, loopholes and scapegoats have been sought. Now the hon. the Minister has drawn up legislation which meets with his requirements. He is now prepared to accept the responsibility for that. If the hon. the Minister is prepared to accept the responsibility for that, we can only wish him success under these circumstances. We on this side of the House believe that every South African ought to be deeply concerned about this problem of soil erosion; not merely the agriculturist, but also the urbanite ought to be aware of the problem with which South Africa is faced. I think that if the hon. the Minister is prepared to inspire that enthusiasm, to impart that impetus to his Department, to appoint the officials he needs, and to train the Soil Conservation Committees as they should be trained, we shall perhaps be able to look back after a few years and say that this legislation was a success. It depends upon the Minister whether a success will be made of it, because it is in his hands and in no-one else’s.

Mr. Speaker, throughout the debates on this Bill, we on this side of the House have approached the Bill in the spirit of what somebody has called the eleventh commandment. This reads:

Over the last 23 years many people have failed, sometimes through ignorance, sometimes through no other fault than their own, and sometimes perhaps through economic pressure. We have supported this Bill, because we are conscious, among other things, of the damage that this failure is doing to our soil and to our people. I want to quote again the figures which have often been quoted and these are the figures given by Dr. J. C. Ross. He pointed out that in 1946, the year when the original Soil Conservation Act was passed, we were losing top soil in our country at the rate of 300 million tons per year. He pointed out that in 1966 we were losing top soil at the rate of 400 million tons per year.

Where do you get those figures?

From Dr. Ross. He said at that stage, 1946, the cost of restoration was some R200 million, whereas it had risen to R600 million in 1966. It is clear that we are not making the progress we should in our fight against soil erosion. Because we regard success in this fight as absolutely vital, we have supported this Bill, and we have been prepared to give the Minister the wide powers he has asked for. The result of this legislation will be that the Minister has taken everything into his own hands and he must realize the effects of this. The ball is now firmly in the Minister’s court. The hon. Minister has shorn the soil conservation committees of all their powers except to act in an advisory capacity. This has been done, he says because, inter alia, some committees were unwilling to prosecute their fellow farmers who refused to farm according to soil conservation principles. One of the other reasons is that some of the members were elected because of their popularity only. Now, the hon. the Minister is going to appoint these people and if the wrong people are appointed, they are going to be connected in the minds of the farmers with the Minister. Therefore, it is the Minister who is going to get the blame from the farmers themselves. If the hon. the Minister’s extension officers draw up unwise, unrealistic and impracticable farm plans, the Minister and his department are going to fall into disfavour. If the inspectorate fails to prosecute the recalcitrant minority, and they are a very small minority, it is going to be the Minister and his department who will be accused of weakness. During the Committee Stage, we on this side of the House tried to make the hon. the Minister’s task easier. For example we moved an amendment to ensure that at least the majority of the soil conservation committee members should be elected democratically and should be answerable to their fellow-farmers. Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister turned down our amendment. If he wants the sole responsibility, he must be prepared to shoulder that responsibility. From now on he is going to be on trial and will have to be on his mettle if he wants to succeed in the fight against soil erosion. If he does not succeed, he must not turn round in future and blame the committees or anyone else for his failure. As the hon. member for Newton Park has said, there will be two requirements which are absolutely essential if the implementation of this legislation is to be turned into a success. Firstly, the hon. the Minister will have to have at his disposal adequate numbers of properly trained field staff, backed up by an inspectorate. Secondly, the economic position of the farmer must be sound.

The key man in this whole set-up is going to be the local extension officer. If those local extension officers are not properly trained and, moreover, not blessed with a great deal of wisdom and an even greater deal of patience necessary to equip them to handle the farmers with whom they have to co-operate to ensure conservation progress, this new set-up is going to fail and this Bill will be a dead letter. As the hon. member for Nelspruit said during the Second Reading debate, “Dit help nie net om wette op die Wetboek te plaas en geld beskikbaar te stel nie”. The hon. the Deputy Minister himself realizes the importance of the extension officers. When he was a new member in this House, he said on 5th October, 1966 (Hansard, column 3673):

Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister is taking away from the committees the power to plan together with the farmer. This now is being left to the farmer himself, who will have to be advised by his extension officer. It is throwing more responsibility than ever before on the shoulders of the extension officers. There would perhaps be small cause for alarm if there were any evidence that the hon. the Minister was coping with the problem of ensuring that we have more extension officers. But all the evidence available shows that this is not the case. He is not coping with this problem. In 1960, when the original 1946 Act was amended, the then Minister, the present hon. member for Oudtshoorn, said (Hansard, column 4230) that we had some 225 extension officers and 285 technical field officers to assist the extension officers. On 4th June, last year, in answer to a question from the hon. member for East London (North), the hon. the Minister said that we had 235 extension officers and 168 technical officers, with 67 vacancies for extension officers and 29 for technical officers. In other words, over those eight years all we have gained, is 10 extension officers and we appear to have lost something like 117 technical field officers. That hardly is a case of progressing at the desired rate. If the Minister does not succeed in solving this problem and providing enough extension officers, the farmers will be entitled to say to him, in the words of the hon. member for Vryburg in the Second Reading debate of this Bill, “Hulle het die volste reg om ons aan te val as ons nie voorsiening maak om die tekort aan amptenare uit te wis nie”. It will not help the Minister, nor the farmers, nor the cause of soil conservation, if the Minister does not solve the problem, but merely shrugs his shoulders and blames commerce and industry for pinching his officials and attracting them away by offering them higher salaries.

Mr. Speaker, the second prerequisite for the success of this Bill is that the economic position of the farmer must be sound. He must be able to afford to look after his veld and his arable land. In the sheep farming areas, particularly the extensive areas of our country, to which the hon. member for Newton Park referred, at no time was greater progress made in soil conservation than during the days of the wool boom. Because during those days it was not only in respect of the construction of concrete or earth anti-erosion works but also in respect of the provision of fencing, in the provision of watering points and in the reduction in stock numbers that progress was made. In those days farmers could still afford to reduce their stock because they knew they had an assured income. But, Mr. Speaker, what is the position in some of those self-same areas today? The Director of Extension and Education, Mr. C. C. Claassens, in opening the congress of the North-West Agricultural Union at Calvinia, said that good progress was being made in farm planning. He quoted the Calvinia district as an example and said that there 50 per cent of farms had already been planned while 30 per cent of those plans were completed. Despite that fact, however, 30 per cent of the farms in the district remained overstocked, 45 per cent of the farms in the Fraserburg district and 63 per cent in the Carnarvon district. Why do these farmers overstock their farms like this? It is not just because of sheer greed on their part, but because they have had these years of drought coupled with the continuing decline in wool prices and the continual rise in production costs year after year after year. This is the reason. So they are forced to overstock their farms in order to keep their turnover up so that they will be in a position to pay the interest on their bonds, to pay their debts to the co-operatives and to other traders and to keep their bank managers in a reasonable frame of mind. Some years ago the producers’ price of dairy products was reduced. The immediate reaction of many dairy farmers was to keep more dairy cows in order that they could keep up their turnover. Last year when pineapple prices in my area were reduced following upon devaluation the sales of a fertilizer firm fell by R24,000 over 12 months—proof of the fact that the people just could not afford to maintain the productivity of their arable soil if that involved them in expense. The Minister could get this House to pass legislation and he could go out to the farmers and lecture them, exhort them, and even put pressure on them until he is blue in the face. He will not make a success of this legislation unless he, in the first place, produces the field personnel to assist him and the farmers in the implementation of this legislation and, in the second place, ensures that the Government pursues a policy in respect of agriculture which is going to ensure a reasonable living for the farmer.

We on this side of the House make no excuses for returning time and again to this subject because, in our opinion, this is one of the most important pieces of legislation ever to come before this House. Because this is so we have decided to support any legislation which could improve the situation as it has been up to the present. We came forward from our side with amendments aimed at improving this legislation, but thusfar the hon. the Minister has not been prepared to accept any amendments. We still hope that he will find it possible in the Other Place to move amendments for the further improvement of this legislation.

While saying that this is the most important piece of legislation which has ever come before this House, it is not necessary for me to cover the whole field in detail and to quote statistics to indicate our present position after 23 years in which we have been reclaiming our soil and vegetation, i.e. a very much weaker position than at the beginning. Only about one eighth of the work has thusfar been done. This reveals an incredible backlog. Therefore any reasonable person must support anything which can improve this situation. We have repeatedly asked the hon. the Minister what he envisages in this legislation when he says that it is going to correct the position. If we can make the legislation more powerful, if we can take a short cut in order to encourage people to continue with soil conservation and if we can make it possible for the farmer to see a greater measure of good in this, we want to help in any way we can to reclaim the fertility of our soil, because, after all, we all depend on that.

The hon. the Minister does not live in these parts which have, in recent years, been struck so severely by drought. Perhaps he knows the Northern Transvaal well, but he does not know what has happened from one end of this extensive Cape Province to the other. The Minister does not know how much erosion there has been from the Karoo regions on the one side to the mountainous regions on the eastern side. The situation has reached a point where, if we do not get a few consecutive seasons, the farmers will find themselves in a difficult position.

What do you suggest?

That question apparently comes from someone who was not in this House and therefore does not know what amendments we on this side have moved. Let me briefly refer to a few of the problems we envisage, since we are now being asked about what we suggest. In the first place we asked the Minister to draw the farming population closer to him as far as consultation and the implementation of this legislation was concerned. The hon. the Deputy Minister did not see his way clear to do so. In the legislation it is stated that the Minister “may” consult, “may” create an advisory body and “may” establish district committees. However, nowhere is it provided that he must do so. But let us suppose that he will do so. I now want to mention a few of the problems with which he will be faced. Let us assume that he will consult with the S.A.A.U. in connection with the general framework, and also in connection with the establishment of district committees. The Minister is aware, as we are, of the long deviation he is traversing when he says that he will consult the S.A.A.U. in connection with the establishment of a district advisory committee, a committee which will be stripped of all powers, a committee for a certain area which can even extend over two districts. Does the Minister realize what problems he will have when he has to hold consultations about the people who have to fill the posts there? Will a district committee inspire the same confidence in the farmers if the Minister appoints its members, and he does not say that he will do so after consultation with the farmers’ association or district association concerned, or something of that nature? This cannot, of course, be done. A committee, all the members of which have been appointed by the Minister, without consultation with the farmers’ associations concerned, will surely not inspire the farmers with the same confidence? Must we not win the farmer’s confidence so that he can continue with the work and do his best in terms of this legislation? Must we not do everything in our power to give him greater confidence in this legislation? I claim that he is going to have less confidence in this legislation.

In the previous debate about this measure we pointed to the problems which the Minister would experience with the powers and directions which are being granted to him in this legislation. We are, of course, grateful that someone must issue the directions. But if this is not done after consultation with the bodies concerned, we can surely see what problems will crop up, i.e. a direction is issued to a person or a body not able to carry out the work, or directions are issued to people who are not able to pay for the work. I am sure that the Minister does not envisage this problem. One must not blind oneself to an Act, which one thinks is good, to such an extent that one cannot perceive the faults. The hon. the Minister said that it was not humanly possible simply to draw up an Act whereby this major problem could be dealt with in full, and that this Act would still be amended a great deal. But do we recall how many times it has already been amended? We assume that in the future there will be additional amendments.

At this stage I cannot envisage any legislation which would be comprehensive enough to solve the entire problem at one stroke. Since we are now dealing with a new Bill which is to take the place of all previous legislation in this connection, it would surely have been fitting for the hon. the Minister to concede to some of the suggestions which we made in connection with the problems which we have repeatedly raised, in order to improve the functioning of this legislation from the beginning, because nothing can be more damning to such new legislation than that it Should not function for the space of the first two or three years. What must we say about a Department, about a Minister and about a House which institutes legislation which is not decisive enough, which is not better than the previous legislation and which has less support from the people which must implement it? After all, surely no one but the land owners are going to implement this legislation. They must make it function. If they do not have more confidence in this legislation, or at least as much as in the previous legislation, what makes us think that it will be such a success? We want to support this legislation. We want to support any improved legislation, and we must support this legislation in its present form because it is replacing all previous legislation in this connection. However, I venture to predict that next year and also in the following year the hon. the Deputy Minister, if he is still Deputy Minister or Minister, will simply have to introduce additional amendments again, many of which will be similar to those which we have repeatedly recommended to him during the past two days. We are now dealing with the final stage of this Bill. However, it is not yet too late to recommend to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he introduce, in the Other Place, some of the amendments which we have moved. He may do so in his own words and when it is referred back to this House we shall have a look at what he has done in connection with these shortcomings in the Bill. We are convinced, and the hon. the Deputy Minister is as convinced, that there are, in fact, shortcomings in this Bill which must be supplemented.

Mr. Speaker, I can give the hon. member for East London (City) the assurance that we were very sympathetically disposed towards the amendment moved by the hon. member for Walmer. We do not want to create the impression that we are not open to conviction or that we pay no heed to the Opposition’s suggestions. In principle we have already approved to recommend in the Other Place his ideas of a form of arbitration to which a farmer can have recourse.

Then I just want to tell the hon. member for Newton Park that I disagree with him on very few of the matters which he mentioned to-day. I agree with him. He was speaking the truth when he said that there were not enough officials. The hon. member for Albany quoted a speech I made in 1966. I still say to-day that our problem is that there are not enough officials. But can we obtain enough extension officers in this country simply by waving a magic wand? We have said before what our problem is. Fortunately, a salary increase has been announced now. We, on our part, are trying to offer these people housing benefits. I cannot now mention all the things we are trying to do for these people, but I must agree that this work would progress more rapidly if we had enough extension officers. But has that hon. member ever told his child to become an extension officer?

Never! He would never do that!

Why not?

I myself am a guilty party, We only look at big money today. But it does not help to talk about this matter. I feel that we are all aware of the fact that this is our problem.

Then the hon. member said that we should not waste time unnecessarily. Our whole object, as I said in my Second-Reading speech and in the Committee Stage, is to streamline the system. We have had this Act for 23 years. Now the hon. members for Albany and Newton Park say that this country is losing so many millions of tons of soil a year, but this is a figure that I do not simply want to accept; I do not think this figure is quite correct. I am not saying that it is wrong, but all the same it does appear to me to be too enormous. It is something to be perturbed about, but we want to put a stop to these things. Now, after 23 years, we have this Act, but the hon. member for Albany says we have made no progress. My feeling is this: Introduce any Act; you cannot go wrong as long as you try to do things in another way. As the hon. member said, the present Act did not work. Give us a chance with this one now. The hon. member told us to bear in mind that he would return and tell the Minister of Agriculture: You have had all these powers and you have failed. But our approach is not to level reproaches if things do not pan out as they should. Do not expect miracles now; give this Act a chance. The hon. member for East London (City) said that we would come along with amendments year after year, but let us do so. If the system works in practice and you see that there are hitches, surely you can change it; surely this does not matter. I have told you that this is not the last word to be spoken on soil conservation; we shall still have to make many adjustments in the course of time. The hon. member for Newton Park said that he felt that the farmer should be financially able to do the work. I agree. The hon. member for Albany said that when wool prices were high the farmers had enough money. That is true. At present not all the farmers have sufficient means to apply conservation as they would like to do. Land prices and production costs have increased, and wool prices are lower than in 1964. All these things are true, and our farmers are basically soil conservation conscious; they would like to carry it out. In my Second-Reading speech I indicated what the State was spending and what we were prepared to do. Someone blamed me for saying: “Let it cost R1 million more—so what?” I repeat that we must try to save the soil. Read this week’s Huisgenoot and see what will happen to that wonderful Orange River Dam if we do not take positive action. If we do nothing that dam may silt up within 50 years. So I still agree with the hon. members.

The hon. member for East London (City) asked why the members could not be elected democratically. We elected those people democratically for 23 years. He said that we should take a short cut. We convened meetings and sometimes not one single farmer turned up. [Interjections.] We made arrangements with the S.A. Agricultural Union as to how we could speed matters up in order to obtain the names from them very quickly, but now I want hon. members to understand why we do not hold elections; and this does not apply to all cases. It applies to areas where there is a lack of interest. Some dear old fellow has reached 70 years of age and no one wants to hurt his feelings by telling him he can no longer serve on the committee. I myself was present at a meeting where they said: “Let us elect the old lot,” but the old lot had done nothing. Now the Minister can appoint a practical man who is prepared to apply soil conservation.

I think we have discussed this Bill very thoroughly. To most of the questions asked we furnished replies at the Second Reading and in the Committee Stage. I do want to tell the United Party that most of the matters they mentioned here are real problems. I also want to say that I am glad that they have not made a political issue of this matter.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As we stated at the Second Reading and in the Committee Stage, we are not going to oppose this Bill at the Third Reading. Basically we believe this to be a good Bill, but there is one thing that the House should realize and that is that there is a difference between a good Bill competently administered and a good Bill administered inefficiently. That is where the test will come for the hon. the Minister, because he is the person who will have to carry out the provisions of this Bill. Within about four and a half months’ time he is going to be faced by the problem of 1,700.000 listeners’ licences which will have to be renewed within the short period of a fortnight or three weeks. Some of these listeners’ licences will have to be renewed at post offices, some with local authorities, some with the S.A.B.C. and others with different Departments. In other words, there is a big task facing the Minister within the next couple of months, and it will need all his competence to be able to carry out that task.

With this Bill he is faced with two problems regarding the collection of licence fees; one is an important one which only arose on account of a remark made as an aside during the Committee Stage, and that is that apparently there is going to be no central register of licences under this Bill. The fact that there is going to be no central register is going to make the difficulties of the hon. the Minister immeasurably greater. First of all, it will make it impossible for him to send out notices beforehand to all licensees, and secondly, there will be no possibility of a central Check. These are problems which arise from this Bill but we still say that basically the idea is a good one, and we accept the principle that there should be a single licence year.

The Minister will be faced with this other problem that the only way in which he will be able to check in future whether people have listeners’ licences will be by means of inspectors, and I can see that he will have to increase very considerably the number of inspectors that he has in his Department. In the past these inspectors have carried out their duties without causing undue difficulties and trouble, and the Bill itself correctly provides that they shall only enter persons’ homes to check whether they have their radio licences at suitable times of the day. I can, however, forsee with an increase in inspections difficulties arising on occasion.

The hon. the Minister also has the power now—he and the S.A.B.C. together, sometimes only the S.A.B.C. and in other cases he alone —to introduce institutional licences and to say which licences shall be free. That, I believe, is a good provision, but again we want to see how the Minister is going to carry that out. He may decide to give very few licences of a free or institutional nature or he may decide to be generous to the old people and to all those thousands of people who are expecting an important announcement from him within the next couple of months. I trust that he will be generous to those people who deserve these free licences.

There is another improvement in this Bill, as passed at the Second Reading, in regard to the duties of radio dealers. Half a million forms a year which have been piling up over the past years will now either have to be thrown away of filed away in those dark recesses of Government buildings in Pretoria where dead files are kept. That is a good thing; that is what is going to happen under this Bill. These forms which have had to be submitted in triplicate in the past will no longer have to be submitted, but there are other problems which have not been solved. Again I believe that the hon. the Minister can now with the powers he is receiving under this Bill, solve these problems. He can very easily solve the problem, for example, of the son of a household who boards 1,000 miles away and wants to have his radio repaired. As it is now he cannot do so, because the licence covering that radio is with his father at his home. It will be very simple to have some or other form of licence with a coupon or a perforated part which can be handed to that particular person. I think this is a matter the hon. the Minister can consider and on which he can give the country more information on his plans.

Another point I want to raise is the power the hon. the Minister should have to include the radio set of a servant of a household in the employer’s licence. Why cannot it be made possible that such a servant may be given a simple form by the owner of the household to say that the radio in his or her possession is covered while he or she is in the employ of this person, by that person’s household radio licence and stating the number and the address? These things can be done, but whether these things will be done will be the test of how this Bill is going to work.

I want to conclude by saying that in dealing with radio listeners’ licences this Bill is quite a radical one. It can be a good Bill in practice and it can work well, but if the hon. the Minister does not do his duty, it can be a disaster. We support this Bill, but we do want to state clearly that we do not, under any circumstances, support in advance any unnecessary, half-baked, ill-conceived, costly, onerous, irritating or needless methods which may be involved with regulations or the means adopted by the hon. the Minister under this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot really grasp what the difficulty of the hon. member for Orange Grove is. He said this was a good Bill and how good it was going to be would depend on my implementation of this legislation. He himself admitted on a previous occasion that I was a good Minister, and I want to ask him what his difficulty is in that case. In any event, I do not think anything was raised here I had not dealt with before during the previous stages and in the Committee Stage of this Bill.

Can you not inform us about your plans?

No. One should not jump the gun by speaking out of turn. I can assure the hon. member for Orange Grove that consideration will be given to every proposal he made. As far as free listeners’ licences are concerned, sympathetic treatment will be given where sympathy is due, and the hon. member need not concern himself about that. Proper attention will be given to the matter. The Bill will be passed, and we shall implement it in practice in the best possible way.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we now come to the final stages of one of the very important measures which we have had before us this Session, namely amendments to the Water Act. The provisions which we have in this Bill before us have not only apparently been accepted by the Select Committee so that it virtually became an agreed measure, but that also appears to have been the position in so far as this House is concerned. The House in Committee also seems to have found no quarrel with the provisions of this Bill. That being so, I just want to mention one or two of the points regarding the Act will eventually appear when this Bill is finalized, because I do not anticipate that the hon. the Minister will have much difficulty when he pilots this measure through the Other Place.

One of the matters which arises here, and I want to deal with it at once, is the provision binding our municipalities in respect of clause 1. Initially there was some difficulty about this clause, because it limits the freedom of action of a municipality. In common with other legislation which we have before us, the success of the administration of the provisions of this Bill is going to depend upon an ample technical and professional staff. With another Bill which follows shortly on the Order Paper and which I cannot discuss now, it is clear that there is going to be an additional administrative burden laid upon the staff of the hon. the Minister’s Department. Although I do not anticipate that the hon. the Minister will want to say much by way of a speech presently, and indeed I think there will not be any great need for it, nevertheless I hope that the one point he will deal with now is going to be his expectation in regard to the additional professional and technical staff for the administration of the work which will be involved in this Bill and the other one yet to come. For the purpose of irrigation settlements and so forth there are two ways of dealing with the land. As provided by the existing Act, a certain section of land can be scheduled and permits granted.

In this Bill we have taken away a condition in the original Act, which placed a limit on the time available to the hon. the Minister to deal with certain areas which were proclaimed. From the point of view of issuing certificates, the Minister had to come to Parliament if such a period as had been provided for had elapsed and he had not finished the job. That was put in deliberately at the time by the Select Committee which dealt with the 1956 Act, so as to see that there was no undue lag in having these matters attended to by the Department. We did not want it to be felt that there was an undue lag and that the people concerned could not get their permits timeously. That provision has now been repealed by the Bill before us. This is a matter of the greatest importance. It has been repealed because of assurances we were given by the officials who appeared before us that within the limits of the manpower available they hope that they will be able to issue the permits and schedule the land timeously and that nobody would be unduly adversely affected because of any hold-up or delay in the Department. But one of the institutions which has to get permits even before the matter can go to the Water Court, is a municipality. In the light of recent developments I want to bring this very pertinently to the hon. the Minister’s attention. It is quite clear that because of a new growth point, perhaps not in the case of a municipality itself, but in the area, and it may be a vast area in relation to that particular municipality, there will undoubtedly be developments taking place which are going to call for basic water supplies. I want to say at once that I am concerned with the statement made by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs when he announced the location of the new Iscor at Newcastle. That will not only affect Newcastle alone, and what is going to be basic in this regard is that all towns in the area brought under the influence of that Iscor, are going to demand water. They are all going to need water. A precise point which up to then had only been a debating point, has suddenly become something which is practicable. The municipalities concerned are in the position that I think they have to give six months’ notice before they can go ahead with their own plans to increase their water supplies if they are taking less than 1 million gallons per day and certain other provisions have to be complied with for a supply of more than 1 million gallons per day before they can go to the Water Court. This is going to throw an immense burden on the shoulders of the hon. the Minister’s staff. This is a point I want to make clear immediately.

Secondly there is this question of a dam basin which again has had the spotlight turned on it because of this very development. Some four years ago in this House it was laid down what we considered then were the first three primary principles in regard to our water policy in South Africa. The then Minister of Water Affairs accepted those principles. He said that he thought that they were good comm-on sense without going so far as to say that he accepted them categorically, but he did by implication agree that they were very sound principles and I never heard any other principles raised in opposition to these principles. I just briefly want to refer to these principles. Firstly, they were that we should develop and secure a supply to our existing communities. The existing communities, whether they are rural or urban, are entitled to a secured water supply before other people hereafter who are not yet in existence. We know nothing about future communities and where they will be established, but the people who are there are entitled to secure water supplies.

Secondly, we want to see our South African supplies developed before we engage on vast expensive foreign ventures for water supplies. Thirdly, we should like to see a grid system on the high berg and high mountains. This grid system is now being accepted by very highly placed hydrologists and others. The high bergs generally are those areas where snowfalls normally occur. There water supplies can be contained and diverted to the various parts of the country when necessity demands that the supply should be made available: perhaps a very imperatively required supply which can be supplied at short notice. Those were the three principles. When we see the developments which are taking place, we come to the question of the dam basin. In this Bill we have before us, we on this side of the House affirm our support for every one of these provisions of this Bill, not only the principles, but also the provisions of the Bill. We support the provisions wholeheartedly, but we see some dangers as regards administration.

Where it comes to the question of the dam basins, we are wondering whether it would not perhaps be a good idea for the Minister, seeing that he has a Select Committee which deals year after year with the question of dams and the construction of dams and so forth, and seeing that it is part of our Parliamentary procedure, to consider whether they should not be given the opportunity to have a look at the priorities being provided for with the construction of dams and the setting aside and the proclamation of dam basins. The basins which are set aside for dams, as has been explained by the hon. the Minister during his Second Reading speech, provide for the construction of dams hereafter when the money and the resources are available. This is done, because these enormous conservation works, with the size of dams which we are building and have still to build to store our water, cannot be built after five or six months of investigation. The work cannot be done in a year or two. The building of these dams are taking years and the bigger the project the more care has to be exercised in the initial stages. But that land is now going to be held up for a long time to come, because as this Bill before us rightly provides when once a dam basin has been proclaimed, development works of all kinds, except normal farming procedures, are virtually barred from the whole of that area. From 10 to 15 years will go by and land will be increasing in value enormously. We only have to look at what is happening at the moment, to realize how land can increase in value. The pressure which will be exerted on the department where they have a proclaimed dam basin, if the land is there and if it is being used for nothing but agricultural purposes, to have it released so that it can be used for some other purpose is going to be enormous. I hope the Minister will not give way. I hope the Minister is going to stick to it and make it abundantly clear that a dam basin, once it is proclaimed, is going to stay there even if there are still 10 or 15 or 20 years to come. Whenever the time is ripe and when it is a matter of priority that a dam has to be built, when the time arrives, we should find that the dam basin is freely available, without involving the public purse in paying, too great a sum for compensation. Therefore, we support this Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, raised two points. The one relates to concern he feels in his mind in regard to the problems which may crop up for the Administration in regard to the increased restrictions on the scope of municipalities within the entire water context. I do not think the hon. member need feel concerned. The hon. member drew the comparison between this kind of permit issuing by municipalities and the issuing of permits in agriculture, but that is something of a completely different order. It is a fact that as far as agriculture is concerned, it was necessary for us to come forward and ask that patience be exercised because we were making a special attempt to get the permits issued within a specified period of time. But the scope of the work involved in making such a permit available along a river course is simply enormous. Comparatively speaking, the number of permits is also enormous. I want to tell the hon. member that as far as the department is concerned we are able to keep up with services to municipalities. I think that the other kind of problem which could crop up, such as the administrative problems we may encounter if we do not do what is proposed in the Bill, will probably be greater. I also think that we are quite capable, administratively, of issuing permits without keeping any municipality waiting unnecessarily and causing the feeling to arise that we are unable to meet the requirements.

In regard to the control which we exercise over dam basins, a very important provision in the Bill, the hon. member also expressed concern and also made a sensible remark. He said that where we acquire control over such basins we should not allow further development to take place there, in spite of our control. I can assure the hon. member that we would not have drawn up the Bill if it had not been our intention to be strict. He need not be concerned about that. It is in fact the case that we are now living in a time where it is becoming essential that we select certain dams or dam sites with a view to subsequent development, particularly because development is taking place at a rapid pace. The hon. member mentioned the example of what is happening at Newcastle now.

I am thinking of the Tugela basin.

Yes. The hon. member also mentioned what he calls the “grid system”. All this means is that balancing dams are built at high points (that is, far above sea level), from which water is integrated with the requirements of a region. This is being done. I want to mention the example of Teewaterkloof, where water from the other side of the mountain is used in order to be integrated with the needs of farmers on both sides of the mountain. I also want to mention the example of Spioenkop, where we are also trying to integrate water from the Tugela on both sides. This will happen to an increasing extent in the case of Natal, where water will be stored at control points and then used by way of Government distribution systems in order to meet all the needs of the region. There are already many such examples. But I want to inform the hon. member that, with a view to the greater amount of planning in future, it will of course become more and more of a requirement. As regards our policy for the future, since we will be giving far more attention to planning and will try to draw up a blueprint for the entire country so that we can make our projections for years in advance, it will in fact be essential to declare various key points within such projections in advance, and exercise control there. This is the entire purport of this. I think the hon. member also agrees, and after all, this is his requirement, that what is most important is that we obtain control in advance over these points which are going to become control points in the future development. In the past this was not so much the case: that is why it became necessary to change the Act in this way. But I am pleased that the hon. member agrees. We do not really differ on this point. I agree with him entirely. I want to give him the assurance that we are well aware of both points he mentioned. We will try not to be caught offside, from the administrative point of view, in the implementation of this legislation.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This, Sir, is the second of the Bills referred to a Select Committee this Session before the Second Reading. I think it can be truthfully said that they came back to the House as agreed measures.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be brief in dealing with this matter, but I do want to deal with the point that has arisen since the deliberations of the Select Committee. I am sure that in the hon. the Minister I am going to have a sympathetic listener. During the course of the Second Reading speeches members on this side of the House made it clear that a great deal of our work was made easy for the Select Committee. The time we spent on our work there was shortened. The whole of the administrative side of the Select Committee’s work in dealing with witnesses was made easy and the path made smooth because of work done by members of the hon. the Minister’s staff. One of the Under Secretaries for Water Affairs, had seen witnesses. He had discussed matters with folk who were coming to give evidence before us, the people who had misunderstood perhaps the intention of the Bill as they read it, and so forth. He eased our lot very, very considerably and he made it very much easier for the people concerned. When I say “concerned”, I mean people who had a real concern. They had a real interest in the provisions of the Bill. He did this to the extent that many of them decided not even to come and give evidence before the Select Committee. But now the position arises that a great deal of that was verbal. It was done as between an official of the Department and people who intended to come and give evidence. It was given as evidence before the Select Committee, and much of it has been recorded. Hon. members will remember that I referred to the fact that a lot of the evidence given by our officials was recorded, so that it is on record as part of the evidence before the Select Committee.

I also gave a list of some 12 or 14 types of legal rights to water which were enjoyed by farmers below the outfall from the tunnel from the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam down to the Theebus Spruit, the Brak River and the Fish River. There were something like 12 or 14 types of legal rights, servitudes, scheduled land (under the Irrigation Act), permits issued, and all sorts of rights. The point has now since the Second Reading debate been raised with me as to where in the Bill, apart now from the provisions of the Bill, it is clear that the Minister is going to turn a sympathetic ear to people who have enjoyed those rights, if, in the exercise of his powers now in terms of this Bill, the farmers concerned feel that they are not perhaps altogether satisfied with the kind of treatment they are getting. I want to say at once, because this was the answer I gave to the gentleman who came to see me, that I have no doubt whatever that in the Bill the legal rights of all the people who are obtaining water at the present time, when it is available, are protected. I am absolutely convinced of that. That was the assurance I gave them. I told them that their rights, whatever they were whatever their form was, are protected and that, in due course, the rights will be rescheduled or they will get permits to correspond with the rights they have enjoyed in the past. There is a right of appeal to the Minister here. I said that, when we came to the Third Reading, I was going to put it to the Minister directly that he should turn a sympathetic ear to any of the people enjoying water rights at the present time, even if they are short of water from time to time, as they are—they are very, very short indeed; we all know that—if they appeal to the Minister, in terms of the right of approach to the Minister, to deal with the difficulties which may arise when once the water from the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam is turned through the tunnel and starts to flow. Only when that water starts to flow will the farmers down there be in a position to physically appreciate the precise circumstances which will then apply. They can conceive of it. They can try and get a concept in their minds as to what the position will be. But only when the water flows through that tunnel and it is actually there will they see for themselves precisely what is happening. So, Sir, I would just at this stage say that we are supporting this Bill entirely from this side of the House. We do ask the Minister, if appeals are made to him by the farmers there, please to turn a sympathetic ear to their requests when the time comes.

I want to tell the hon. member for South Coast that the people in the vicinity who are going to receive the benefit of the water from the Verwoerd Dam, need not be concerned about the way in which the Minister will handle it, or about the attitude that will be adopted by him and his Department. It is very difficult to interfere with people’s rights where we are issuing permits in State water control areas. It is just as drastic in a new area to exchange old existing rights for what we are going to give, although what we are going to give is much better than what they had. But we cannot do this kind of thing without the greatest measure of sympathy and co-operation on both sides. If this means anything to him, I want to tell the hon. member that the Department really goes out of its way to explain beforehand to people what is happening, how we have reached a certain conclusion, and what a man’s personal rights are, and then we still leave the door open to him to come to the department in specific cases and to thrash out the matter personally. If they still get no satisfaction, I am still available to negotiate with those persons in the last resort. The whole attitude is to act as sympathetically as possible and to be as ready as possible to receive the people and to explain to them what their water rights are, why those are their water rights and what the extent of those rights is, so that they know precisely where they stand, and to give them satisfaction in this way. I think the hon. member will also find that recently, in granting permits, we have had very good co-operation from the public and that there have in fact been no repercussions. I hope there will be no repercussions here.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

When the debate was adjourned last Friday I had explained the problem we were saddled with, principally in the Transvaal but also in other parts of the country, where the ownership of land was divided between the surface area owners and the owner of the mineral rights. This problem has recently become all the more vexatious. The problem arises out of the fact that an owner of land, who has the surface area rights but not the mineral rights—the mineral rights belonging to another person—cannot develop his land in any way without the consent of the owner of the mineral rights. Now we find that the owner of surface area rights want to sell their land to township developers or local authorities or to the Department of Community Development, all for the purpose of developing townships for housing, but cannot do so without the consent of the holder of the mineral rights. We have found that many of the holders of the mineral rights—and this problem is increasing—want to sell their rights at fantastic prices when they realize that a township is going to be developed or is on the verge of being developed, even if it has been very clearly established that there is in reality little chance of exploiting minerals there. In other words, they do not want to sell it because there is a possibility that minerals will be developed there, but are in fact blackmailing the developers of townships, or even the local authorities or the Department of Community Development. That is why we have introduced this Bill to find a remedy against this, and I shall now elucidate this further.,

I think you would agree with me, Sir, that the conditions which I have sketched for you undoubtedly place obstacles in the way of township expansion, with the inevitable result that the provision of building sites and housing is delayed or is even deferred. A case has to be made out therefore as to whether the value of the minerals are such that the development of these is more important than the establishment of townships. Should it be found that the development is not more important, the obvious thing to do is to eliminate the mineral rights so that the establishment of the township can be proceeded, with since it would not in such a case be in the public interest to allow the mineral rights holder to cling to his rights.

Therefore the Bill before you provides that the Administrator of a Province can expropriate mineral rights in land required for the establishment or development of a township, on his own initiative or upon the request of a person who has an interest in the establishment or development of a town. But before the Administrator can proceed to such a step he is required firstly (a) to satisfy himself that the consent to the establishment of a township or the relinquishing of the rights cannot be obtained by way of negotiation for an equitable consideration; (b) to make sure that the land concerned will in fact be utilized for the establishment of a township; and (c) to notify the owner of the mineral rights that the possibility of expropriation exists and that he should furnish reasons specifying why the expropriation should not take place. The mineral rights holder is therefore being afforded every opportunity to negotiate in a reasonable way, and if the negotiation does not succeed, to submit further representations to the Administrator in which he can furnish further details of the minerals he wishes to exploit, the potential thereof and the value according to his determination.

The most important provision, however, is that contained in clause 2 (3), i.e. that the Administrator shall, after considering the representations submitted to him by the mineral rights holder, decide whether or not it is more important in the public interest to lay out a township on the land rather than to exploit the minerals. Only when he decides in favour of establishing a township can he proceed to expropriate if an agreement cannot be reached by negotiation.

I want to draw hon. member’s attention to the fact here that the Administrator can only take such a decision with the consent of the Minister of Mines and the Minister of Community Development. The requirement that the Administrator and the two Ministers should agree on this important aspect is the guarantee that a decision will be made in a responsible way.

The procedure that has to be followed with the expropriation of the mineral rights and the determination of the amount of the consideration which has to be paid is the same as that prescribed in the Expropriation Act, 1965, except when it is not possible, after expropriation, to agree on the consideration. In that case the Administrator determines the consideration. Here, too, I want to point out specifically that the Administrator determines the consideration in consultation with the two Ministers previously mentioned. The Department of Mines is properly equipped to place an equitable valuation on the mineral rights, and the consideration will of course be determined in accordance with that. Thus, there is no danger that the owner will not be compensated according to the true value for the rights which have been expropriated from him.

If the mineral rights are expropriated at the request of the owner of the land or a person who has an interest in the establishment of the township, obviously the rights must eventually be transferred to that person, but the Administrator can take precautionary measures to ensure that the new owner does not, in his turn, impede or restrict the development of the township. Upon transfer therefore the Administrator can lay down suitable conditions in consultation with the Minister of Mines and the Minister of Community Development.

The expropriation of mineral rights, if it should ever come to that, will only take place in order to promote the establishment and development of townships, which is in the public interest, and it will not be possible to make use of these measures for the purposes of speculating with the mineral rights.

But, Mr. Speaker, apart from mineral rights, it has also been the experience that essential development for residential purposes can be blocked by servitudes or conditions which grant certain privileges to adjoining owners. There is for example the right to bore for water anywhere on the property. Or, an adjoining owner has a right of way along a specific route across the property. It now happens that the holder of the servitude, or the owner in whose favour the condition was laid down, is not prepared to consider cancellation in order to allow the establishment of a township. In the case of a right of way it has been found that, although the servitude holder does not in any way make use of the right, and adequate, even better, alternative road access across the land is made available to him, he nevertheless demands an excessive amount for the cancellation of the servitude, an amount which will make the layout of the township quite uneconomic.

These servitudes or conditions impede the establishment of townships as much as the mineral rights. As you know, the Administrator has the authority in terms of the Removal of Restrictions Act, 1967 (Act No. 84 of 1967), to alter, suspend or to remove, in the interests of the development of the township, any restriction or obligation binding upon the owner of the land by virtue of a condition of servitude relating to the subdivision of the land, or the purpose for which the land may be used, etc. The Bill before you therefore makes provision for an amendment to the Removal of Restrictions Act, 1967, in order to expand the power of the Administrator so that he can also amend, suspend or remove, in accordance with the provisions of that Act, a registered condition of servitude which can prevent or prejudice the establishment or development of a town.

Hon. members are all aware of the fact that there is an increasing shortage of building sites in our cities and towns. They are also acquainted with the great demand for housing. The Government can therefore not allow holders of mineral rights or other servitude rights who withhold their consent to the establishment of town or who make unpayable demands, to cause new township expansion to miscarry or be delayed for an unspecified time. It is obvious that steps must be taken, and that is why the measures, as contained in this Bill are being submitted to the House.

We appreciate the conflict to which the Minister has referred which arises where surface and mineral rights in respect of the same (property are in different hands. One also appreciates the fact that this existence of conflicting ownership rights can have a delaying effect on the development of townships and the provision of housing which it is so vitally necessary to accelerate in this country. There are, however, some problems which arise in connection with this legislation, problems which I trust the hon. the Minister will deal with in reply to this debate, and these are aspects which arise from the fact that this Bill really provides for expropriation where the two owners of surface mineral rights cannot come to an agreement. The hon. the Minister has referred to the situation in the Transvaal. I think he referred to a Bryanston case which was heard before the courts in 1938. One would have liked to have a more recent example to justify this legislation which is before us. The problem is perhaps peculiar to the Transvaal and to the Free State and is not so much of application in the Cape. Because of the Sir John Cradock Proclamation of 1813 in the Cape Province, the rights to gold, silver and precious stones at any rate are reserved to the State. I believe this difficulty does not exist in the major portions of the Cape nor in Natal. Sir, when one realizes that this proclamation was passed in 1813, one is tempted to refer to this as perhaps a very appropriate example of British conservatism as practised by the colonialists in the old days. I want to ask the Minister whether there are similar provisions in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State and whether there the surface and mineral rights are without any restrictions so far as the rights of the State are concerned. As I have said, the Minister has quoted an instance in 1938 and I do feel that we need a little more recent example as to where these problems have arisen.

So far as the Bill itself is concerned, there are certain matters in regard to which we would like to have an explanation from the Minister. Clause 3 deals with the method of assessing compensation. The Minister has said in his introductory speech that where the compensation cannot be settled by agreement between the parties affected, it is determined by the Administrator in consultation with the Minister of Mines and the Minister of Community Development. But I want to know why it is that the Minister has not allowed the right of arbitration to continue? The one clause that he has excluded from this Bill is the right of the disputing parties to go to arbitration, and it seems to me that where either the owner of the surface rights or the owner of the mineral rights is not satisfied with the determination of compensation by the Administrator, they should be allowed to proceed to arbitration to settle the final figure.

Then under clause 6 of this Bill the problem arises as to the control of the mineral rights when once they have been expropriated. The Minister has said that they will be expropriated. The Administrator is given a certain discretionary power as to what should happen to those mineral rights, but one wonders whether the position should not be stated a little more definitely in this particular clause of the Bill. If those mineral rights are retained by the State over the whole of the area which is to be developed as a township, the possibility of conflict still remains. If the rights are kept by the State over the whole of the property the possibility of conflict remains because we then still have one owner of surface rights developing a township and another, the State in this case, owning the mineral rights. The same thing happens in the Cape Province where this reservation is still applicable under the Sir John Cradock Proclamation of 1813. Sir, are these rights to be transferred from the State or from the Administrator? I concede that provision is made for it in the Bill. But if these rights are passed by the Administrator to the township owner and they remain rights which affect the whole of the township area, then the individual plot owner who buys a property is again in peril that these mineral rights may be developed by the township owner at some later stage to the detriment of his ownership. It seems to me that if this Bill is to be logical, then what must happen is that the mineral rights must pass piecemeal to the individual plot owners because in effect then they are completely dissipated and are of no value to any particular person because they are over a very small area. I hope the hon. the Minister gets the point that I am driving at, and that is whether the position should not be that the township owner must then take over at the figure that has been settled by way of compensation and whether the mineral rights should be included in the title deeds of the individual person who acquires a plot or a property within that township. One realizes, on the other hand, that these mineral rights may become valuable. Unknown mineral wealth may subsequently be discovered beneath the ground, and one appreciates what would then happen, as I believe happened in the City of Oklohoma where oil was discovered in the middle of the city and where oil rigs are pumping oil next to the main buildings in the city. They have still been able to develop the mineral wealth in spite of the development of the township. These are problems with which the Minister is faced in dealing with a matter of this sort where we are taking steps to compel persons with conflicting rights to settle their problems. Sir, I raise these points, not because we intend to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, but there are certain aspects of this Bill which will have to be ironed out in the Committee Stage, and we would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would deal with these particular problems at this stage.

Turning to clause 7, one wonders whether the hon. the Minister’s Department have realized just what they are doing. We know, for instance, that in the Western Cape there is an outcry about the establishment of townships on agricultural land adjacent to some of the Western Cape towns. There has been a great outcry against the destruction of valuable wine farming areas, which are converted into townships. If clause 7 is applied and the conditions of title ignored when it concerns the development of a township, it will mean that no private owner can in perpetuity say that his farm shall be retained as a farm because the Administrator may at any stage, when he deems it necessary that a township be established, in conjunction with the Minister, say he is sorry. You may have that condition in your title deed preserving this for viticulture in the Western Cape but we are entitled, under clause 7, to override those conditions. I raise these matters not because, as I have said, we intend opposing the Second Reading. I raise them in the hope that the hon. the Minister will take cognizance of them. These are important aspects affecting property rights and we shall have to have a discussion in fairly considerable detail when we come to the Committee Stage of this Bill.

I was pleased to learn that the Opposition is not disputing the principles of this legislation. The hon. member for Green Point proved through his argument that he has studied and understood this legislation. During the course of his speech he pointed out a number of problems, but I do not intend dealing with those problems in detail. I do not want to bind the Minister. Inter alia the hon. member raised the question of arbitration and asked why provision had not been made for it in the Bill. But now one must ask oneself the question: Who is best able to form an opinion on the price—a person appointed in accordance with the arbitration procedure, or the Administrator on the advice of the Ministers of Community Development and of Mines? Consequently there is in my opinion, no need for arbitration. The hon. member also expressed concern in regard to the eventual establishment of mineral rights and in regard to what the eventual owner is going to do with them. In this connection he referred to clause 6 (3). But, in my opinion, the legislation is very clear on this point. Clause 6 (3) reads as follows—

All this deals with is establishment and development. What about owner’s rights?

But what is involved here is in fact the establishment and development of townships which is at present being paralysed under the provisions of the present legislation.

The hon. member raised other matters as well. To those, I think, the Minister will reply, or they are points which can be discussed further in the Committee Stage. For my part I just wanted to point out how extremely necessary it has become that legislation of this nature should be placed on our Statute Book. In this connection I want to refer specifically to the Transvaal, because I am better acquainted with it. A penetrating inquiry in the Deeds Office impressed upon me the fact that as far as at least 70 per cent, if not more, of the surface area of the Transvaal is concerned, the mineral rights are divorced from the surface area rights. The implication of this is that those owning the mineral rights have a complete monopoly on the development of townships and cities, particularly when we consider the Witwatersrand-Pretoria-Vereeniging-Vanderbijlpark complex. If we consider the mining activities which have now been in progress for three-quarters of a century then we realize that the mineral rights of the greatest parts of that area must be in the hands of people other than the people in whose hands the surface area rights are. That means that the land lies there and, while the mines are petering out, cannot be used for that purpose to which they are best suited. In this way an artificial shortage is being created of something for which there should really be a great abundance in our country in view of its vast expanses, i.e. building sites. I can imagine that the position in Natal should also be quite serious, as well as in certain areas of the Free State, where vast mineral wealth exists.

But under the legislation which is at present on the Statute Book, certain malpractices have taken place. In this way it has happened that speculators, or option hunters, did nothing else but determine, by means of a rather superficial study, where the possibility of township development existed and who the mineral rights owners were, and they then obtained those rights at reasonably low prices, or options in respect of those rights for a number of years upon the payment of a reasonably low rental. In this way the development of those areas is being prevented. This is something which is not in the public interest, and consequently this legislation is highly necessary. That is why I want to thank the Minister and his Department for having taken this matter in hand. It is no secret that in younger countries, such as Australia and Canada, mineral rights are, for the most part, vested in the various governments. This prevents those rights from being used in a way which is not in the public interest.

The final decision is, I concede, a difficult one, i.e. what is in the interests of a community or a country: The development of mineral wealth or the establishment of a township? This decision, I think, can with an easy conscience be left in the hands of the Minister responsible. The point of fundamental interest is that the value of the mineral rights can be calculated through prospecting and by means of a reasonably simple formula. I am convinced that even members on the opposite side of the House would be able to understand it. By means of prospecting the value of mineral rights can be calculated in hard cash. In this connection I want to refer hon. members to an article written by Mr. Papendorff under the title (translation) “Valuation of Mineral Rights” in Volkshandel of October, 1968, and subsequent issues. The value of mineral rights can be determined by means of prospecting. If prospecting reveals that minerals are present the value can be determined in accordance with a formula which is reasonably simple and which I do not want to deal with at this stage. Bodies which are capable of doing so can then judge what is in the public interest. In the circumstances objections to this legislation ought to fall away, except if one argues from the point of view of the mineral rights owners who have never determined the value of the mineral rights, but simply have a right which they then want to squander at absolutely improper prices, something which eventually must prejudice the house owner.

Recently we saw in the Press that the prices of building sites in some areas had increased by up to 250 per cent. From time to time that side of the House objects vehemently to the long period of time which supposedly elapses when application is made for township settlement, and that in an area which is not even a mining area, i.e. Pretoria. One of the reasons for that is the very fact that the mineral rights and the surface area rights are divorced. For months, and sometimes for years difficult negotiations have to be struggled through because the prices being charged for mineral rights are quite exorbitant, while no prospecting work was ever in fact done. The end result must be that owing to the loss of time, the concomitant loss of interest and, as the Minister indicated, the loss in taxation, the price of building sites must increase. Eventually, if an exorbitant price is charged for mineral rights, and has to be paid, the price of the building site which can be sold to the ordinary house owner must increase considerably. I therefore want to thank the hon. the Minister for this legislation. I want to trust that the problems which are now being experienced will now be eliminated or reduced in number by this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Wonderboom for the strong support he gave me during the Second Reading of this Bill. It is very clear that he is well informed as far as this problem is concerned. He evidently knows a great deal about the matter. Therefore I shall be very pleased if he will be present in this House during the Committee Stage, which will evidently be the scene of the big dispute, so that he may assist me a little. [Laughter.]

†The hon. member for Green Point asked me to give him a more recent example than the example of Bryanston. Well, during my Second Reading speech, I gave him an example of a problem which we now have in Pretoria where we cannot subdivide the land. The land has already been zoned by the Pretoria municipality for single houses. We cannot subdivide it, because the mineral right owners do not want to part with their mineral rights. Then the Administrator of the Transvaal has several such cases where he cannot give permission to proceed with township development for the simple reason that the mineral right owners do not want to give way. I may add that the Administrator of the Transvaal was one of the people who very urgently asked us to proceed with this legislation, because at the present moment it is very difficult for him to proceed with township development.

The question of arbitration has also been raised. The hon. member who raised it may have a point. However, I think the point has been fully dealt with by the hon. member for Wonderboom. Firstly, arbitration is a very expensive process. Our difficulty with these townships is that these stands are becoming so expensive that it becomes very difficult indeed for the middle-income group or even the higher-income group to buy stands at a price which allows them to build a fairly decent house. Therefore, we do not want to increase the cost of these stands at all. I think the point made by the hon. member for Wonderboom is very legitimate. After all, whom can we appoint as arbitrators? Who is in a better position to judge the values of these stands than the Department of Mines, the Department of Community Development and the Administrator? They and especially the Department of Mines are really the only people who can tell the value of mineral rights. If we should have a court of arbitration, that would practically be the only evidence which could be out before the court of arbitration. Therefore, I do not think that we can have further arbitration. Nevertheless, I will keep my mind open and listen to the arguments on this point during the Committee Stage. However, as I have said, I think the hon. member for Wonderboom dealt sufficiently with this matter.

As regards what happens with these mineral rights once they have been transferred from their present owners, I can only say that, obviously, if he sells them they are transferred to the man who buys them from him. The question is: If these mineral rights are expropriated, to whom are they then transferred? The reply is that they then go to the Administrator who must then cede them to the township developer. The township developer will actually pay the price which is laid down by the Administrator in consultation with the Ministers of Mines and Community Development. But I think the point made by the hon. member is completely met by this condition in the Bill as it stands, namely that the Minister of Mines and the Minister of Community Development can lay down any conditions and attach them to the transfer of the mineral rights from the present owner to the future owner who will be the township developer. This will make it absolutely impossible for the township developer to speculate with the mineral rights. I think that even the most unlikely cases like the case of Oklahoma where they found oil or something like that in the township, can be covered by those two Ministers and can be met in that way. As I say, these conditions can be very wide. I think they will be able to cover the most unlikely case such as was mentioned by the hon. member for Green Point.

The matter of the servitudes was also raised. The hon. member is worried about the present position where a man lays down a servitude that certain farm land must always be farm land. One of the sections of the Act which deals with this matter provides that the Act empowers the Administrator of the province to alter, suspend or remove certain restrictions and obligations in respect of the land, and it also repeals the Removal of Restrictions in Townships Act of 1946, and validates certain proclamations, etc. Section 2 of that Act gives the Administrator full power to remove any restrictions on any land if he wants it for certain purposes, namely for ecclesiastical purposes—the hon. member will not know much about that—for use for public purposes by the State or a local authority and also for the use or erection of any building by the State or local authority. In the Act is also given a large number of other conditions including the provision of a town planning scheme and a restrictive condition or servitude registered against the title deed of that land. That is already laid down. Therefore, we do not take any further powers.

It is expropriation for public purposes?

Yes, that is what he can do. The public purpose is laying out a township. I think the objection of the hon. member is being met.

I think that is all I need say at this stage. I should like to thank the hon. member for the support he gives to the principle of this Bill. We can discuss the details further when we come to the Committee Stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As the policy of separate development gains momentum it becomes necessary to adjust and to amend the Group Areas Act from time to time in order to make provision for changing circumstances. It has once again become necessary now, for various reasons, to reconsider certain provisions and to make certain accepted principles in respect of proclaimed group areas applicable in the controlled areas as well. In the present measure there is not one single consecutive principle because each of the amending clauses deals with a separate matter. Consequently you will, Sir, allow me to elucidate the clauses separately.

Clause 1 comprises a consequential amendment. Because the Minister, in accordance with the proposed amendment of section 19, with which I shall deal later, obtains powers which he must exercise, it must be provided in section 1 which Minister must exercise those powers, since some sections of the Act are administered by the Minister of Community Development and others, on the other hand, by the Minister of Planning.

Clause 2 deals with section 27 of the principal Act. Section 27 (3) of the principal Act makes provision for the compulsory realization of immovable property within a group area which is inherited by a disqualified person, if he does not succeed in obtaining a permit. The intention is now to make the same provision in the controlled area so that an executor can sell the property and wind up the estate if a disqualified beneficiary does not succeed in obtaining a permit for the acquisition of such a property. A case which gave rise to the need for such a provision recently occurred for the first time.

Clause 3 deals with section 19, which I have just mentioned. Section 19 of the principal Act has up to this stage been applied exclusively in order to establish so called trading areas within urban complexes for displaced traders, and there is no intention to forego this policy. However, as the section reads at present, the investigation and recommendation of the Group Areas Board, as well as the proclamation of the State President must deal with each separate building, land or premises, and it is not possible, as with the establishment of group areas, to deal with a specific area as such. Apart from the fact that giving consideration to separate premises is time-consuming, it is extremely difficult for the Group Areas Board to determine during its inquiry already, and to make a recommendation in regard to a date from which a particular building, land or premises may only be utilized for the envisaged purpose. Consequently the minimum period of 12 months is usually recommended, and the result of this is that after the period has expired everyone who has not yet brought the use of their properties into line with the proclamation must be placed on permit. It is therefore deemed necessary that the Minister of Community Development, to whom the resettlement of disqualified persons and the development of proclaimed areas is entrusted, must be in a position to determine from what date a particular premises may be utilized for the specified purpose only. In this way planned Change-overs can be ensured and the issuing of permits considerably reduced. This principle as well was accepted a long time ago in regard to group areas, and applied with effective results. Identification of so-called trading areas does in fact take place in consultation with the provincial and local authorities concerned, but it may happen that the purpose for which the area is being envisaged, is in conflict with existing zoning or title conditions of single premises in such an area and subsection (5) is intended to make provision for such cases. The proposed subsections (2) and (3) are intended to place those areas which have already been established under the existing section 19 on an equal footing with those which will be proclaimed in terms of the amended section.

Clause 4 is intended to eliminate a deficiency in the provision for the issuing of permits, and to provide specifically that permits for use can be issued.

Clause 5 deals with an administrative matter. With a view to the efficient functioning and administration of its regional offices in Johannesburg, Durban and Cape Town, the Department of Community Development has found it necessary to upgrade the posts of its regional representatives in the said offices and to appoint the encumbents to the newly created posts of “regional representative”. The problem is now being experienced that the rank of regional representative is not mentioned in section 22 (1) (a) of the principal Act, with the result that no powers can be delegated to these officers who are in charge of the offices, while the powers can in fact be delegated to the deputy secretaries in the same offices, who are of a lower rank. In terms of the existing Act, the powers up to the rank of deputy secretary can be delegated, and the amendment does not therefore comprise an expansion of delegated power to lower ranks. New powers are being created by the proposed sections 13 (3), 19 (2) and 19 (4) and that is why it is necessary to authorize the Minister to be able to delegate these powers as well.

Clause 6 deals with the so-called “backyard locations”. Complaints are continually being received about them in the white group areas. Except in the case of disqualified Bantu, the police cannot take action against the visitors of bona fide domestic servants and employees, and it is not possible to combat this evil effectively. Consequently it is deemed necessary to make provision to the effect that the exemptions which may be granted in terms of section 26 of the principal Act by proclamation to bona fide domestic servants and employees can be made subject to conditions regarding the visitors of domestic servants and other employees who live in. According to the opinion of Government legal advisors it is doubtful whether such conditions can be imposed in terms of the existing provision, and the amendments to the principal Act contained in this clause are therefore intended to create the necessary authority. Although it is at the moment the visitors of domestic servants in flats who are for the most part causing the problems, I am not prepared to distinguish in the Act itself between the servants working in flats and those accommodated in or at private dwellings. The Act only makes provision for exemption by way of proclamation, and if there is any reason to distinguish between the visitors of servants at private dwellings and those at flats, it can be done in the proclamation. However, it is emphasized again that the section only applied in group areas for occupation, and that in group areas the Minister of Community Development is responsible for the application of the Act. I can therefore give no undertaking in this regard. Representations in regard to the possible application of the provisions of the Act concerned must be made to the Minister of Community Development.

Mr. Speaker, one asks oneself why it is necessary to have a Bill amending the Group Areas Act again this year. The hon. the Deputy Minister has been quite frank with us when he said that the necessity for these amendments arose periodically. It certainly does. It seems to us that we have to live with these amendments each year. They arise from the very basic concept of the Group Areas Act which was opposed by this side of the House when the legislation was initially introduced. The introduction of the Group Areas legislation was initially opposed by this side of the House because the separation was to be by compulsion and not by magnetism as it was previously.

Do you think that is possible?

Of course, it is possible under a different Government.

With the growth of metropolitan urban areas, it has been a pattern that white occupied areas have surrounded areas which were previously separate and isolated Coloured occupied areas. The application of the Group Areas Act inevitably results in the non-Whites occupying these originally isolated areas, which have now been surrounded by white areas, having to move from those areas. They are given new areas which are apart and isolated and which have been established to house them, because their being moved was made necessary by the Group Areas Act. The location of these areas is inevitably further removed from the business, industrial and residential areas in which the non-white persons are employed. In other words, it becomes necessary for them to travel great distances to and from their work and to spend more time getting to work and getting home from work. It has become necessary to permit certain classes of persons, disqualified on the grounds of colour, to have rights of occupation in such proclaimed white group areas. This Bill deals with one such exempted class in clause 6, namely the domestic servants who are employed in white residential areas. Non-white domestic servants are permitted in terms of section 26 of the principal Act to occupy premises in white areas, that is, to live at their places of employment. The Government having found it necessary to give exemption from the basic provisions of the Group Areas Act, the number of disqualified persons living in these white areas have obviously increased. These domestic servants have increased in number and their number has increased not only because of the extension and development of these white residential areas, but as a result of the distances these non-white workers have to travel to and from their work in these white areas. Daily maids and charwomen are becoming a thing of the past in most white residential areas. They are being replaced by domestic servants who are now employed and live where they work. In all these areas, however, there remain large numbers of nonwhites who are employed on a daily basis. They work in shops, garages, restaurants and hotels in the white residential areas. It is this situation which creates what the hon. the Deputy Minister has referred to as a cause for complaint in so far as the conduct of visitors to the non-white servants are concerned. The inevitable result has been that these daily employees, in every white urban area are tempted, and understandably so, to arrange for accommodation in the white area in which they are employed. Where do they go? They go to the domestic servant who has accommodation for himself or herself. They go there and come to some arrangement whereby they can share that accommodation. One then finds these persons who might be called unauthorized within the white areas. These lodgers, especially if they be Bantu, will probably be acting illegally. They will probably be acting without permission in a number of cases of the employers of the non-white domestic servants, but one would be hard put to secure a conviction if the individual concerned says that he or she was merely visiting and was not occupying the premises at the time. The difficulty that exists is basically and undoubtedly of the Government’s own creation by its policy. It arises because of the application of the Group Areas Act, and the manner in which it is applied by the Government. Because of this legislation people throughout the country in urban areas find themselves faced with two alternatives. I agree there is a problem. It is a problem which has grown, has been created and has resulted from the group areas legislation. They are faced with two alternatives in this regard. The one is the residents in white areas must do without domestic servants and the exemptions under the Group Areas Act must be withdrawn so that no domestic servants may occupy any accommodation in white areas. I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to suggest that to the housewives of South Africa and to see the reception this suggestion will receive.

No one is suggesting it.

That is the one alternative. The other alternative is that measures must be contrived, as in this Bill, to try and control the undesirable situation that has arisen, and to which the hon. the Minister has referred. That is the other alternative.

The Government has now introduced this legislation which seeks power to control and restrict by regulation the daily and personal life of domestic servants who are employed in the white group areas. I want to appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister …

You have the wrong end of the stick.

The hon. the Deputy Minister wants to control the visitors to domestic servants. I want to remind the hon. the Deputy Minister that these domestic servants are human beings who enjoy the company of their friends just as much as we do. That is why I say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he has here a problem which is a very difficult one and which needs very careful handling. The hon. the Deputy Minister has been strangely silent as to what form of regulation he proposes to introduce. How is he going to regulate the visitors to domestic servants in white areas? What type of regulation does he consider might be suitable? We look at this Bill in the light of the circumstances as they exist and we must accept that this problem does exist because of circumstances to which I have referred. We on this side of the House must ask ourselves what we are going to do. Are we going to support this Bill? It seems to me that the answer is to be found in facing the facts. It is a question of Hobson’s choice. As one of my colleagues put it to me, it is like a person who has become infected with a disease. He did not seek the infection, but having become infected, he has to find a cure for the disease. We have become infected with this problem in our urban areas and it seems that a solution must be found to this problem. One feels that this problem has arisen through no fault basically of the employer or the employee. It is a real one and we would not be realists if we should deny it. This problem is particularly real in regard to blocks of flats. I say in connection with blocks of flats, because in most instances in blocks of flats the servants are housed in a separate part of the building, apart from the actual white residential section. As was referred to in the Other Place, these are places where employers exercise some sort of remote control over the servant, because the servant’s accommodation is not directly within the area occupied by the employer. We are prepared, so far as the Second Reading is concerned, to support this measure, but we want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister for certain explanations and certain clarifications of matters which arise under this Bill. We will move certain amendments during the Committee Stage to this Bill where we feel that the provisions as they are now are not totally acceptable.

I therefore want to raise questions with the hon. the Deputy Minister now, and on which I hope he will give some clarity. How does he visualize using these powers under clause 6? What regulations does he consider are necessary? Because if he is asking for power to introduce regulations, he must have had a preliminary “canter” as to the type of regulation that he visualizes introducing. What are the conditions he has in mind that should be imposed upon visitors to domestic servants?

The next point which I wish to raise with the hon. the Deputy Minister, although he has anticipated this question to some extent, is whether it is necessary to apply these regulations to domestic servants who are employed and stay in accommodation which do not form part of a complex, in other words, at private houses? The Deputy Minister did say in introducing the Second Reading that this was permissive and if the Department of Community Development did not think it necessary to control the servants in these private dwellings they would not do so, but I do not think they should have the power to do so; I do not think the Department of Community Development should have the power to control them and we will in the Committee Stage move an amendment to ensure that the powers granted will be only in regard to accommodation provided which is not under the direct control of the private owner of a private dwelling. I believe that is a reasonable approach to the problem which, as I say, exists, and that proposal will be put before the Minister as well.

The third point I wish to remind the hon. the Minister is of this. No matter what regulations are made regarding visitors under the powers he seeks in this Bill, the existence of non-White persons within the white group area must be more realistically faced by the Government. You cannot possibly expect an orderly existence of domestic servants, permitted to live in white areas such as Sea Point or any other area of that nature, far removed from their permanent homes out on the Cape Flats, without seeing to it that they are provided with facilities for their recreation and for their meeting within those areas where they are employed. I believe the Government has a two-fold responsibility, not only to attempt to deal with regulations but also to see that these facilities are made available where they recognize the necessity of the non-white domestic servant being employed and living in white group areas. I hope the Deputy Minister will elaborate on these matters in his reply. As I say, as was accepted in the Other Place, this is mainly a Committee Stage Bill and these are matters which we will deal with in the Committee Stage.

I want to raise one point under clause 1 of the Bill. It is a small item but a significant one. The Bill now provides for the control of proclaimed group areas, the section 19 areas under the Group Areas Act. The Bill transfers the control of those areas to the Minister of Community Development. I want to ask the Minister whether this is indicative of a gradual move whereby the determination of group areas will probably also rest under that same Minister eventually instead of under the Minister of Planning, thus eliminating so many of the problems we have had in regard to proclamations and deproclamations when conflict has arisen between the two departments. I wonder whether the Minister will indicate whether this is a first step in that direction, and that these powers are now being transferred to the Minister of Community Development.

As I said, on this side of the House we feel that we must face the fact that there is a problem which needs attention and which is a cause for complaint. It is a matter which can be discussed in detail with the Minister in the Committee Stage, but I hope at this stage he will be able to elaborate on it and indicate to us how he visualizes the type of regulation he has in mind can meet in a just manner the interests of the persons who will be affected by those regulations.

I have always had the highest regard for the debating ability of the hon. member for Green Point, but I must say that I saw him performing an egg-dance in this House this afternoon such as I have not seen him perform for a long time, and that for obvious reasons. The hon. member tried to indicate to us this afternoon that they actually had a problem as to whether they should be in favour of or against this Bill because they were given a Hobson’s choice; because we have the Group Areas Act and because these things are of a consequential nature, they do not know whether they should be in favour of or against this Bill. Apparently the hon. member’s memory is very short. The problem he has this afternoon, the problem that they do not know which course to take, arises from the fact that he moved an amendment in this House recently in respect of legislation introduced by the hon. the Minister of Community Development, an amendment from which it is apparent that the United Party now accepts group areas and separate residential areas.

Nonsense! This has nothing to do with the matter.

How can the hon. member say it is nonsense? I can quote it to him from the Minutes of the House. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) is just like a cicada.

Order! But why does the hon. member take notice of him?

But he is such a nuisance, Sir. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point reads as follows: That “whilst this House desires the provision of adequate housing in separate residential areas for the different race groups, …”. Now the hon. member is calling to witness the fact that they opposed the Group Areas Act and that separate residential areas are being applied to-day through compulsion and not through magnetism. But his real problem is that they indicate, on the one hand, that they are in favour of separate residential areas and he is now finding himself with this problem which has given him a Hobson’s choice. To say that non-Whites have to find themselves one domestic servant or other with whom they can spend the night because they stay a long way from their residential areas, is simply no argument. Does the hon. member want people, because they stay a long way from the areas in which they work, to be allowed in uncontrolled numbers to spend the night with other servants, because provision is made for servants under this Act? I should rather say that we as right-minded members for the Cape Peninsula should have been very grateful for this Bill, which particularly has in mind the control of visitors to our domestic servants. When the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Community Development was discussed during the previous session of 1968, I dealt at length with this situation which we are trying to deal with to-day. I do not want to deal with this matter again to-day, but I just want to read out to hon. members what the hon. the Minister said at that time. I am referring to last year’s Hansard, column 5108, where he said the following—

I say we should be grateful for this legislation to-day because this is not legislation that has originated on the spur of the moment. I have indicated that this legislation has been investigated exhaustively and considered seriously for some time. Then I want to go further and say that it has become imperative for us, particularly in the Cape Peninsula, because we find that non-Whites move about and loiter freely in the white residential areas, particularly at late hours of the night. This is something unavoidable, because we still have this provision to-day that visitors to bona fide domestic servants are being allowed to spend the night with these domestic servants for as long as 90 calendar days. At that time I said—and I want to stand by it to-day—that I was sure that almost as many non-Whites were spending the night in some white residential areas as there were Whites living in those areas and that we were faced with a situation where locations were developing in the backyards in white residential areas. [Interjection.] The aspect the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is mentioning now, is one which I should like to discuss outside the framework of this legislation, because it is not being (provided for in this legislation. In many cases these non-Whites were spending the night with the servants without the house-owners knowing anything about it and in such cases the police were able to take the steps they did, but I am afraid that in an equally large number of cases house-owners gave these non-Whites permission to be on the premises, because the house-owners were afraid that they might lose their servants if they restricted them. For that reason they allowed the non-Whites to spend the night with their servants. The situation has degenerated to such an extent that the Police found it necessary to issue warnings from time to time. I just want to quote one case where a report was published in Die Burger on 22nd November, 1968, under the heading “Gevaar Skuil Snags in Bediendekamers” (danger lurks in servants’ rooms at night), and I just want to quote the following paragraph (translation)—

And then I come to the interesting part (translation)—

As is indicated in this report, the police not only receive thanks for what they do, but, according to Col. Visser, they also receive letters of abuse, in other words, from people who wilfully allow unidentified visitors to spend the night with their servants. I ask: Is it our task, is it the task of the legislator to protect those people who wilfully allow such an offence to be committed? Are we in the position to-day where we can allow these malpractices to continue? But these malpractices are not limited to a few residential areas, particularly in the case of the Tygerberg, as is indicated in the report. In flat complexes the position is much worse. There are various methods of providing accommodation for non-White servants at these flats and one of them is that a separate block is erected at these flats in which these servants may be accommodated. In other words, they are concentrated in one block. I do not want to express an opinion about this practice. I am sorry the hon. member for Sea Point is not here to-day since this is a major problem particularly in Sea Point. I do not want to express an opinion about the concentration of servants in one building. I should rather like to quote what was said by one of the voters of the hon. member for Sea Point who gave the following description of the position in a letter which appeared in Die Burger. She described the position as follows (translation)—

Sir, the point at issue is not whether the deductions drawn by this lady are correct as regards the lazy women who are supposed to do nothing else but play cards, and so forth, but what is important, is that the facts of this woman are quite correct, namely that we have here a concentration of skolly elements who use these servants’ quarters as a cache to hide their stolen goods and to serve as a centre for their smuggling activities.

There is also another method of providing accommodation to servants at blocks of flats, namely to make separate provision for domestic servants on every storey in the block of flats. In other words, one finds that Coloureds and Whites are staying next to one another on the same story. From the nature of the case these people are entitled and are allowed to receive visitors freely. People living in flats adjoining these servants’ quarters have no alternative but to accept this situation or to move elsewhere. But then we have the third method of providing accommodation and which is really the worst of them all. I want to say immediately that we find this particularly in the very densely populated flat areas, possibly also in Sea Point in particular. There one finds the situation that there is a small room at the entrance of the flat, a room which is separately equipped as the living quarters of the domestic servant, while the entrance to that room also serves as the entrance to the flat. In other words, there are no facilities for a separate entrance to that room at all. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Green Point sounds very surprised. He need only to move around in his own constituency to discover that situation for himself. It is a fact that those domestic servants living in those small rooms are also entitled under the present Act to receive visitors unrestricted and freely for as long as 90 days per year. Sir, I ask myself and I ask hon. members opposite: Are we entitled to allow such a situation where people are living together, a situation which goes against the grain of every right-minded person? We have to put an end to it and for that reason I am convinced that the legislation we have before us to-day, will eliminate these malpractices to a large extent. We believe this, because we have asked for this legislation. I want to concede that I appreciate that we shall not be able to solve this problem in its entirety under this legislation, because as long as we as Whites want to allow ourselves the luxury of having a non-White servant available at all times, this problem will continue to remain with us to a certain extent, but since this is not at issue at this stage, I do not want to go into that aspect any further. This is not a situation of which we are afraid. The hon. member for Green Point is looking to the convenience of his voters because he fears for his political skin in this regard. However, I do not want to discuss the matter within the scope of this restriction on visitors, because this is not at issue at this stage. But there is no need for the hon. member to challenge me; I shall find an opportunity of discussing this matter at a later stage. But this still does not justify the argument that we should not take any steps at present to eliminate these malpractices. I believe that, for the time being, the steps proposed by the hon. the Minister to-day, will eliminate these malpractices to a large extent.

Sir, I want to be brief in my reply. In the first instance I want to thank the hon. member for Tygervallei for the summary of the position he furnished here. He has more to do with everyday aspects of this matter than I, and I am grateful to him for this summary. I am also grateful to the hon. member for Green Point for the way in which he presented his criticism here. I just want to say this in regard to what the hon. member for Green Point had to say. He stated that his Party stood for voluntary separate residential areas in contrast to what we supposedly want, viz. compulsory separate residential areas by way of legislation. However, I want to remind him of the fact that it was in fact this voluntary separate residential areas of the past which landed us in the stew we find ourselves in to-day. If we did not have this legislation then we would not have had the measure of separation which we have to-day.

The hon. member also stated that we must take into account the fact that domestic servants to-day have to travel long distances to and from their places of employment. I readily concede that point; it is true, but this Bill does not deal with domestic servants as such. It deals with the visitors of domestic servants, and it is aimed at them in the first instance. The distances which these servants have to travel has nothing to do with the matter of the visitors. A visitor, whether he has come a long distance or whether he has come a short distance, remains a visitor, and it is those people we would like to take steps against here. In addition the hon. member asked how I foresaw this legislation being applied. A visitor cannot visit a domestic servant while that domestic servant is working. After all, one does not need a visitor when you are doing your work. If a person is working in a factory for example, you cannot allow him to receive visitors in that factory. If the domestic servant is doing her work in the morning then you cannot allow her to receive visitors. Another aspect is that one cannot allow visitors to sleep over regularly with the servants. There have been cases where a female domestic servant allowed her husband and her entire family to stay with her for more than a year in her room, and nobody could take steps against them although it is provided in the regulations that the periods may not be exceeded by 90 days. Nobody could prove when the period of 90 days had commenced. It is an impossible task for the police to take steps against such servants. The question of the duration of the visits—whether it should be 72 hours as is provided in the Bantu legislation, or whether it should be three, four or seven days—is a matter which can be arranged by way of regulation. Nor can I see why the hon. member would like to exclude the domestic servant of the private owner from the provisions of this proclamation, for after all it is a fact that the servants of the private owner also receive visitors, and it is often the private house-owner who stands powerless in regard to this evil, for the domestic servant simply says: “If you do not allow my husband to come and sleep with me every night, then I shall no longer work for you,” and in order to keep his domestic servant, he has no option but to accept that condition. He is in a helpless position and he cannot exercise proper control, for that reason we cannot distinguish between the ordinary dwelling and a flat. The hon. member also stated that we should be realistic and that we should accept the presence of Coloureds in the white group areas and that we should create recreational facilities for them. I cannot see why recreation facilities should be established in Sea Point for domestic servants and their visitors. The hon. member himself drives from here to Newlands and drives even further afield to go fishing. Why cannot these people not have their own recreational facilities in their own residential areas? But besides that, any good house-owner ought to give his servant at least a half day or so off per week so that he can go and enjoy the recreational facilities in his own group area which have been made available for him there.

The hon. member also referred to the fact that the provisions of section 19 are now being expanded, and he wanted to know whether we are now going to hand over our functions to the Department of Community Development. There is no question of that. Under this legislation the Department of Planning has a planning function and the Department of Community Development has a development function. Up to the stage when an area is proclaimed it falls under the planning function of the Department of Planning, and as soon as an area has been proclaimed, the Department of Community Development takes over, and then the Department of Planning no longer has any function. As soon as an area has been proclaimed, either under section 19, or under the Group Areas Act, the Department of Community Development takes over. There is therefore no question of the entire administration of this Act being transferred to Community Development.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

Hon. members will recall that during the discussion of the Vote “Prime Minister”, the hon. the Prime Minister gave certain explanations of the item “Secret Services”, which then appeared on that Vote for the first time. On that occasion it was also explained that after thorough consideration it had been decided to establish a Bureau for State Security. The House has approved the amendments effected to the Public Service Act for this purpose. From the nature of the confidential duties and functions of the bureau it is deemed essential that for the sake of greater secrecy special arrangements also have to be made as regards the expenditure on these activities. With a view to this it is now proposed in the Bill that a special account be established for this purpose. This Bill to a very large extent follows the text of the Foreign Affairs Special Account Act passed by Parliament in 1967. It differs from that Act mainly in so far as the Special Account now being proposed will make provision for different services and expenditure in connection therewith. Hon. members will agree with me that it will not be in the public interest to go into the details of the services envisaged here. As it is essential to ensure the secrecy of these services, the expenditure in connection therewith cannot be voted from public funds in the usual way. As in the case of the Foreign Affairs Special Account, proper control will also be exercised over the proposed Special Account and expenditure, as is clear from the provisions of the Bill.

Sir, last week we supported the principle of the establishment of the security services when we passed the Public Service Amendment Bill. This Bill gives effect to this in that it establishes a special account to deal with the security services and we support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

When the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act was before this House in 1964, it was generally felt that the plant breeders of the Republic should be protected, and plant breeders’ rights were introduced only for plants which had originated in the Republic. Consequently it was not possible for overseas plant breeders to obtain rights on their plants here. This prevented a large number of unadapted plants finding their way into the Republic and at the same time it served as encouragement to plant breeders in this country. The success which our plant breeders have had is proved, inter alia, by three promising lupin varieties of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services which have been undergoing tests in Germany since 1967 with a view to obtaining plant breeders’ rights there.

In the meantime a new law relating to plant breeders’ rights was passed in Germany which provides that plant breeders’ rights may only be granted if the countries applying for them grant reciprocal privileges to German plant breeders. After careful consideration and consultation with the South African Agricultural Union, the Plant Breeders’ Association and the Seed Dealers’ Association, I came to the conclusion that South African plant breeders have made thorough use of the protection which they have enjoyed up to now, and that it could only be to the advantage of the Republic to make provision for granting plant breeders’ rights on a reciprocal basis.

The granting of reciprocal plant breeders’ rights will take place sparingly and will only apply in respect of a plant of a particular kind or variety which has its origin in a country which is also prepared to grant rights on the same basis to the Republic.

The amendment in clause 1 of the Bill is of a formal nature, because it was felt that the period of sole right in respect of plants which are propagated from seed is too short. The reason for this is that the trial period sometimes lasts up to three years, which means that the holder of the plant breeders’ rights is only allowed two years during which he can exercise his sole right. With the proposed amendment this problem will now be overcome.

Mr. Speaker, I trust that I shall receive the support of members of both sides of the House for the adoption of this measure.

The position is that under section 10 of the present Act a South African plant breeder wanting to secure his rights in respect of a new mutation or plant variety developed by selection, may apply to the registrar and may be granted permission by the Minister to have provisional plant breeders rights, which carry with them the sole right to propagate, to sell and to multiply that particular plant. When these provisional plant breeders rights expire he can again apply to the registrar, and be granted by the Minister, final plant breeders rights, which in the case of fruit trees and vines may extend up to a period of 20 years and 10 or 15 years for some other plants.

The rub, as far as the plant breeder is concerned, lies in the fact that it takes some two to three years to test these plants and that the date of application, referred to in the first clause of this Bill, is the date of application for provisional plant breeders rights and not the date of the application for final plant breeders rights. Therefore it can happen, as the Deputy Minister has said, that a person has very little time indeed to exercise the sole right to sell, to propagate or multiply a plant before he in turn has to give a licence to somebody who applies for it and pays royalties to him.

We feel that this is a reasonable amendment. Our South African plant breeders are entitled to this extra period of three years proposed by clause 1. Our plant breeders have some very notable achievements to their credit, both private breeders and breeders at certain Government research stations. One has only to think of the Kakamas peach, for example, which to-day is used for canning purposes; not merely in our own country, but in certain overseas countries as well, including the United States. One might give another example of the stringless mango, which was produced, I think, at the sub-tropical research station of the department.

With regard to the second clause of the Bill, the original Act came from a Select Committee in 1964. Members of the United Party on that Select Committee were in favour of granting reciprocal rights under certain conditions to breeders from other countries. I should like to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister this afternoon for once again giving us an example of how the Government can follow the good lead so very often provided by the United Party. We are not worried that this could be abused. We feel, in the first place, that there is such an interchange of information between breeders and scientists throughout the world that it is to our advantage if we can make use of some of the better varieties that have been produced in other countries.

The hon. the Deputy Minister cited here the question of lupins, which, of course, revolutionized farming in certain parts of the Western Province; but there are other examples, too. One might cite certain varieties of tomatoes that have been produced in the United States. I say we are not worried about the provisions of this particular section, because it very specifically refers merely to a new plant of a particular variety. It is not just a general right given to the foreign breeders.

For these reasons, we on this side of the House are prepared to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, hon. members will remember that prior to the enactment of section 1 (1) of the General Law Amendment Act, 1957, there was no uniformity in the various provinces of the Republic with regard to the formalities in respect of contracts for the purchase and sale of land. In the Transvaal and the Free State the matter was regulated by pre-Union laws, which required such contracts to be in writing, whereas in the Cape Province an oral agreement was valid. In Natal, where the matter was also regulated by a pre-Union Act, an oral agreement was valid but transfer could not be effected prior to the submission of a written document. Section 1 (1) of the General Law Amendment Act, 1957, was then placed on the Statute Book so as to bring about uniformity and to eliminate and avoid uncertainty and disputes, in any event, as far as it was practicable to do so.

During the Second Reading of the Bill the then Minister of Justice stated very clearly in connection with section 1 (1) that he had discussed the matter in detail with jurists and others and that everybody was of the opinion that it was in the interests of all parties for transactions in connection with the sale of land to be in writing. Moreover, this still is the considered opinion of most people to-day. When we consult the law reports, we find that this section often crops up in the administration of justice and that the interpretation of that section is difficult in certain respects. I do not deem it necessary to analyse everything that has been written about this section, but I may mention that the problems relate more specifically to the question of whether or not a contract is in writing in specific cases, to what kind of transactions it is applicable, etc.

As regard the contract being reduced to writing, it was, according to judgments based on the provision which used to be in force in the Transvaal, on which this provision is modelled, not necessary for the contract to be contained in one document. An offer and acceptance could be made in separate documents. The telegraphic acceptance of an offer or the telegraphic communication that an offer had been accepted in writing, was sufficient for creating a valid contract of sale in terms of the requirements of the legal provisions in force at that time. The interpretation of section 1 (1) of the General Law Amendment Act of 1957 also is such that it is not necessary for the contract to be contained in one document. It is not clear either to what the provisions in connection with “cession” in section 1 (1) actually relate. The problems of interpretation in this connection are clearly evident from the judgment in the case of Uxbury Investment Ltd. v. Sunbury Investments Ltd. 1963 (1) 747 (K). Of course, it is hardly possible to ward off all disputes and all possible malpractices by means of legislation of this nature, but as far as it is possible to do so, the risk to contracting parties of law suits ought to be limited to a minimum. Consequently the Bill introduced earlier this year sought to achieve this end by substituting a provision for section 1 of the General Law Amendment Act, 1957, which required, inter alia, the contract to be contained in one written document; the document authorizing a person to sign on behalf of a party to be attached to the contract; and one which did not re-enact the provisions in connection with cession and the sale of any interest in land. As hon. members know, the Bill was referred before Second Reading to a Select Committee for inquiry and report, the Committee having leave to bring up an amended Bill. The Bill at present before this House is the one introduced by the Committee.

Mr. Speaker, before saying a few words about the provisions of the Bill, I should like, with your leave, to express my thanks and appreciation to the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. member for Virginia (Mr. H. J. van Wyk), who, as I have been informed, dealt very efficiently with a particularly technical measure although he is a layman in the field of law, as well as to the other members of the Committee for the time and energy they devoted to the investigation of this matter. It was their task to consider in the light of their practical knowledge and experience, particularly the possible effect the proposed new provisions might have in practice on the numerous everyday land transactions. I am particularly pleased that the recommendations of the Committee were unanimous.

It is not my intention to analyse in detail the evidence submitted to the Select Committee. The documents are accessible to members who want to know more about the subject. In broad outline I nevertheless want to mention that it appeared that the requirement of “one written document”, originally envisaged, might possibly not have resulted in fewer law suits in connection with the requirement of writing than was the case at present. In addition it appeared that such a requirement might create the opportunity for a contracting party to evade his obligations if he did not want to honour his given word but sought a way out before conditions which had been agreed upon could be embodied in one written document. Furthermore, there were indications that the public could be inconvenienced in an inestimable number of everyday private and business transactions if it were to be required by law that a contract for the sale of land had to be contained in one document. The Select Committee consequently decided that the existing requirement in connection with writing should be left intact. It has at least that advantage that it is a requirement which can be implemented in practice.

Coupled to the requirement that the contract (had to be contained in “one written document”, it was envisaged that a person signing the contract on behalf of a contracting party was to attach to the contract at the signing thereof a document authorizing him to sign on behalf of that party. Because this, too, was seen as a possible technical ground on which obligations could be evaded and because of the possibility of delay in finalizing a contract of sale of land, it was decided not to amend the existing provisions in this connection. As a matter of fact, if the requirement of “one written document” falls away, it becomes evident that this requirement should fall away as well in any event.

It was decided that the existing provisions in connection with cessions should not be reenacted as the Deeds Registries Act regulated this matter adequately, but that the provisions in connection with the sale of any interest in land should be retained because of the fact that the sale of, inter alia, mineral rights might be as valuable, if not more valuable, than the land itself. In short, Sir, what clause 1 (1), as recommended by the Select Committee, amounts to is that the existing section is being amended by the omission of the provisions relating to cession. That aspect seems to be regulated adequately by the Deeds Registries Act. It appears that existing judgments will provide sufficient guidance as regards the interpretation of the other provisions. It is hoped that the amendment will clarify the section, and in addition it has the advantage that the legal provisions relating to the formalities in respect of a contract of sale of land will also be regulated in a separate Act, just as in the case of the Formalities in respect of Leases of Land Bill, which the hon. the Minister of Justice piloted through Parliament earlier this Session.

Clause 1 (2) is a new provision which has been inserted by the Select Committee for the sake of clarity and, in view of the provisions of section 71 of the Companies Act, 1926, to eliminate any doubt as far as it affects those provisions. As hon. members know, that section deals with written contracts entered into by a representative of a company not yet formed, incorporated or registered. So much as regards clause 1.

Clause 2 really is no more than clear confirmation of the existing legal position.

Clause 5 provides that the Act will come into operation on 1st January, 1970. In the case of the existing section it was also provided that it would come into operation on a certain date, i.e. 1st January, 1958. That was done so as to afford the public the opportunity of becoming acquainted with the provisions of that section. It appears (to be desirable to afford the public the same opportunity now.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister has pointed out that in 1957 the law with regard to the sale of land was amended to bring about uniformity in all the provinces. At that time no formalities at all were necessary in the Cape. It is a pity we did not follow the Cape custom as was in fact suggested by some of the members of the Law Revision Committee who proposed certain amendments to the law. Unfortunately we went more to the Transvaal for guidance. I hope this will be a lesson to the Government members not to be guided too much by the Transvaal and that they should rely more on the Cape. The original Bill referred to the Select Committee provided that a contract of sale should be in one document and signed by the parties at the same time and if one of the parties thereto was a representative of another party, he had to submit a written photostatic copy or a duplicate of the authority. The Select Committee had no difficulty in dealing with these matters, namely the one document and the authority of the representative, because it was quite clear from all the memoranda received by the Committee from interested bodies that these two amendments were not acceptable to the public who had to deal with sales in a practical manner. The only trouble that we did have was with regard to the definition of land, as to what was to be covered by the Bill. As the hon. the Deputy Minister has pointed out, one of the reasons for this amending Bill was the difficulty the courts had in interpreting as to what was meant by a cession. The Select Committee decided, quite rightly, to delete the word “cession” and to apply the Bill only to sales of land and interest in land. The words “interest in land” were inserted on account of difficulties some members had in deciding exactly what was covered by the term “land”. We hope that the provision as we now have it in regard to land or interest in land will cover all the transactions that the Select Committee considered. We on this side of the House support the Bill, because, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has already indicated, the recommendation by the Select Committee was unanimous.

Mr. Speaker, this is a measure which has the support of both sides of this House. It has become customary that the more unanimity there is on a measure the more it is discussed. This afternoon I intend departing from that custom by rising merely to express my thanks and appreciation for the cordial spirit of co-operation which prevailed on the Select Committee during the deliberations we had on this Bill. I am satisfied that on the basis of the facts and particulars we had at our disposal, we presented the best Bill to this House it is possible to introduce in the circumstances.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, when this debate adjourned I was making a final appeal for a third Iscor, knowing at the time that the announcement would come soon, but of course not expecting it quite so soon. We are very glad to have the announcement at long last. At least now the speculation that was getting out of hand will come to a stop. That speculation was particularly evident in my own area near Berlin. I also welcome very much the warning of the Chairman of the Permanent Committee in connection with this speculation. I only wished that he had issued that warning a little bit earlier and a bit more strongly than he has actually done. Whilst we congratulate Newcastle on having been chosen for this site of the third Iscor, I cannot help but express here very strongly our own disappointment at the Border not getting this big industry. We had hoped against hope that it might be placed there. At this stage I must stake a claim for the fourth one. I know the hon. the Minister said in his statement that the fourth one will only be due in 1984. That is a long time to wait.

And he will not be here.

That is correct, I repeat, that is a long time to wait and we in the Border certainly cannot wait that long for a solution to our problem. I venture to say that our problem is without any doubt the worst from a socio-economic point of view that is to be found in South Africa. There is no other area which has the same problem as the Border. My appeal for this industry is not for the sake of the industry as such, but, in the words of the hon. the Minister himself, the catalytic effect thereof. I do not think that people appreciate the extent of the problem that we have. We only have to look to the figures which the Permanent Committee give in their report to see exactly how bad the position is. The Permanent Committee says they have to find employment for 9,000 Bantu annually. Of that figure 50 per cent, namely 4,500 should be placed in employment in the Border, because we have 50 per cent of the homeland Bantu in the Ciskei and in the Transkei. The report further mentions that the grand total placed in employment throughout South Africa in border areas is only 5,000.

In other words, if the total border area development were to take place in the Border, we would only be coping with the problem for that area. If this were to happen, we would then only be half-way in terms of the I.D.C. figures for 1971, when they say 23,500 people have to be given employment. It is interesting to note, from the report of the permanent committee, that 5,000 people will be given employment as a result of the 164 applications for assistance approved during 1968. This means that only about 30 people per application will be given employment. It is also interesting to see, from the announcement made by the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs in connection with the supply of water to Berlin, that he expects about 240 industries to be attracted to Berlin over the next five years. If you work that out, Sir, you will see that, in actual fact, the five-year development which is due to take place at Berlin is only what is required for one year. I realize that these figures are not accurate, but at least they give us an indication of what the position is there. Hon. members may say: “But there are other industries which are expanding in other areas, apart from Berlin”. That is true enough, but I have not even taken into consideration the number of Bantu who are being repatriated by this Government to our areas. We are very jubilant because of the statement by the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, expressing his optimism over the development of Berlin. He thinks that 50 industries per annum will be established there. But, Sir, you must just see the jubilation in that area because of the 14 industries which have been approved and which will now establish themselves in the East London area. From that you will see how imperative the need is for drastic action in that area. I believe that the greatest need is for the Border to be placed on a basis of equality with other border areas, so that the Border can compete on an equal basis with those other areas. Sir, I only have to quote what the hon. the Minister himself said, to show you how difficult the position is there. When explaining why the third Iscor could not be built there, he said:

That is the basis of the trouble, namely our geographic position. We have concessions at the moment. There is the 25 per cent rebate on harbour dues and other port charges for East London and ports of destination in the Republic and South-West Africa. But, Sir, this only has a limited coverage. There are only certain industrialists who can make use of this. As the hon. the Minister’s figure in his own Vote shows, R25,000 is being allowed for this rebate. That is the only concession which the border area has over any other area in South Africa. The hon. the Minister will of course mention the 15 per cent rebate on road and rail tariffs for products manufactured in the Ciskei and the Transkei, but he has no longer confined that concession to the Border alone. He has now widened its scope. It can now be applied to any selected town or area. The result is that the Border has to-day, and already for some considerable time, been heading the priority list for border area development. We have found that border areas much lower on the list have actually developed much faster. Let us, for example, take the case of Brits. Brits came on to the priority list after the Border had already been on the list for some considerable time. And yet, what is the position there? Industrialists are expected to commence the establishment of their undertakings during the latter half of this year. Our interim answer, until the fourth Iscor of 1984 arrives, is that the Border must be given greater concessions. I should like to emphasize that I am not asking this in order to give the Border an advantage over any other border area. This must be done merely to place it on a par with any other border area, so that we can compete on an equal basis, having regard only to the quality of the products we produce and manufacture in the Border. One becomes concerned, as time passes, as the backlog increases, and as the required development does not take place. This is especially so when one reads what is stated in the report of the Industrial Development Corporation. Let us look at the passage quoted by the hon. member for Pinetown. I shall not repeat it all; I should only like to repeat the last few words of this passage, as follows: “… in accordance with the general trend in the industrial sector in which fewer new undertakings were established”. This is not for the reason which the hon. member for Florida gave. Here they also say that this was the case throughout, without there being any pressure on industrialists. This has nothing to do with the restrictions imposed as a result of inflation. Therefore, Sir, I call on the Government to forget about the easier areas, which the hon. member for Florida also mentioned, and to tackle this major priority problem which exists to-day. Let us at least overcome the present paradox where we have by comparison, a border without any border industries.

Mr. Chairman, it is actually strange and also remarkable how eagerly the United Party laid claim to the third Iscor, especially if one recalls how they opposed the original Iscor legislation in 1927 and 1928. However, I want to make use of this opportunity to congratulate the hon. the Minister and also the Cabinet most heartily on the siting of the third Iscor. All factors considered, I think that probably no better Choice could have been made than to have placed the third Iscor factory at Newcastle.

Sir, I actually want to talk about another matter concerning Iscor. As you know, year after year this side of the House is attacked under this Vote for giving too much protection to State-supported corporations, such as the I.D.C., Sasol and Iscor. It is said that the Government goes out of its way to protect these corporations and that this results in unfair competition with the private sector. Up to this stage in this debate we have not yet had that kind of attack, although some of our financial newspapers and some of the United Party newspapers have mentioned it. The hon. member for Pinetown, for example, referred to it. I merely want to say that this propaganda was especially aimed at Iscor, as a result of the announcement of the establishment of Meteor Investments Limited, in which Iscor was to have extensive interests, and in which the public will also, in the Course of time, be given the opportunity of taking a share. I do not want to say much more about Metcor, but immediately after the announcement of the establishment of Meteor, and particularly after it was announced that Meteor would obtain an interest in “Afgate”, “Wispeco” and the steel consumers, we had the following reaction from the financial editor of the Rand Daily Mail, under the heading “Iscor’s Wispeco stake is worrying”. Inter alia, the report reads as follows:

This is now the royal preserve which no one may enter. In the Financial Mail of the 7th March, under the heading “Watch Iscor, Mr. Haak”, it was asked whether it was in the country’s interests that Iscor, as a steel manufacturer, should also be able to obtain an interest in steel processing companies. Although it is at present the tendency of companies to amalgamate, it is claimed that Iscor’s actions in the establishment of Meteor have supposedly shocked the business world. I row first want to try to reply to these questions. I think that the interests which Iscor obtained through Meteor, Afgate and Wispeco are being completely over-emphasized and too great a fuss is being made of the matter. The interests which Iscor and other companies such as Amcor, Union Steel and Vecor had, already existed before the establishment of the Meteor Investment Corporation. The setting up of manufacturing and consumer companies, in order to guarantee a market for a product, is a tendency which is to-day accepted throughout the world and which is taking place. This is not only done in South Africa, and neither is it only applicable to Iscor. The establishment of Meteor is therefore not a new phenomenon. If we look at how the Highveld Steel and Vanadium Company links up with companies such as “Scaw Metals”, Stewart and Lloyds and others, we find that they accept that same principle to a much greater extent. Rand Selections. Anglo-American Investment Trust, O.F.S. Investment Trust, West Rand Investment Trust, Anglo-American Industrial Corporation, Vereeniging Estates and African and European Investment Company are all controlled from the offices of the Anglo-American Corporation. These seven large companies again hold direct interests in 324 companies who again have interests in 2,367 companies. If we bear this in mind, I think it is far-fetched to say that Iscor is now competing unjustly with private initiative. It is also a fact that if Highveld with its affiliates were to sell steel to the companies in which it has an interest, 37 per cent of South Africa’s steel production would be supplied by Iscor directly through Highveld to its own companies. However, the most important question is whether Iscor should be allowed to expand, and if that is asking too much, if Iscor should not grow in such a way as to admit private undertakings? This is the question which is now being asked. I want to ask the gentlemen, who are so concerned about the private sector, whether they are aware of the conditions under which Iscor was established? Can they remember what the Government’s object was in the establishment of Iscor; its object was to establish a semi-State industry through which Government control could go hand in hand with public participation? The object was also that the Government should obtain R1 million in shares and that R6 million in shares should be available to the private sector. But the members on that side of the House were the people who opposed this plan at that time and who frightened the public away, with the result that the shares were not taken up and that the Government was compelled to take up the B shares as well. Therefore the public cannot complain to-day that they were not also offered a rightful share in Iscor. It is therefore very clear that the public sector had the full opportunity of also sharing in Iscor’s management and profits.

To come back to the question of whether Iscor should be allowed to expand further or whether it should grow in such a way as to admit private undertakings as well. I also merely want to focus attention on a few small matters. Let us proceed from the supposition that it would be in the country’s interests to place Iscor in the hands of the private companies or to allow them admittance. What will have to happen then? The first thing that will have to happen is that the shares will have to be sold. Who is going to buy those shares? Those shares would be taken up by the person who makes the highest offer. Who would that be? It would be the Anglo-American Corporation. In other words, Iscor must be placed in the hands of Harry Oppenheimer. I do not know if this is what private initiative actually wants. I say that it is very clear that the highest bidder will get hold of that steel company. Why did the public not invest capital in Iscor in 1933 when the opportunity afforded itself? No, those were depression years and they did not want to risk their money in that undertaking. However, now that our steel industry is stabilized everyone is very anxious to share in it. One is grateful that the Government had the faith and trust at that time to establish Iscor, which has done pioneer work for the development of our industry in this country. It is also very important for such a key industry to remain in the hands of the Government. I wonder where the industrial development of this country would have been to-day if it had not been for the establishment of Iscor. With the economic development of our country and with the fact that Iscor furnishes about 75 per cent of our steel, there need be no fear that there will not be room for any other steel manufacturers to participate in the open market as well. It is also a fact that Iscor enjoys no protection from the Government. It must compete with any other steel manufacturing company it must compete with the open markets of the world. There is no special projection for this company. I think that Iscor has succeeded particularly well in is object, because if we think of the fact that the price of steel has increased tremendously during recent years; if we think that since 1952 the price of steel in the United Kingdom has increased by 45 per cent, in the U.S.A, by 43 per cent, in Australia by 63 per cent and in South Africa by 5.7 per cent, it is proof that Iscor has succeeded in building up an efficient industry. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am certain that I speak for the whole of Natal when I say that we were very pleased indeed to hear the hon. the Minister’s announcement regarding the situation for the third Iscor. The link reaction is such that the whole of the province must benefit, not only the whole of Natal, but naturally also other areas towards the north. I have been very interested in seeing speculation in regard to the development in the Tugela River Basin following the lines of the planning by the Natal Town and Regional Planning Commission some years ago. Of course, it will go much further than that. It will go right down the valley of the Umfolozi River where the new line is being built from Richard’s Bay up to Vryheid and then up to the north. That will produce probably just as big a potential for development as even the Tugela Basin itself. But the development which has followed the statement by the hon. the Minister has produced reaction which, I think, does call for some questions to be put to the hon. the Minister at this stage. This is the first opportunity we have had since he made this announcement. I should like to express my concern over the reports that have appeared in the Press regarding the speculation in property which has been taking place in and around Newcastle over, according to the reports, the past two or three weeks, although I believe that there were quite important deals taking place prior to that. If the reports are correct, something like R2 million worth of property has changed hands during the past fortnight. An authority there who is in a position to give a worthwhile opinion has stated that the value of land in the vicinity has increased by 1.000 per cent during the past few weeks and that there has been a general increase in property values not only in the town, but in all these surrounding areas. I think, if this is so, it gives the appearance of there having been a leak in the information regarding the siting of that Iscor. I think that is a fair deduction to be drawn from it.

I appreciate the position in which a Department like the hon. the Minister’s Department finds itself where it is involved with an organization like Iscor with all its ramifications. Such an organization is a very big concern administratively with many branches and many facets and this development must be known to quite a large group of people. I accept that. I realize that it is impossible to keep that knowledge within a very small number of people. In the past it has been possible to keep these matters, I think, under the seal of secrecy. What I would like to ask the hon. the Minister is this. When was the decision actually made that the third Iscor would be at Newcastle? The hon. the Minister made a statement here speaking for the Government, and while presumably Iscor itself made the decision, I assume it made its decision in consultation with the Government. This is not a decision that could be made by Iscor itself; it had to be made in consultation with the Government. This fact is borne out by the statement issued by the hon. the Minister. My second question is, therefore, the following. Who in fact did make the decision? When was the decision made and who made the decision? If I am right in believing that this is a matter where the decision ought not to be made public, but kept just as secret as a budget prior to its delivery here by the hon. the Minister of Finance, and if it is a State matter of that importance because of the financial ramifications which would flow immediately from any prior disclosure of the intention of the appropriate authorities in regard to the final settlement of the development of the industry concerned, I want to ask what steps are. taken to see that in fact the secrecy is maintained? lust how, when steps are being taken to finalize a decision of this kind, is it ensured that that secrecy is maintained? As I say the facts are at our disposal, borne out by the reports in the Press over the week-end and by statements made by certain people in Natal, for example by a certain lawyer of whom it was said in the newspapers that he locked his door because he had some land and estate agents in his office with whom he was negotiating the completion of some documents which, at the time of the statement, required only finalization. The documents were ready and waiting just to get the go-ahead and this person could not be bothered. He was there closeted with the people who were completing these documents. This gives the impression to the outside world and the public that there was a leak of information and that somebody had acquired that information and that it was used for the private benefit of someone or other. It is not sufficient that in a matter of this kind the Department and all those involved in the matter should have retained the absolute greatest possible secrecy over the matter. That is not sufficient. If in spite of that, word has leaked out that it is possible for persons to make a personal benefit from their foreknowledge of the fact of where that industry was to be sited, then it seems to me that this calls for an investigation carded out at top level. This investigation should be carried out in the open by the finest possible authority that the Government can appoint for the purpose with the most scrupulous regard for everything being done in the open in the light of day, so that the whole matter can be investigated. Secrecy in itself and the desire to maintain secrecy and the honest sincere efforts of everybody who was officially involved in knowledge of the project, is not sufficient. The question of where the new Iscor was to go was a matter of immense financial benefit to anybody who could get that information even in a few hours in advance of the official notification by the hon. the Minister here in this House. He came, according to parliamentary practice, and I have no complaints on this score, and he made a public announcement here in this House. Fair enough, hut if it can be shown, and prima facie it looks as if it is so, that land speculation has taken place there, then it seems to me that it is in the interests of the industry and of public administration in South Africa that the fullest inquiry should be made to find out whether in fact there was a leak and whether private profits have been made as a result of prior knowledge of the fact. It has been said that many people looked upon it as inevitable that Newcastle would be the site for the new Iscor. My friend, the hon. member for King William’s Town, hoped that it would be in Berlin and other people believed that the North-Western Cape was entitled to it. While it is perfectly true that, as the hon. the Minister has said at the time when he made the announcement, that at Newcastle there were transport, labour, coal and other facilities available, particularly water in large quantities, that was not the only place. Even the fact that there was a town which could provide certain amenities and the fact that there was a settled community with all the facilities and amenities that go with a municipality such as we have at Newcastle, did not provide the answer. Those or similar conditions were available elsewhere. Nobody can guess what amount of money changed hands over the past few weeks in Newcastle apparently because of the fact that it was going to be chosen. It was impossible, and a speculator does not invest his money unless he is fairly certain that his money is going to come back to him with a profit attached to it. I ask the Minister please to tell us when this decision was made and who made it. Was secrecy supposed to be an ingredient of this operation, and if so, does he not believe that the cause of public standards of behaviour in South Africa will be well served by having an inquiry into the whole of the circumstances to see whether there was a leakage and whether profit has been made by individuals because of prior knowledge of what was contemplated.

I do not want to talk about Iscor, but I should like to say a few words about a matter which, to South-West Africa is as important, as Iscor, and that is the fishing industry. The fishing industry is of particular economic importance to South-West Africa because it is one of our pillars. For Walvis Bay itself the fishing industry is of course of vital importance and it is most essential that this industry be protected under all circumstances. I should like to mention a few figures. During 1966, 720,000 tons of sardines were caught: in 1967, 768,000 tons were caught; in 1968 catches amounted to 960,000 tons, plus another 96,000 tons of anchovies, besides the catches of the factory ships which amounted to 614,634 tons during 1968. In addition, there are still the catches of white fish, which include white fish catches along the coast of South Africa. In 1968, 2 million tons of white fish were caught. It is interesting to note that while 410,413 tons of sardines were caught in South African waters during 1968, catches in South-West Africa during 1968 amounted to 1,685,528 tons. What is interesting, is the fact that catches of sardines in the South African waters constituted only a quarter of catches in South-West Africa.

As far as the future is concerned, I have full confidence in this industry for the following reasons. The large quota for 1968 which I have just mentioned, was easily met, and as far as 1969 is concerned, catches have been very satisfactory. Another factor is that these fishing companies and the owners of factory ships have invested large amounts in Walvis Bay and in the ships, and they themselves cannot afford these resources to become exhausted. The fact that the factory ships themselves have decided not to catch any fish in the Walvis Bay waters, but to fish 60 miles to the north of Walvis Bay goes to show that they are also concerned as far as measures are concerned. A further factor is that the factories, and now also the factory ships themselves, have been allocated fixed quotas and, if necessary, the Government will intervene and take further measures against over-exploitation. Moreover, if the factories find that there are indications of over-exploitation, the factory owners themselves will take measures against it. What is more, I welcome the fact that the Department is taking immediate steps in view of the fact that the Government has taken over now. Dr. De Jager, head of the Division of Sea Fisheries, has already visited Walvis Bay with a view to co-ordinating a joint research programme in order to obtain greater efficiency as regards control. My experience of the industry has been that there has always been excellent co-operation between the industry and the Department and it is the aim of the Department that there should be a sound conservation policy, and because of this it is also being welcomed by the industry. Hence, everybody who has invested in the industry can be sure that all necessary measures will be taken for the protection of the industry.

As far as the marketing of the products is concerned, this does not create any problem at all. On the contrary. The industry is compelled to cut down its sales to certain countries this year. What is important to the industry, is that the price is even higher this year than it was last year. Consequently, when taking all factors into account, we have every reason to have full confidence in the future of this industry.

The hon. member for Omaruru expressed the view that all reasonable measures have been taken to protect the fishing industry and he referred in particular to the close co-operation that exists between the Department and the area he represents, which now falls under our Fisheries department. He referred also to the fact that the fish quotas laid down for South-West Africa last year and so far this year have been easily met, but I am not sure whether he meant that under the circumstances there should be an increase of these quotas.

No.

May I say that attention has been drawn from time to time by people in this House and outside to the necessity for conserving our fish resources. The most recent plea outside this House came from no less a person than Mr. D. G. Malan, the chairman of the Fisheries Development Corporation, and this is what he says in his annual report—

He continues later in his report—

I have myself previously raised in this House the question of the width of our territorial sea. I think it was last year or the year before that I asked the Minister whether the time had not arrived for us to extend our territorial sea from six miles to 12 miles. He said that the matter had been investigated, but that it had not been found feasible. I wish to make a further appeal to the Minister to-day that earnest consideration be given to extending our territorial waters to the limit that obtains in so many other countries overseas, namely 12 miles. I should like to quote very briefly from the 1967 U.S.A. Department of the Interior’s minute on the action of the Argentine Government. The Argentine has unilaterally extended its maritime jurisdiction over adjacent waters to 200 nautical miles, and dealing with the seabed and subsoil of the submarine zones they have extended their jurisdiction up to the 200-meter isobar or beyond that depth where exploitation of the natural resources is feasible. This is a practical suggestion that I make to the Minister namely extend our territorial sea. Apart from that, there is plenty of authority for saying that we can create around our coast and outside our territorial waters maritime conservation zones, as has been done elsewhere. We should bear in mind particularly the extent of our continental shelf off our coast. I would like to remind the Minister that in the area between Mossel Bay and Hangklip we have a continental shelf of 70 miles in extent; off our west coast it is approximately 36 miles, and off our east coast 15 miles. My purpose in suggesting this is not that we should lay claim to territorial authority over the continental shelf, but that we should certainly claim control over the right of entry by foreigners, making it conditional on the observance of conservation measures laid down by South Africa. In other words, foreigners should not be allowed into maritime conservation zones off our coast, save and except by permit and on their undertaking to observe conservation measures which we lay down.

Thirdly, I have myself suggested in this House that the time is long past when South Africa should have taken the initiative in convening an international conference to obtain, if possible, a convention or an agreement covering the South Atlantic and portion of the Indian Ocean off our coasts. All other sea areas with sea resources of major consequence are subject to convention, and the time is long past that we should have a similar situation here.

I should now like to pass on briefly to the fishing inquiry which is at the moment being held. In response to a question I asked recently, the Minister said that the fishing inquiry would last for another two years at least, and assuming that the report which that inquiry is to produce after it had concluded its sittings takes another year, it is likely that there would be another three years passing before we have adequate information available to us, or firm foundations on which we can make the necessary regulations which the Commission may deem fit. I would suggest to the Minister that although he replied to me that interim reports would be made available if necessary, he should make it a top priority not only that interim reports issued by that Commission should be made available very soon but that regulations suggested by that Commission should be promulgated as and when the Commission thinks fit.

One other matter which I should like to bring to the Minister’s attention is our attendance at oceanography conferences. There was a conference held earlier this year at Brighton, and while our country sent an observer to that conference, we did not in fact take any leading part in the deliberations at that conference. It seems to me that our fishing industry is not being given the necessary financial stimulus, or the necessary research facilities which it should have. I would refer in this connection to the fact that in America last year they budgeted for no less than R567 million for research into the marine resources off the American coast, that they had 55,000 people actively engaged in fishing research, and that they have no fewer than 350 ships undertaking oceanographic research.

So far I have dealt with matters concerning the fishing industry in general. I should now like to pass on, because this is a matter which falls under the Minister’s department, to the specific question of the commercial harbours off our coasts, and more particularly those in the Southern Peninsula. As the Minister is aware, we have in False Bay two commercial harbours which have limited private facilities also. At Gordon’s Bay there must be some 40 boats, and as he knows the harbour there is also used by the S.A. Naval College, I think it is fair to say that there are no further facilities available to the public or to commercial enterprises. Then we have at Kalk Bay a small harbour which has approximately 60 boats. Most of those boats are 34 feet to 47 feet in length, and with a beam of 10 to 15 feet. At Simonstown there is a very limited anchorage available for commercial boats and also for small craft used by amateurs and semi-amateurs.

There is, I believe, a great demand for further harbour facilities in the False Bay area, not only of a commercial nature, but also of a private and recreational nature. The existing two harbours are just not adequate to meet the demand. As the hon. the Minister is aware, there has been an agitation in the Press for some time for increased harbour facilities. The local authorities concerned support the building of a new harbour or else the extension of existing facilities. They are supported by the Navy, which naturally benefits from further maritime facilities for the training of our young people. My contention is that rather than provide a new harbour in False Bay, the harbour at Kalk Bay should be extended, and in this connection I should like to bring certain interesting matters to the Minister’s attention. As long ago as the turn of the century— in fact in 1902—there was a survey and general investigation by an engineer, a Mr. Methven. Mr. Methven’s task was undertaken at the behest of the Cape Government to inquire into the suitability of a site in the False Bay area for a harbour, the nature of such a site, the extent of such a site and the cost of the provision of a harbour. He in fact examined the whole coast from Simonstown to Muizenberg, and his conclusion was that Kalk Bay, although small, was the most suitable site. He made a very detailed investigation: he saw the fishermen concerned—the fishermen at Simonstown, the fishermen at Glencairn, and the fishermen at Kalk Bay—and he discussed with them particularly the prevalence of gales and the violence of the sea. Feeling that their knowledge was a little too local, he also consulted Dr. Gilchrist, who was the marine biologist of the Cape Colony Government, and he assured Mr. Methven that the comparatively small amount of fishing carried on was out of all proportion to the quantity of fish which in fact was available. Dealing with the requirements for a harbour in the area, Mr. Methven laid down certain essentials; he said that there had to be sufficient space to prevent any overcrowding of boats; that there had to be sufficient depth at all times and in all weathers in such a projected harbour; that there had to be slipways and facilities for nets, for the landing of fish and for the gear of fishermen. More particularly there had to be direct rail communication, and, furthermore, and most important, an entrance should be constructed for the harbour, which was accessible in all weathers and at all times. [Time expired.]

Unfortunately I was not here all the time while the hon. member for King William’s Town was speaking—there was somebody who wanted to see me very urgently—but I did hear part of his speech. As I understood the hon. member, he pleaded for greater financial benefits for industrialists to encourage them to go to the border area, that is, the border area of the Transkei and the Ciskei. I take it that I understood the hon. member correctly. In other words, the hon. member pleaded for greater benefits in the border areas.

For the Border.

Must I take it now that the hon. member has accepted the border industry establishment policy of the Government?

Were you not here when I spoke last time?

Must I take it that the hon. member accepts it; must I take it that the Opposition has accepted it? I should like to have a reply to this from the Opposition to-night and I cannot have this Vote disposed of until such time as we have received a reply from them. Mr. Chairman, can you appreciate the impossible position in which the Opposition finds itself? They reject this policy and then they come along and plead for the application of this policy and for it to be applied more effectively and on a larger scale. Sir, surely one cannot have it both ways: one cannot say that one does not want the policy, that it is a pernicious policy for South Africa, and, on the other hand, ask for greater benefits under the policy. How is one to understand the Opposition?

You did not understand what I was saying; I shall speak Afrikaans next time.

Hon. members of the Opposition must not take it amiss of me if I say that I have very grave doubts about their political integrity in this regard, because the three hon. members sitting in a row there—the hon. members for King William’s Town, East London (North) and East London (City)—want to have the Border believe that they are pleading for border industries and for development under this system, and then the hon. member for Hillbrow gets up and calls this policy a “monstrosity”; the hon. member for Yeoville gets up and says that no industrialist could think of establishing himself in a border area, because if he were to do so, he would be placing himself in the hands of the black labour force of an independent state. Sir, can one on the one hand scare the industrialists of South Africa by telling them that it would be totally unwise of them to go to the Border area; that they would be going there to lose their money, because they would be placing themselves in the hands of a hostile black labour force, and on the other hand reproach the Government that this policy is not yielding more results? But it is not only the industrialists that they are frightening.

This is childish.

Sir, let that hon. member stand up and prove that the hon. member for Yeoville was being childish when he said that, or let him deny, if he can, that the hon. member for Yeoville said that. Let him go further and deny that the hon. member for Yeoville scared the white workers of South Africa with the story of low wages being paid in the border industries.

Is that the reason why we are not getting industries there?

See how the hon. member is running away now! Can one frighten the industrialists and the white workers and sow suspicion against this policy and then complain if the policy does not bear fruit? We can thrash out this matter now, because we are dealing with the hon. the Minister’s Vote. The three hon. members opposite sitting in a row over there can get up again and take part in the debate. Let us see how they will perform this egg dance this year. I would not say that the hon. members for East London (North) and East London (City) are the best members to perform an egg dance, but they can try if they wish. Sir, I should also like to see more development; the hon. the Minister is sitting over there and I know that he also wants to see more development, but surely we have gone very far in saying to industrialists, “These are the benefits we are offering; we invite you to come to the border areas”; these people, however, are being scared by the Opposition and they do not want to go there. But now hon. members of the Opposition are saying that there has been no development whatsoever. Sir, I want to say here that the National Party Government takes all the credit for the development there has been. [Laughter.] Listen to them laughing!

Such as Good Hope Textiles?

I say that this Government takes all the credit for the development that has taken place there; for the negative side the Opposition must take the credit. Take the case of East London. Can one of those hon. members say that no development whatsoever is taking place in East London?

That is not your constituency.

No, it is not my constituency. Does any one of them want to suggest that nothing is happening in East London?

Development is taking place throughout the country; why not in East London as well?

If there is any industrial development in East London, then I say that it is taking place largely as a result of the Government’s border industry policy.

Is the development in East London comparable to the development in Cape Town or Johannesburg?

What would the development have been if this incentive policy had not been applied?

What about the development in Durban?

In 1961 no new industries came to East London; in 1962 no new industries came to East London; in 1963 no new industries came to East London, and then we gradually began to see the fruits of the policy announced in 1961. In 1964 four new industries were established there; in 1965 two new industries, in 1966 six new industries and in 1967 five new industries. The amount of money spent there on extensions of existing industrial buildings in 1964 exceeded R1 million; in 1964 it was almost R2 million, in 1966 more than R1,200,000 and in 1967 R616,000. The amount of land sold by the municipality for extensions to existing industries, has increased progressively over the years. In 1967 additional land for expansion purposes was sold to 14 existing industries, and to-day no industrialist can find a single industrial site to buy in East London; there is simply none to be had, as all of them have been occupied under this policy which that side of the House has condemned so consistently, and we now have to ask them urgently to make additional industrial land available.

There is plenty in Umtata.

That is precisely the attitude of the Opposition! If you corner it in East London, it runs to some other place; if your corner it in one hole, then it takes refuge in another. That hon. member is pleading for Umtata now, but the day we come to Umtata, he will be talking about another town. Sir, surely the Opposition must give this House and the country and the Press of South Africa and the people of the Border credit for being able to see through the transparent game they are playing in regard to the border industry development in South Africa, and it is time they told the country and this House exactly where they stand in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, we have just heard the set piece from the hon. the Deputy Minister on the development of border industries. They keep on using the term “the development of the border industries” as though this was something unique in South Africa and something different from any other development. What is it a part of? It is simply a part of the decentralization of industry.

Why are you against it then?

When we on the Witwatersrand wished to decentralize industry away from the central part to the Far East Rand where mines are becoming worked out, this Government raised every possible objection that it could and made it difficult to get labour.

You never decentralized industry.

They have done everything possible to make decentralization difficult. How does the Government help decentralization? By giving the infrastructure, by providing transport and, if they can, certain concessions in finance. That has happened not only in South Africa, it has happened in every country. What the hon. the Deputy Minister has been talking about is a section of decentralization of industry. We have just had an example of this now in the case of Iscor going to Newcastle; that is an example of decentralization of industry. To come along with this story that this is unique, that East London is different from anything else in the country, is utter nonsense. What we should like the Government to do is to give better facilities. When we had the Tomlinson Report and it was agreed that we should develop the reserves, as we then called the areas which are now called the homelands, our proposal was that white capital should be allowed to go there to develop the reserves, but the Government turned it down. They issued a White Paper saying that they would never agree to it and what are they doing now? They are offering inducements to capital and industry to go to the reserves. They are to-day nibbling at what was United Party policy at that time.

They do not go far enough.

They do not go far enough. Sir, this Government is to blame for the years that the locusts have eaten since the Tomlinson Report until to-day. They are responsible for this. Sir, I want to go a step further on another matter which was not dealt with by the hon. the Deputy Minister. We in South Africa often say that we are a country that encourages private industry; that we are not a socialist country; but we are pretty near it. We have more Government enterprises than some wholly developed countries like the United States of America; we have a number of them. We have the I.D.C. We are all very proud of the I.D.C., hon. members on the other side tell us. The I.D.C. goes into business in a big way. We are told that the I.D.C., as originally established, was going to sell its assets in due course to the public, dispose of them and then help new companies. What are they doing now? They are going into finance. They have established National Industrial Selections. They are going in with the big people. Sometimes in raising money, to their horror, I have found them in the company of such companies as Anglo American and the Corner House. They were guaranteeing a flotation together with them. In other words, they are rubbing shoulders with the big people that used to be condemned by the other side! What I want to come to, is this: Since we are in big industry, for example Iscor and the other great producers, I want to ask the hon. Minister of Finance, what dividend is he getting out of this? What is the taxpayer getting? We know that if a company shows a profit, naturally it is taxed under the companies tax, which the hon. the Minister stipulates in his Budget. He has raised it slightly again. He keeps on doing that. But I want to know, why do these companies not declare a dividend to the Government?

That cannot be discussed under this Vote.

Surely the I.D.C comes under the Minister.

Is the hon. member putting the question to the Minister of Finance? He has nothing to do with this Vote.

I am not addressing him. I am trying to help him to get money. I am on his side. If I go back to the old Victorian plays, the villain of the piece is there; this is the hero. I am on the hero’s side.

Order! The hon. member could have done it under his Vote.

I want to know, Sir, what relief the hon. the Minister is giving the taxpayer of South Africa. Does Iscor declare a dividend that it gives to the shareholders? Who are the shareholders of South Africa? Who are the shareholders of Iscor? The taxpayer! We are their representatives. We have their proxies, and we want to know when they are declaring a dividend. Why should we introduce new taxation in this country? Why should we raise taxation? It is not necessary if these companies pay their share of the taxation. When do they come to us? Why do they not come to us and declare dividends? They do not do that; they only come when they want fresh capital. They have to come when they want fresh capital. But the hon. the Minister appoints the directors. When we ask questions about these enterprises, so many of them, he says that is not his affair. It is rather like the Broadcasting Corporation. “That is not my affair; my job is simply to appoint the directors.” Having appointed the directors, we ask, as we have asked for 20 years, who is responsible to this House? Who is responsible to the shareholders? These enterprises are being conducted by the Government. I think the time has arrived when we should have a showdown on this. Here we have the hon. the Deputy Minister coming along with his little piddling bit of border industry, which is a small item in the development of South Africa. He has something which he can take to the Eastern Province when he is in a jam. But that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the interest of the taxpayer in South Africa and the development of the country as a whole.

Mr. Chairman, I wish one could rely on what advice the hon. member for Kensington actually wants to give now. To-day he objected to National Selections and Industrial Selections. But he himself defended them last year and said that this was the right course for the I.D.C. to adopt, that it should make its share investments available to the public in that way. At that time he defended them. To-night he cast doubts on them and said that this was not the right way.

It is a new company which they formed.

The hon. member defended them at the time. He was satisfied with them last year. But the hon. member says that the I.D.C. is expanding. According to the latest annual report that was tabled, it appears that, whereas financing in general, including special projects, amounted to Rill million in the previous year—i.e. in June, 1967— it only amounted to R96 million in 1968, i.e. a year later. Therefore there was a decrease of R8 million as regards investments in the I.D.C.; investments therefore showed a decrease. The hon. member ought to welcome that. But apparently he did not look at the report, because he said that they were carrying on and becoming bigger and bigger. Larger investments have in fact been made in other sectors, such as in border area development. The amount invested in respect of assistance granted in regard to decentralization showed an increase of R6 million, but taken as a whole its assets showed a decrease. In 1967 its total investment interests amounted to R286 million. Last year it was R278 million, in spite of the fact that more had been invested in border area development. Therefore the I.D.C has fewer investments at the moment than it had in the previous year. When State procurations were curtailed and the State reduced its own investments, they were asked to invest less and to assist in exercising a restraining influence on the economy. According to the statements which were made available to us, this did happen.

The hon. member for South Coast referred to the announcement I had made in regard to the third Iscor, and said it was clear that there had been speculation. Consequently the hon. member wanted to know whether there had not been a leakage in this regard. It is clear that that was not the only place where there was speculation. There was speculation at Newcastle, but there was as much speculation in East London, Saldanha, Berlin and Richard’s Bay. There was speculation at quite a number of places. Iscor made a very through investigation into the various places where the third Iscor might possibly be located. Negotiations were conducted in that process. According to one of the statements there were negotiations with the Newcastle City Council. Discussions were not conducted with the city council only; Iscor also negotiated with other city councils, and, what is more, it was months ago that Iscor took an option on land, not only in Newcastle, but also at other places.

Also at Vryheid.

The hon. member says that that was also the case at Vryheid. I know about other places where they also took options, for the very reason that they wanted to go into the matter. By the time an announcement was made, no actions could be taken. After all, one does expect there to be speculation. That is why they took options at various places in advance. They tried to conceal this by not always taking them in their own name. They had to negotiate with city councils so as to obtain options on land before the matter was settled. If this were to be done after the matter had been settled, the prices would have been considerably higher. There is another factor as well. Approximately three weeks ago, or perhaps longer, it was made public that Iscor had made an offer for Amcor shares. Iscor holds approximately 48 per cent of the share interest in Amcor. It made an offer for the remaining shares in Amcor. It was a public announcement. I can understand that this could possibly have given rise to more speculation. But at that stage the matter had not yet been decided at all, not even when that offer was made. But this is a conclusion at which people could possibly have arrived, i.e. that since there was this offer for shares, there was a strong possibility of it being located there. Basically this decision was not taken by Iscor. Iscor made its recommendations in regard to the various places. The final decision was not taken by Iscor, although Iscor, together with its staff and directors, knew what their recommendations were. They were submitted to a full board of directors. Officials worked out the implications and cost factors. Negotiations were conducted so as to ascertain what they would be. All of these are things they had to do. From the nature of the case it is not possible for such negotiations to be conducted without people being aware of them. But even they did not know where it would be located. That decision was taken by the Cabinet. That Cabinet decision was taken 12 days ago.

When was that decision taken?

The decision was taken 12 days ago, on a Wednesday.

Was it supposed to be a secret?

Yes, it was decided at the time that it would remain a secret. It did remain a secret, and even my own Secretary knew nothing about it until I told him last Tuesday or Wednesday that I had to start drafting a statement. The statement itself was drafted in my office and was only completed on Friday morning. On Friday I decided, in consultation with the Chairman of Iscor, to make the decision known. At the House of Assembly it was not even known that I would make a statement, until about half an hour before the time, when I started negotiating with the Whips about fitting in the statement here. Only then did they know that an announcement would be made. As regards the Cabinet, it was decided that it would remain a secret. Even the Chairman and the General Manager of Iscor only heard about this decision last week, and they only heard about it when finality had already been reached. If there had been speculation, it was definitely not based on a decision taken by the Cabinet. This decision was taken 12 days ago, and according to those reports which were quoted, that speculation had been going on for a long time. As I said, I am aware that there was speculation at other places as well. Therefore I am not prepared to accept at this stage that information leaked out. If bona fide proof can be furnished to the effect that there was in fact a leakage on the strength of which people took certain steps, I shall be prepared to go into the matter. Then I shall be prepared to consider it. If any evidence can be submitted—hon. members do not even have to raise it here—I shall consider taking steps, because we are as anxious about seeing to it that no leakages occur. I may just add that this decision was not even known to the other directors, except Dr. Van Eck, who heard about it last week.

Other aspects were also mentioned. The question of border area development was raised by several hon. members on the other side of the House. The hon. members for Parktown, Pinetown and King William’s Town referred to border area development. The fact of the matter is that it is the Government’s policy to go on implementing decentralization and granting assistance to these border areas. Assistance has to be granted in order to make it inviting and attractive for industrialists to establish themselves in the border areas. This is not a policy which is supported by the other side. The hon. member for King William’s Town pleaded for assistance to be granted to the border areas. And yet it is not their official policy that this form of assistance should be granted. In spite of that he asks for more assistance to be granted to those areas. That is, after all, inconsistent with their policy.

Since when have we not advocated decentralization?

It is inconsistent with the Opposition’s policy as a whole that this form of financial assistance be granted to the border areas. The Opposition’s policy is that these industries should be established economically and that State aid should not be granted, as we are doing at the moment. The hon. member has never been in favour of that.

[Inaudible.]

I shall come to East London in a moment. That has never been the standpoint of that side of the House. Even in this debate hon. members have said that it should be done on an economic basis and that there should be no other considerations. Hon. members also referred to the fact that reference was made in the I.D.C. report to 23,500 Bantu who had to be employed, whereas in the report of the Permanent Committee reference was made to a figure of 9,000. They wanted to know why there was such a difference. I want to point out that in its annual report, to which reference was made, the I.D.C. made calculations in respect of the number of Bantu who had to be provided with employment in the border areas. They based their calculations on the fact that they were dealing with the natural increase in population. According to the report of the Permanent Committee the natural increase is 35,000 per year, of whom 9,000 have to be absorbed into industries. They are, therefore, referring to the natural increase, but the I.D.C. went further than that and made a calculation of the total number of Bantu labourers in the Bantu homelands. They calculated the total percentage of Bantu who had to be absorbed into these industries. According to the census of 1960 approximately 12 per cent was absorbed into industry. But they foresee that this number may increase. That is why they increased the percentage from 12 per cent to 23 per cent in their calculations. Therefore this is virtually a doubling of the number of Bantu employed in industry in 1960. Let us assume that this percentage may rise. However, here they accepted a maximum of nearly 23 per cent who have to be absorbed into industry. Furthermore, they made a calculation of the total labour force, including migratory labour which is being used at present. They accepted that provision would have to be made for those migratory labourers in the Bantu homelands or in border areas. That is why they arrived at this total of 23,000. However, I want to say that this assumption, i.e. that there will be no migratory labour after 1971, is merely a theoretical assumption. In consultation with the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development I can also confirm that there is no such intention of laying down such a policy, i.e. to allow no migratory labour from the homelands as from 1971. Therefore they arrived at a very large figure in determining what their share should be. They ascertained what their share had been over the past number of years as far as employment was concerned. The I.D.C. has played a very important part in promoting employment in these border industries. Over the past seven years in which 49,000 Bantu were provided with employment in border areas, the I.D.C. granted assistance to industries which were responsible for 23,000 of that 49,000. The I.D.C. has therefore played a very important role in the development of those border areas. On the basis of that ratio they arrived at this further figure, i.e. that if in future they had to make provision in the same ratio, their share would have to be to provide 11,000 with employment. They also calculated that in order to effect this provision of employment, the I.D.C.’s contribution over that period amounted to R73 million. On that basis they calculated that as from 1971 they would have to contribute approximately R27 million. I have pointed out that they took the absolute maximum. They assumed that there would be no migratory labour and that the percentage would rise a great deal. Their contribution was calculated on that basis, and that is also the basis on which they calculate that they, along with the private sector and the public sector, will have to invest R80 million per year in the border areas. However, they also pointed out that this would involve a transfer of 20 per cent of the total investment made in industry. This is the reason for this difference.

Then they indicated at the same time what the demand for industrial sites would be. They concentrated on a few places. Those few places are, in the first instance, the Ciskei and the Berlin Flats. They indicated that 170 morgen of industrial land had to be available by 1971; by 1976 this had to be 800 morgen. Apart from the development at Newcastle, development is already in progress at Ladysmith. Land has been bought there, and they are engaged in subdividing it. With the assistance of the I.D.C. a new industrial centre will come into being there. The same thing will happen at Pietersburg. Reference was also made here to Brits, and assistance will also be granted at Mafeking.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has already referred to assistance which is being granted in regard to East London. Since 1960 the number of industries established in the East London area with border area assistance, has provided employment to more than 5,000 Bantu in that area. However, since the additional assistance was announced last year, there has been a major increase in that area. Assistance has been granted to 59 industries which wanted to establish themselves in the East London area, these industries are capable of providing employment to 2,700 Bantu and 317 Whites. In the East London area at the moment industrial sites with railway facilities are no longer available. East London has virtually reached full industrial settlement. The only remaining area is Berlin. As a result of this subdivision and the assistance granted by the I.D.C. and the Department of Planning, 500 acres of industrial land will be available by the end of this year. They also have a right to an additional 3,000 acres. Provision is therefore being made at present for additional industrial land in that area. We thoroughly appreciate the problem which is being experienced as regards the provision of employment. But I can also say that there has of late been strong indications of an upward trend as regards the concentration of industries in these border areas. I have with me the report of the permanent committee for January, 1969. The industries themselves have to decide whether they are going to avail themselves of the assistance that has been allocated to them. As far as Brits itself is concerned, there were seven industries to which assistance was allocated at the January meeting; at East London there were six, at Ladysmith one, Pietersburg two, Rosslyn three, Pietermaritzburg one, Mafeking one, Empangeni one, and there was even one at Bothaville. This is an indication of the degree of decentralization which has taken place and the extent to which there is growing interest in the establishment of border areas, especially since we allocated additional assistance to these undertakings last year.

The hon. member for Pinetown wanted to know what the position was in regard to Cabora-Bassa. I want to tell the hon. member that as far as Cabora-Bassa is concerned, basic negotiations between Escom and the Government of Portugal are taking place. As for Escom itself, they have indicated, with the approval of the Government, that they are prepared to take electric power from that scheme at prices which are the same as those for which Escom can generate it here. The undertaking was that if they could supply power at the same price, Escom would make use of it. If South Africa does not take the power generated at Cabora-Bassa, it is completely impossible for this scheme to be put into operation. We are prepared to take that power. In the course of years this may even increase, but the electric power we shall get from Cabora-Bassa will only meet a minor percentage of our total needs. As regards the tenders, negotiations were conducted with a consortium which included a considerable South African interest. There were indications on the part of the Portuguese Government that they were not sure that they would be able to carry on with that consortium. There were indications that they might reopen negotiations. In addition there is South African interest in some of the other consortiums, but that is not our affair, as neither the Government itself nor Escom concerned itself with which tenderer was accepted by the Government of Portugal. That is entirely their own affair. We gave indications as to how much power we would use. The percentage of the power we can use, is by far and away the greatest percentage; they themselves can only use a small percentage of the power. We are keeping to what we offered them, but they have not yet told us definitely that they accept our proposal; so far there has been a great deal of negotiation between us, but the ball is in their court. If they can agree with their contractors to carry on with the scheme, we arc prepared to take the electric power which will make it possible for them to construct this Cabora-Bassa scheme and to do so in an economic manner.

The hon. member for Parktown also wanted to know from me what had happened to the undertaking given by the Government to Atlas. The position is that Atlas was started by a private company and that this corporation included considerable private interests, as well as the interest of the I.D.C. The I.D.C. itself invested R3 million in this corporation. A guarantee was given that certain work would in course of time be done at a 10 per cent profit. The hon. member referred to the fact that these shares had been taken over at par by Armcor. The hon. member knows what happened to the undertaking in regard to the profit. The position is that that margin of profit has been observed as far as the contracts of the State are concerned. Atlas paid a dividend to its shareholders; I think it was in February or March. A dividend was therefore paid out to the shareholders before the takeover at par.

The hon. member for Pinetown also referred to the position in regard to foreign capital. He wanted to know what our attitude was as regards the participation of foreign capital. I, as well as some of my other colleagues, have already stated at meetings we addressed on previous occasions that we still adhere to the view that foreign capital was welcome. Foreign investors are not forbidden to invest here, but we have also made it clear that we prefer foreign permanent capital investment to be made in partnership with South African capital. By that we mean the whole private sector. Just as is the case with South African entrepreneurs, foreign entrepreneurs are free to approach even the I.D.C. for assistance. I have already referred to that. No demands are made upon them. The hon. member wanted to know what the percentage is. Our standpoint is that if it could be 50 per cent, we shall not say no. The greater the South African percentage, the more we welcome that sort of partnership developing here.

The hon. member also wanted to know whether we were encouraging this foreign capital to the border areas only. The fact of the matter is that in terms of our Government policy we are trying to encourage as many industries as possible to go to the border areas. This is not always possible, and we do not make any demands on them as far as this is concerned, as long as they clear up the matter with the Department of Planning as far as it concerns the Physical Planning Act itself.

The hon. member for Simonstown referred here to the conservation policy. As far as our fisheries are concerned, the boundaries are already 12 miles. But then one has to do with co-operation which has to be obtained from governments. There are states which have extended this to 100 miles or even to the Continental Shelf. Even now there are other countries which are fishing in our waters or just beyond our boundaries, and which have already intimated very definitely that they are not prepared to accept the Continental Shelf as our boundary as far as fishing is concerned. They have also intimated that they will not recognize a boundary which is further out to sea than the 12-mile boundary. Hon. members will appreciate that there is not much point in this if we do it in a one-sided manner and if the fishing vessels of other countries are not prepared to recognize it. This would create endless problems for us. Reference was also made here to the conservation policy. In that respect we have already taken steps to curtail the activities of factory ships. It has also been suggested that there should be a national convention to smooth out these matters. We have for quite a number of years been engaged in talks on an international level in order to establish a convention for the South Atlantic Ocean. These discussions have reached a quite advanced stage, and it is anticipated that towards October a conference will be held to see whether there is unanimity about the possible points in regard to which negotiations have already taken place. I therefore hope that as regards this form of protection and conservation, there will be a greater measure of clarity before the end of this year.

The hon. member referred to the fisheries report and said that it would take two years or more. We have also appointed a commission member for South-West now. Since the fishing industry in South-West will be taken over by this Administration as from 1st April, it was felt that the problem experienced by South-West should be investigated along with our own problems. An additional member for South-West was designated, and therefore this commission will extend their activities. They have already taken a great deal of evidence here in our Cape waters and will shortly do the same in South-West. I may tell the hon. member that we have already obtained the first interim report of this fisheries commission a week ago and that it is being examined. It will, as I promised, be considered and it may still be tabled, but it is in addition not impossible that we may act on this interim report. However, the report is still being considered by the Department. The hon. member referred to commercial harbours and wanted to know whether facilities could not be provided at Fish Hoek, Kalk Bay, or Gordon’s Bay for private and recreation purposes—we are prepared to go into this matter, and are prepared to help, provided that such facilities do not interfere with the fishing industry—or, alternatively, whether such facilities should not be provided when extensions are considered.

The hon. member for Omaruru referred to South-West. This is an important area which has been added to our administration, and I can give the hon. member the assurance that talks are in progress. In conjunction with the South-West Administration visits will also be paid to South-West by Fishcor and by members of our Department and, it is hoped, also by the Deputy Minister in order that closer acquaintance may be established with the important fishing industry of South-West. The hon. member for Florida, is well as the hon. member for Wonderboom, referred to the importance of developing the border areas. These were positive contributions and I thank these hon. members for them. I think I have now dealt with the main points mentioned here by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman, I want to continue my representations to the hon. the Minister for the extension of the existing harbour at Kalk Bay. I was not pleading for the extension of the harbour at Gordon’s Bay, as he thought. That is a completely different matter. In making my representations I said that the engineer who investigated the question of the providing of a harbour at Kalk Bay at the turn of the century made a very thorough investigation. He discussed the position with fishermen and other authorities before he made his report. In his report he maintained that there should be two sea walls. The one to the South should be particularly strong, because the prevailing winds were from the South-East, but there should also be one to the North, as he called it in his report, because there were also strong Eastern winds. He undertook certain float observations and these observations failed to find any sand-bearing currents so there was no likelihood that silting would take place. He said that if there should be any shoaling, in other words, if rocks were to be washed onto the seabed of the harbour a dipper or a grab crane on a barge would be sufficient to cope with them. What is interesting is that the proposal he made for the harbour would have cost in those days, namely 1902, £45,000. His report was referred to a parliamentary Select Committee constituted at that time. This committee considered his report and heard evidence on the need and desirability for a harbour at Kalk Bay. They took evidence from doctors, because the health of the fishermen was suffering as a result of their having to carry heavy wooden boats up the slope of the beach. Ministers of religion also gave evidence. Dr. Gilchrist, the Marine Biologist at the time, gave evidence in support of the building of a harbour, while the fishermen themselves also appeared before the committee.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.