I move, as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

I move—

The proposed amendments embodied in this Bill are not of a far-reaching nature and have as their object firstly a reduction of the administrative burden which the existing legislation places on the State President. When the Act was promulgated in 1957 the South African Defence Force was a relatively small organization, entailing as such a moderate measure of administration, which made it possible for certain functions to be fulfilled by the State President without being unduly burdensome. However, as a result of the expansion, it is illogical that he should be saddled with purely domestic matters relating to the administration of the South African Defence Force. Clauses 6, 7, 8 and 14 deal with this problem and concern the establishment of military commands, military training institutions, areas for training and the State President’s present duty to confer temporary commissioned rank. The proposed amendment makes provision for the conferment of temporary commissioned ranks by the Minister and does away with the personal signature of the act of commission by the State President. Likewise the Minister’s signature need not be under his hand. The improvements will also help to reduce unnecessary routine work by the Minister in person.

Secondly, clause 2 proposes to increase the initial maximum period of service in the commandos from 60 to 90 days, although the national service period is not extended. But under this new proposal we will have a more flexible situation to deal with the different problems encountered. The proposed extended period is only a maximum and the intention is that university students will still be required, if they are trained for the commandos, to render 60 days’ service in their first year of service.

Thirdly, under the existing provision the registering officer is functus officio upon allotting a citizen to either the Citizen Force or the commandos and is debarred from making any re-allotment. Only the Exemption Board could direct that a person allotted can be re-allotted to either the Citizen Force or to a commando. I think such a situation is undesirable, because it sometimes causes unnecessary hardship and we want to alleviate this position. Clauses 4 and 5 improve the existing legislation in regard to this matter.

Furthermore, clause 9 envisages the establishment of a medical fund for those members of the Permanent Force who retired or died prior to 1st January, 1964, as well as their families and dependants, and I think hon. members will welcome this new proposal. This fund will, however, not be entitled to the existing medical and other services of the S.A. Defence Force, but the services will be provided by district surgeons. In addition the fund will be financially independent from funds collected from members.

The remaining clauses of the Bill are designed to bring about improvements or corrections, and I think can be more appropriately discussed in the Committee Stage.

We support the Second Reading of this Bill, but it is a Bill which can be discussed mainly in the Committee Stage rather than during the Second Reading stage. But I want to inform the hon. the Minister that there are certain points about which we do not feel entirely happy and which we want to discuss further in the Committee Stage. Perhaps it will be useful if I mention those points now so that the hon. the Minister can examine them at this stage.

The first is in connection with one of the administrative proposals in clause 1, namely that parental approval for the conclusion of a contract or agreement by a citizen is now being dispensed with. I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister could give some information on the necessity for this, and in particular on whether it will result in a boy of 18 being able to conclude a long-term contract, something which may possibly bind him after he has become an adult, by signing some or other contract during his term of service which will be of long-term importance in his career. We feel strongly that parental control is necessary and I ask the hon. the Minister to explain this further.

In connection with the training of commandos, we accept the principle as set out here, because as the Minister in fact said, there is a quid pro quo in that the full period is shortened if a person has to serve an extra month in his first year. I must say, however, that we are not entirely happy about the whole position of training as regards both the commandos and the Citizen Force, but I do not think this debate on the Bill is the appropriate occasion to discuss this in detail. I think it will be better if we discuss it on the Minister’s Vote, when we can discuss Citizen Force training as well as commando training. I want to say that our acceptance of this amendment at this stage does not bind us as far as our attitude towards the whole question of commando and citizen training is concerned. We shall possibly have further comments to make on this in the Committee Stage.

We agree completely as regards clause 4, in terms of which the registering officer takes over certain powers of the Board. What worries me, however, is that there have evidently been so many cases in which boys were placed in the wrong sections of the Defence Force, and which have necessitated this amendment. We must remember that selection boards have been appointed which must examine every boy before he is admitted to the Defence Force in order to place him in the appropriate section of the Defence Force. In spite of the fact that such boards exist, it has evidently been admitted even by the Defence Force itself that there have been so many of these cases that the Act must now be amended. This is definitely not a compliment for the way in which these boards have selected the boys for the various sections of the Defence Force.

We agree with the transfer of certain administrative powers from the State President to the Minister, as stipulated in clauses 7 and 8. These are the powers in connection with commissions and training. However, we are not entirely happy about clause 6, in which we are dealing with the very essence of the Defence Force. This clause is concerned with the establishment of units and the division of the Defence Force into units. These are not administrative matters. These matters affect the morale and whole organization of the Defence Force, and we shall discuss them further in the Committee Stage. We are of the opinion that the establishment or abolition of units is not something to be decided by an individual Minister.

We are completely in favour of clause 9, which makes provision for medical aid for retired servants. We shall discuss the details of this clause, too, in the Committee Stage.

In conclusion I want to point out that we are not entirely happy with clause 13 in its present form. The hon. the Minister gave no explanation in connection with this clause. I should like to ask him whether the clause is intended to protect the Defence Force against claims for damages. For example, there is the case of the Club View and Lyttleton areas, where the noise of the new jet aeroplanes inconveniences the residents of those areas. Furthermore, I should like to ask the Minister whether it has anything to do with possible damage to private houses when the sound barrier is broken. These are the points we wanted to raise, but at this stage we agree that most of these amendments are necessary. We therefore support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the system of national compulsory service has been in operation in South Africa for almost two years. In the light of the circumstances in which this country finds itself, as outlined very clearly by the hon. the Minister of Defence a few days ago, it must be obvious to every South African that we are committed to this system of compulsory service for ensuring maximum security. It goes without saying that in the course of time shortcomings have arisen in the system of compulsory service, because it first had to prove itself as time went on. However, I think that to-day we will all agree that in principle the system of compulsory service is the best system which South Africa can have in its particular circumstances in order to build up an effective Defence Force. What is proposed in this Bill is to streamline matters in the light of the experience we have had of the system of compulsory service in the past two years. We are very grateful to have the support of the Opposition in this connection in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, especially as far as extending the basic period of service for members of the commandos is concerned. Even with the extension of the basic period of service, a certain amount of play is left. It so happens that a large number of our prospective students to-day prefer to undergo commando training instead of Citizen Force training. One would naturally like to see a healthy balance being kept at all times between the numbers who go to the Citizen Force and those that go to the commandos. Nevertheless, it makes it possible for the prospective student to complete only two months of that basic training in his first year and to do the other service later. I think we must all agree in principle that the former two months’ period of training was actually too short when one wanted to go further and give more specialized training to members of the commandos so that they would be really effectively trained by the time they were allocated to their various commandos after receiving their basic training.

In connection with the proposed amendment, namely that the registering officer himself can decide about allocations and changes in the allocations, the hon. member for Durban (Point) criticized the system of selection boards. So many mistakes were allegedly being made. I think the hon. member is not quite correct here. This is not because of mistakes made by the selection boards. In his introductory speech, the hon. the Minister explicitly stated what the position is. Changes are not necessary only because mistakes were perhaps made. The person liable to military service may himself have furnished incorrect information. It is merely to make that machinery function more smoothly and to eliminate delay in the correct allocation of persons that this amendment is being proposed. I think the hon. member should join us in welcoming this amendment, because this provision, like many others in this Bill, is designed to make the whole machinery of the system of compulsory service function more smoothly.

You mean they never make a mistake?

No, the hon. member is putting words into my mouth which I never used. I did not say they never make mistakes. As we make progress with the system of compulsory service, ever greater efficiency will be achieved also as far as the composition of selection boards is concerned, because one does learn from experience. I did not suggest that they have never made mistakes, but the position is surely not as bad as the hon. member tried to make out, i.e. that the selection boards make so many mistakes that the whole system must now be changed. I think he does not quite understand what is envisaged here.

Then, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that we are all very grateful to the hon. the Minister and his Department for the provision which is now being made for a medical fund of their own for members of the Force who retired before 1964. One cannot but have a soft spot for those people who retired on a salary scale which is lower than what it is today and who have reached a stage in their lives when they will have more and more need of medical services. I think this is an exceptional gesture and one which will be welcomed not only by ex-members of the Defence Force, but also by the public as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members for their support of the Second Reading. I agree that we can use the Committee Stage to try to eliminate the remaining difficulties. For the consideration of the hon. member for Durban (Point), I just want to say that clause 1 merely does away with a redundant provision, because the common law position still remains that the permission of the parent must be obtained when a contract is concluded. Therefore it is merely a redundant provision in the Act which is being repealed here.

Secondly, the hon. member referred to the question of reallocation. In this connection I may just say that the whole improvement centres around the idea of hardship. After a boy has indicated that he is interested in a particular direction and the selection board has assigned that direction to him, problems in connection with his working conditions often arise in the case of that boy. Sometimes it is family difficulties which crop up. Therefore this reallocation is not done only because mistakes were made. In the process where 30,000 boys are dealt with, mistakes must necessarily creep in. Therefore this proposed change is not a reflection on the system. We are all human and we all make mistakes. Even the hon. member for Durban (Point) makes mistakes. He made a mistake in his reference to clause 1. It is for the very purpose of preventing hardship that we want to eliminate this long, drawn-out method.

As far as clause 6 is concerned, I just want to give an explanation for the hon. member’s consideration before he objects to the clause in question. The position is that units are established after the Supreme Command has submitted a report to me through the Commandant-General. The Minister does not decide on his own that a unit must be established or abolished.

Certain Ministers did.

No, even under the present circumstances it is still for the Minister to decide whether he wants to submit the matter to the Cabinet or make a direct recommendation to the State President by means of a minute. All that is being done here is to eliminate a cumbersome process. We really think that the State President must not be burdened with this. What happens in practice is that if it is a drastic measure which affects principles, the Minister first asks the Cabinet’s approval. If, however, it is a matter of lesser importance where reorganization is only required to facilitate matters, the Minister, on the recommendation of the Commandant-General, will send a minute directly to the State President, who usually just signs it. This is how it works in practice.

As far as clause 13 is concerned, the emphasis falls on the word “reasonable”. In other words, we are not depriving a person of the right to go to court in order to test our reasonableness. There are instructions according to which we fly in certain weather conditions. However, weather conditions can change, as at the Air Display, for instance. In such a case a measure of reasonableness must be displayed by the people before they put in claims against the Air Force. I understand that this provision also applies in the rules relating to civil aviation. We will still have to test this reasonableness according to the instructions laid down by the Air Force itself.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill proposes to effect certain amendments to the Public Health Act, Act No. 36 of 1919, which have become necessary as a result of certain unforeseeable developments, and experience gained in the application of the act. Firstly, clause 1 deals with an amendment affecting the recovery from provincial administrations of costs incurred in regard to the combating of tuberculosis and contagious diseases. The position in this regard is that in terms of section 9 (1) of the Public Health Act the magistrate is the local authority in every area where there is no other local authority. The magistrate consequently exercises in such an area the duties and powers conferred on local authorities by the Act. What it actually amounts to is that the department provides the services in such an area. At present subsection (2) of section 9 of the Act provides that the expenditure incurred by the magistrate shall be recovered from the provincial administration in question, except that portion which would in terms of the provisions of the Act have been refunded to the authority if there had been a local authority for that area. What it amounts to in practice therefore is that one-eighth of the expenditure thus incurred is recoverable from the provincial administration concerned.

Now the problem arises which we want to meet here. As a result of the inclusion in the salaries of part-time district surgeons of supplementary moneys which were previously paid to them for certain specific services—some of which were services in respect of which the costs incurred are considered for partial repayment when these services are carried out by a local authority—coupled with the expansion of services which are being undertaken by district surgeons and other departmental officers in rural areas, services, of which the costs incurred are recoverable from the provincial administration, have become integrated to such an extent with the other services that in certain cases it has for all practical purposes become impossible to separate the costs incurred in respect of recoverable and non-recover-able expenditure. I think that hon. members who have dealt with these matters will understand this situation. With a view to this the Department has decided in such cases to deem the services in question to have been rendered in terms of section 3 of the Act where the question of recovery does not arise and is not applicable. The Controller and Auditor General questioned the correctness of the Department’s actions in this regard. The matter thereupon became the subject of negotiations between the Department and the Treasury. As a result it was agreed that the only alternative would be to effect an amendment of section 9 of the Act which would eliminate the necessity for the recovery of portion of the expenditure concerned from the provincial administration under aforesaid circumstances, only in cases of course where the Minister was satisfied that recovery thereof would be impracticable. This is being done simply to adapt an impracticable situation in a practical way to the provisions of the Act. As I have already indicated the envisaged amendment is contained in clause 1 of the Bill. In order to cover the action taken by the Department in this respect in the past it became necessary to make provision in such a way that this amendment is deemed to have come into operation on 1st April, 1963.

The next clause also affects the provinces. The position in this regard is that in terms of the provisions of the Public Health Act it is responsibility of local authorities to make provision for the treatment of persons who are suffering from contagious diseases. Although local authorities in most cases provide their own accommodation, etc., for this purpose, certain Provincial Administrations have in good faith—and we are grateful that this has happened—provided, with the support of the local authorities in question, accommodation, etc., for the treatment of such patients on a contractual basis on behalf of the local authorities. This accommodation and facilities were provided in association with the general hospitals or on grounds adjoining such hospitals. There are not many such cases, but there are in fact a few. Experience has shown that this system is not only effective, but has resulted in a saving of costs by eliminating duplicating of services to a certain extent. The law advisers of both the Transvaal Provincial Administration and the State expressed the opinion however that the actions of the province in this regard were ultra vires its powers. They therefore suggested that the matter be remedied by effecting a suitable amendment to the Public Health Act. We are now making provision for this in clause 2.

Now, just the following in regard to the period. Since it is impossible after all these years to determine precisely when the provinces acted in this way for the first time, i.e. when they provided facilities and accommodation for contagious diseases for the first time, the clause makes provision for covering all matters in this regard and it is now being provided in this clause that the amendment is deemed to have commenced on the day on which the Public Health Act came into operation, i.e. 1st January, 1920.

I now come to clause 3 which deals in the first place with the question of the exercise of control over midwives. This is the third point which emerges in this amendment Bill. The position in this regard is that subsection (3) of section 133 empowers the Minister to make regulations in respect of the exercising of control by local authorities over midwives. However the law advisers have expressed the opinion that the regulations which have already been issued are ultra vires in so far as—

1. (a) it is provided that a local authority must keep a list of midwives practicing within his jurisdiction;
2. (b) it is provided that the regulations refer to midwives who are practicing for gain; and
3. (c) provision is made for control over the practice of such midwives, i.e. conditions under which they are able to practice.

For obvious reasons it is necessary that these matters for which provision has been made in the existing regulation, but which have been declared ultra vires section 133 (3) of the Act, should in fact be applied, since we are dealing here with the exercising of control over a group of persons who play a very important and responsible role in our health services, for the midwife is a person who plays an important role in assisting at the birth of our future citizens. The amendment for which provision is being made in clause 3 is primarily intended to remedy the deficiencies in subsection (3) of section 133 of the Act to which I have referred. It entails no change in the practical implementation thereof as this has been taking place over the years. Furthermore it makes it possible for suitable officers of the Department of Health to participate in the control regulations.

The other changes which clause 3 entails, are intended to bring about a more practical approach to the question of control over midwives in general. For example, the present section makes provision for the deletion of the name of a midwife from the list of a local authority if this authority is of the opinion that it would be prejudicial or dangerous to public health if she were to practice as midwife. This provision is now being substituted by making provision prescribing by way of regulation the conditions and requirements to which midwives should comply in practicing their profession. Hon. members will agree with me that this is the most practical way in which this can be done. This amendment has the support of the Nursing Council.

As far as the second part of clause 3 is concerned, the position is that subsection (5) of section 133 of the Act empowers the Minister to make regulations in regard to the prescribing of standards in respect of the equipment and other facilities provided by medical practitioners at places other than hospitals and nursing homes where they carry on their surgical activities, as well as in regard to the inspection thereof. Experience has shown that these powers are too limited to cover present day developments. In this regard it should be stated that apart from the fact that the relevant provision of the Act is not applicable to dentists’ consulting rooms, surgical units for use by medical practitioners are at present often provided by private companies. This is the position particularly in our larger cities such as Cape Town, Johannesburg, etc. With a view to this it is deemed necessary in the public interest that the relevant section of the Act be expanded in order to cover any such place, as well as to make provision for the registration thereof. Paragraph (b) of clause 3 of the Bill relates to this.

Mr. Speaker, the foregoing are amendments which, so we felt after thorough consideration, must be introduced in the interests of public health in order to adapt existing practices to present day circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill asks for amendments to various aspects of the Public Health Act. These aspects are hardly connected with one another and hence it is difficult to deal with the provisions of this Bill except in a disjointed manner. To my mind it would be better if we go into more detail of these matters when we come to the Committee Stage.

However, there are one or two general remarks I should like to make in connection with the Bill as it stands at the moment. There are two matters to which I should like to draw the attention of the House, i.e. one in clause 1 and one in clause 2. These matters have made it necessary for the Minister to bring in legislation to rectify practices which have been going on for seven and 50 years respectively. Only now these practices are legalized, if I may put it that way. While these matters, I suppose, are not of very great importance, I do feel that one should keep an eye on changes which are taking place from year to year so that it will not be necessary to go back 50 years to rectify certain practices.

In regard to the matter dealt with in clause 1, I wholeheartedly agree with the Minister that a streamlining of the procedure can now take place. It is better for all concerned, especially those people who have been receiving remuneration from the Government for services rendered because these will now at least know exactly where they stand—in other words, who is responsible and who will henceforth virtually guarantee payment to them for services rendered. Here part-time district surgeons come to mind. They may have to move from one area to another and it is good for them to know that they are going to be looked after.

The question which arises in clause 2 is a very interesting one. What took place 50 years ago. naturally does not occur any longer today. As a matter of fact, I think the entire aspect of infectious diseases has changed. In many cases local authorities were given the work of looking after infectious diseases on behalf of the Government. This work was in many cases done excellently. But I wonder whether the time has not arrived for us to have another look at the separation of infectious diseases from ordinary diseases and to encourage provinces when they build hospitals in future to set aside wards to deal with infectious diseases. In Johannesburg, as in other large places, we have a hospital for infectious diseases but rather than have a duplication let us see whether all these diseases, whether infectious, mental, or of a general nature, cannot be treated under one roof. Referring to Johannesburg once more, the everyday running of a hospital is done by a board. If one part of that hospital is under control of the local authority and the other part under the control of the provincial authorities it does become difficult at times to correlate all the work. We should have another look at the desirability of having both sections under one control. Furthermore, one may be confronted with a situation where a patient of an infectious diseases hospital suddenly develops an acute condition. The Minister will know that cases may occur where a person suffering from tuberculosis or scarlet fever develops acute appendicitis. In many cases this patient has to be transferred from the infectious diseases hospital to the general hospital to be treated for his acute condition. A terrific amount of duplication could be avoided if the Minister could get provincial authorities to set aside infectious diseases wards with perhaps an emergency ward attached. Furthermore, that would also be to the convenience of the patient, as well as to his family and the authorities themselves.

As far as midwives are concerned, it is an interesting problem we are meeting up with here to-day. I am pleased that a register is going to be kept particularly of unregistered midwives. We know what a great service some of these midwives have rendered to the public, especially on the platteland and especially amongst non-Europeans, but many of them are working in ignorance of what is taking place and have no idea of the advances which have taken place in obstetrics. I would urge upon the Minister not only to keep a register of those people who are working, whether registered or unregistered, but I would say to him that the time has arrived where we should have encouragement from the Central Government and from the local authorities, especially the local authorities, so that provision can be made for these people who have been rendering a service that must be brought up to date as to the latest methods in obstetrics. Perhaps we could have some school that these people should be obliged to attend so that their knowledge can be brought up to date. There are very many people to-day who are afraid to help a woman who is in a childbearing stage. They are afraid, firstly, because they feel that they may be doing something unlawful and, secondly, they feel that they are working in ignorance. I think many of these people will be only too pleased if they could go to a school or clinic or training college— call it what you like—where they could learn the basic advances that have been made recently in this field. The list of midwives must be put to some use, and I suggest that one use to which it should be put, is that these people should be contacted and encouraged to go to a training school of some sort.

Lastly I want to deal briefly with the new regulations which the Minister has suggested should be brought in concerning rooms or clinics where surgical procedures take place. When buildings are erected for doctors, it is becoming more and more common for provision to be made in these buildings for an operating theatre to be included on one of the floors, together with the various adjuncts that go with surgical procedures. To the best of my knowledge there is no law or regulation to-day which lays down the basic essentials of such a structure, of such a clinic, of such a surgical theatre, and I am pleased that these things will now come under inspection and that regulations will be brought in to keep an eye on what is going on. At the same time I also feel that while the Minister is doing this, he should also keep an eye on the para-medical services that do something similar but not on such a surgical scale. Take the chiropodist, for instance. The chiropodist performs a surgical operation when he trims up toenails for instance. It might seem a trivial thing to mention but the Minister will know what wonderful service is rendered by some of these people, especially to the elderly. The elderly rheumatic woman, for instance, cannot bend to cut her toenails and she is obliged to get the help of these people. Many of these people have the necessary experience as to what should be done. On the other hand there are many who need looking after. One shudders to think what could happen to an elderly diabetic who went to an inexperienced and unhygienic chiropodist to have not only her toenails cut but her foot as well. That could lead to very serious consequences. Well, that is one aspect. The other aspect is one which I mentioned some years ago in this House, when I said to the Minister that we must keep an eye on health and massage clinics. We have to make sure that the people who are supposed to be giving these services are really giving them and we must stamp out any malpractices which take place in these so-called health clinics.

I do not want to go into further details. The Minister knows what I mean; he knows what I said previously about these places and I would urge him to draw up regulations in this regard, if not now then at a later stage so that we can keep an eye on what is going on. Finally I want to tell the Minister that in the Committee Stage we on this side of the House will perhaps deal with one or two of these matters again, but otherwise we are going to support the Bill.

Since we are dealing here with a Bill which is effecting amendments to Act No. 36 of 1919, an Act which was drawn up in Dutch, one wants to express the hope that the entire Health Act will be revised and consolidated. I want to express the hope that we will shortly have such a consolidating Bill from the hon. the Minister.

Sir, the changes which are being proposed here, are not principal changes. The first clause of the Bill simply makes provision for a facilitation of financial arrangements. The second clause of the Bill makes provision for the approval of financial arrangements which have development as a result of the fact that there has begun to be measure of integration in health services as provided by the provincial administration and the local authorities. Sir, in my humble opinion this is a commendable development. As the hon. member who has just resumed his seat has already said, the treatment of contagious diseases has developed to such an extent that people have lost their fear of them. The tendency has gradually developed to treat contagious diseases in a section of general hospitals and in due course provision has been made for the treatment of contagious diseases in general hospitals. All that this Bill is doing now is to give statutory authorization to that development. This is a development which we will all welcome, for health services have scarcely begun to be discussed in this House and in other places when the question of divided control over health services continuously crops up, and when there is any unification and integration and closer co-operation in this direction it must be welcomed.

The other clause of the Bill is in fact a mere rewriting of the Bill in order to make it more logical and more acceptable, and to authorize the Department of Health and the Minister, after consultation with the Nursing Council, to make regulations with which midwives who are in the employ of municipalities or who are working in the areas of certain local authorities, must comply. It is then the aim of the Department to lay down minimum qualifications in the form of regulations. This is in my opinion a considerable improvement on the previous method whereby local authorities could draw up those regulations. One can only welcome these amendments. These amendments are very definitely an improvement.

There are also other minor snags in the Act and I hope that it will be possible to remedy these when the entire Act, it is hoped, is consolidated soon.

I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, and particularly with two of those remarks. The one is the appeal for a consolidated Act as far as public health is concerned, and secondly I agree with him that one should welcome any steps taken to eliminate unnecessary divided responsibility for hospital services. I am sure he and I see eye to eye that we would like to see more of the control and the general direction of health services in all spheres being vested in the Provincial Administration of the various provinces.

I want to bring one or two matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister in connection with clause 2 of this Bill. As the hon. the Minister has said, a custom or practice has developed in this country over a number of years whereby general hospitals have been providing the facilities for infectious diseases cases. I believe that this development must be watched for two reasons. The first is that when infectious diseases were handled entirely in the local authority hospitals, those hospitals drew to them a certain number of student nurses during their period of training, who helped to staff those local authority hospitals, where they had training for three or four months in the handling of infectious diseases, whereas now, with infectious diseases being handled partially or to some extent by the general hospitals, a staff problem is arising as far as the infectious diseases hospitals of local authorities are concerned. While I say that we welcome this arrangement between the province and the local authority, I think that is one aspect of the matter which needs careful watching, namely the staffing of those infectious diseases hospitals which still remain under the local authority.

The second point I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister is the difficulty of knowing that there is adequate provision to deal with an epidemic. The hon. the Minister will be aware that most provincial hospitals continuously have a 90 per cent plus bed occupancy, and if there should occur a sudden epidemic the provincial general hospitals as such would not be able to cope with the inflow of cases. I think there the local authority hospitals are serving some purpose in that there is some elbow room to deal with epidemics as and when they arise. I might, for instance, mention the case of the Cape Town City Infectious Diseases Hospital. This hospital has 480 beds. At present only 60 of those beds are occupied by acute infectious diseases cases, and I am informed that of the 60, half of them are acute measles cases. So a very small percentage is occupied by acute infectious diseases. There are 220 tuberculosis cases in that hospital at present, so out of the 480 beds only 280 are at present occupied. But it is consoling to know that were there to be an epidemic of infectious diseases, there is a place where isolation can be secured and where the nursing can be given, because it certainly will not be available in the provincial hospitals.

I am sure these matters will have the attention of the Department, and although it was discovered 50 years afterwards that there were irregularities in these arrangements, as the result of the efforts of some diligent Auditor-General, I hope these matters will be kept in view and will be watched during this development and take-over of responsibility for infectious diseases by the provincial hospitals.

I should like to thank hon. members on both sides for the support they have given to this Bill. Perhaps I should deal with one or two of the matters which have been raised now. because I agree with the hon. member for Rosettenville that this Bill can be better discussed during the Committee Stage.

The hon. member for Green Point raised the matter of accommodation for infectious diseases cases and he mentioned certain figures here to show that there are a certain number of beds available of which only a small number are being occupied at present. I fully agree that that is a matter which should be watched very carefully, and I may tell hon. members that we will have an opportunity to discuss this matter more fully when we discuss the Schumann and Borckenhagen White Papers, which according to the State President will be laid upon the Table of the House this Session. I mention this because one has to be very careful and watchful of the fact that infectious diseases usually occur seasonally. Perhaps it is better that the control of these hospitals should fall under one authority; also to meet the situation raised by the hon. member where one would have to make adequate provision in the case of an epidemic, because, after all, in an epidemic the last place where we want these particular cases is in a general hospital. But I can assure hon. members that we have already given quite some thought to this matter and an opportunity will present itself during the discussion of the Schumann and Borckenhagen reports.

Also tied up with these two reports is the question raised by the hon. member for Fauresmith and the hon. member for Green Point, namely that of a consolidated Act. The hon. member for Fauresmith correctly pointed out that the present Act is still in Nederlands and that we have now had this act in that form for 50 years. I think a consolidated law would have been on the Statute Book already if it were not for the fact that we were awaiting the Schumann and Borckenhagen reports. As soon as we have those, the Department will be in a position—and it is the intention— to come forward with an amended and a consolidating Act. There is also another reason why we will then be able to do it. We have now reorganized the Department of Health, as hon. members know, so that that can be incorporated into this new Act which will come before Parliament.

Then the hon. member for Rosettenville raised the question of para-medical services. I should like to tell the hon. member that I hope during this session to give notice—perhaps still this week—of a Bill amending the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, in which we will deal with this particular matter. In general it will simply mean that para-medical services will be under the umbrella of the Medical and Dental Council. We will come to that, I hope, in due course.

As far as the training of midwives is concerned, I think the hon. member has noticed that in clause 3 it is provided that in consultation with the Nursing Council the Minister may make certain regulations. As the hon. member knows, it is the Nursing Council and the Nursing Council only which is responsible for the training of nurses and midwives, and I will certainly bear his suggestions in mind.

Lastly, there is the point that certain matters are only being rectified now after seven years and others after 50 years. Well, it is not necessarily 50 or seven years, but we just want to be on the safe side by taking if for the whole period of the existence of this Act to make quite sure. I may say to hon. members that in a way I think it is a bouquet for the Department of Health in the sense that the department has all these years been occupied merely with the health of people and not so much with the legal side. I am happy that hon. members are giving their support to these amendments which have come to our notice through the Auditor-General during the past few years. I do not think there is anything more for me to reply to at this stage, except to say that we will take the Committee Stage to-morrow and not to-day.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill is a very short one. I shall deal with the various clauses again. A matter about which the Department of Health is deeply concerned, is the fact that the Drugs Control Act (Act No. 101 of 1965) makes no provision for exercising control over the undesirable advertising of drugs. The position in this regard is, for example, that vaccines are advertised on a large scale to the public by pharmaceutical firms. Parents are advised through the post, over the radio, in the Press, etc., to have their children vaccinated with a certain make of vaccine against, for example, measles, despite the fact that general vaccination against that disease may, for some health reason or other, not be deemed in the best interest of the public at that particular time. We think that it is in the interest of national health and of the public that control should be exercised over advertisements of this nature, particularly those which suggest a specific make to patients, medicines which they themselves actually cannot get, but which they have to obtain from a doctor.

Another aspect of the matter about which the authorities are concerned, is advertising medicines to the public which, in terms of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, are obtainable only on prescription. For obvious reasons it is undesirable for a specific make of a preparation to be advertised to the public, because I think it is for the doctor, and not the patient, to determine which particular medicine should be used for treatment. There is another disadvantage as well, because cases occur where medicines of this nature, which are advertised and which the patient has obtained irregularly, are used for self-treatment. Eventually this is only to the detriment of the patient’s health. This state of affairs may be attributed, inter alia, to the fact that these preparations are advertised freely to the public, whereas they are actually intended only for persons who are registered in terms of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act.

In these circumstances we regard it as highly advisable for the authorities to be enabled to prohibit the inclusion of undesirable information or statements in advertisements, as well as to prohibit completely, at their discretion, the distribution of advertisements where it appears advisable in the public interest to do so, or to limit their distribution, for example, to certain categories of persons, such as doctors.

This is the only thing for which this Bill is making provision. Where I now move the Second Reading of this Bill, I trust that I shall have the support of this House.

Mr. Speaker, this is a short Bill, but I feel that it is a very important one. I am pleased that the Minister has found it necessary at this stage to regulate the advertising of certain medicines. I am thinking in particular of the claims—and in many cases the exaggerated claims—which are made for some of the medicines which are advertised in the Press, over the radio and in pamphlets. I feel quite concerned when I see how some medicines—I was almost tempted to say “some so-called medicines”—are advertised and distributed amongst the Bantu population, and what exaggerated claims are made for these substances. Under this Bill the Minister will now have some control over the situation. He will be able to see that the distribution is fair, that no exaggerated claims are made for these medicines, and that matters concerning the prescription of medicine are left in the hands of those people who are trained to prescribe.

I am very pleased that the question of vaccines has cropped up. The Minister and other medical men in this House know how unsuitable some vaccines, and even oral vaccines, which are available now, are, and how dangerous they can be if they are not given at the right time and under proper control. It is best, I think, that we have full control over the advertising of these medicines, and that we leave the prescription of such medicines and vaccines to the doctors concerned.

If the Minister is going to stop the advertising over the radio of some medicines and preparations, he will have to lay down very strict regulations indeed. He must keep an eye on what is broadcast over the Bantu radio.

There are one or two other matters relating to such things as health foods and tonics, which are advertised widely, and which in many cases have no known value at all. Yet people are gullible and spend much money on these worthless preparations. I think that the Minister now has the matter under control, and I should like to see this Act implemented as soon as possible. We on this side of the House support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to what the Minister had to say in introducing the Second Reading of what is virtually a one-clause Bill. I realize that certain aspects could be discussed in Committee, but there is one matter which I should like to draw to the attention of the Minister, and which I should like clarified. If he cannot give me clarification, possibly he will give this matter his sympathetic consideration. I realize that when the Act was discussed in this House as the Drugs Control Bill in 1965, the matter was handled by the hon. the Minister’s predecessor. At that stage, concern was expressed in regard to the terms of the Bill before the House, relating to advertising. Fears were expressed at that stage that discrimination might result from the provisions of that Bill, which will be to the detriment of the small man. I remember well enough that the hon. member for Rosettenville and I referred to this aspect. At that time the hon. the Minister, Dr. Hertzog, indicated that he was not unaware of certain problems. I want to quote briefly from Hansard to illustrate this point. The then Minister of Health said (Hansard, Volume 15, col. 8047) —

Sir, this particular clause is amending the section of the Act which deals with regulations in regard to advertising. I am not a legal man, but I do not believe that the present amendment, as it stands, fully caters for the anxieties and doubts which were expressed then.

I should like to mention one aspect briefly for the consideration of the Minister. Section 18 (2) of Act No. 101 of 1965 says that “no person shall in writing advertise any such drugs for sale, unless the advertisement bears the approved name of the drug, the number allocated to it after registration by the Drugs Control Council, the active components, and the weight or volume or number of units of its components”. My difficulty is that this only applies to the written advertisement. It does not apply to the spoken word because the Act states quite clearly: “No person shall in writing advertise …” I believe that the larger firms who have the financial resources and the national coverage and who can use the S.A.B.C., are able to advertise in such a way that they are not called upon to comply with this particular provision which is laid down for the man who advertises in a newspaper. I believe that when TV comes along, as it will, the advertiser will also be able to overcome a difficulty which the man who advertises in the daily Press, for example, would not be able to overcome.

Whom does this affect? In my humble opinion this only affects the little man, the man who wishes to register his product in terms of this Act—and if he does that, I think the country is assured that he will be marketing something that will be perfectly safe for the citizens to take—but who also wishes to advertise it in a small way. He cannot afford, and it would not pay him, to use the services of a broadcasting corporation because he does not have the distribution. Most of his distribution will take place through the outlet of his own business. I believe that this is something which does deserve consideration. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister in this regard because I am sure that he, as a professional man in a closely related profession, can remember the fears, doubts and anxieties that beset him when he made his first call on his first patient. I want him to visualize the doubts and worries that a young chemist and druggist, who may start out in a small country area, must face, and the virtual prohibition that exists on his being able to use his professional skill to benefit his business. This is in fact what this Drugs Control Act is doing to the smaller man. I believe that under those circumstances some reconsideration of the manner in which medicines can be advertised in writing is overdue, in the interests of these people. Let me say at once that I am not in any way suggesting that there should be any dispensation. I merely want it to be fair so that there is no discrimination. I think that the hon. members in this House will recollect that for years I have sought for some kind of control over the advertising of quack remedies. I believe that this control will be adequately administered in terms of this Act. I would nevertheless like the hon. the Minister to give sympathetic consideration to this plea.

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the support of hon. members opposite for this Bill. I should just like to put it to them that they have been digressing a little too far from the point, because this Bill, which is a very short one, deals mainly with two aspects of the control of drugs. The first aspect deals with “the inclusion of any specified particulars in any such advertisement”. By way of regulation the Minister may have certain particulars excluded. The second aspect is that the advertisements may not go to certain groups of people. There is a specific reason for this, because otherwise, as the hon. the Minister rightly said, certain pharmaceutical firms would be benefited. The hon. the Minister gave the example of the vaccine for measles. I want to give another example. We may have a medical preparation which complies with all the requirements of the Council. It may be a preparation for aching muscles from which many of our rugby players may suffer. It may happen that a certain pharmaceutical firm advertises its preparation in a perfectly fair and legal way by sending circulars to all the rugby clubs in the country telling them to use this preparation. What may make it more difficult is that it may be a preparation which can be bought only after a doctor’s prescription has been obtained. This may lead to troubled relations between doctor and patient. I have a great deal of sympathy with the argument of these hon. members, but if they read section 20 (1) (a) of the principal Act of 1965 they will see—

20 (1) No person shall—

1. (a) publish or distribute or in any other manner whatsoever bring to the notice of the public or cause or permit to be published or distributed or to be so brought to the notice of the public any false or misleading advertisement concerning any drug.

In terms of section 20 (1) (a) the Minister therefore has the power to bring charges against any person if such a person brings a certain drug to the attention of the public with false intentions. We are very pleased that those hon. members agree with us, but I do not think that this new paragraph which was specifically drafted for avoiding troubled relations between patient and doctor and for preventing certain groups of people from being influenced to buy a certain pharmaceutical preparation, should now be taken too far and linked to other aspects which are not contained in the Act.

Mr. Speaker, in this case I also want to thank hon. members for their support and for the valuable suggestions they have made. I think the hon. member who has just sat down, has brought forward a very important aspect of this matter, i.e. the relation between patient and doctor which will most probably be served by the implementation of this amending legislation. He also referred to the matter which was raised by the hon. member for Berea.

†The hon. member for Berea mentioned the question of possible discrimination against the small man and hardship for the small man. I take it that by the small man the hon. member meant the pharmacist in the small town or even in the larger cities. As far as I can remember, no cases of hardship have come to my notice or that of the Department in the five years that this Act has been on the Statute Book. I fully agree with the hon. member that the intention is not to cause hardship for anybody. The intention is to safeguard the public in general and I shall certainly keep an eye on this. I may indicate to the hon. member that I think section 18 to which he also referred merely refers to the label of a registered drug.

It refers to advertising as well. It states: “No person shall in writing advertise …”

It lays down certain criteria. It lays down that advertising can only take place if the approved name, the number allocated, the brand name and the size of the letters comply with the provisions of the Act. Advertising can therefore take place. What I would like to point out to the hon. member is section 15 (7) because section 18 to which he referred only deals with drugs registered under this Act. The same applies to section 15 (7) which reads as follows—

In practice this means that the Council can lay down certain criteria in regard to advertising or when no advertising may take place. It is therefore not only section 18 but really section 15 that applies to all drugs registered under this Act.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is his opinion that a chemist and druggist who has registered his remedy in terms of the Drugs Control Act and who wishes to advertise, may then advertise it without having to carry out the provisions of section 18 which I listed, as long as those provisions appear on the label of the remedy?

He has to comply with the provisions of section 18. The Drug Control Council may, however, in terms of section 15 lay down certain criteria for advertising this particular drug apart from those contained in section 18. I want to say to that hon. member and the hon. member for Rosettenville that there is nothing new in this because the principle that there will be control over advertising is laid down in section 15 (7) but only in respect of drugs already registered while with this amendment to section 35 we are making provision for it to apply to drugs not as yet registered. As hon. members know, we have the problem of not being able to register all drugs within the first year or even the first five years. The principle that is already applicable to registering drugs, in other words, to those people who really do the right thing and register their drugs, is also now being applied if necessary to those drugs which are not registered as yet. This of course applies to all media of advertising and also to advertising through the Broadcasting Corporation which was mentioned by the hon. member. I may say the co-operation between my Department and the S.A.B.C. is excellent. We not only get their co-operation but also their help and support to put across matters of general knowledge in regard to public health which would be generally beneficial to the health of all our people.

I thank hon. members for their support. Quite rightly the hon. member pointed out, this is a small Bill but it is important as far as the outside people are concerned. I really think it is a step in the right direction. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that if there are any cases of hardship we will keep a very close watch on them and see whether we can meet them if possible.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill deals with the question of the application of the Nursing Act, Act No. 69 of 1957, to the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel. The position in this connection is that although the Nursing Act is applicable to South West Africa in terms of section 58 read in conjunction with section 1, this is not the case as far as the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel is concerned. This anomaly arises from section 38 of the South-West Africa Constitution Act, 1968, in terms of which an Act of Parliament is not applicable to the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel, unless expressly declared to be so applicable. Actually I should not call this an anomaly, as it was purposely done in this manner. In this case we are rectifying the position as regards the Nursing Act.

It will readily be realized now that in view of the situation of the Caprivi Zipfel and the lack of modern conveniences, a great deal of difficulty is being experienced in recruiting qualified nursing staff for service in that region. Last month we had the privilege of attending the ceremony of the opening of the new government hospital there by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. It is a hospital which cost R1¼ million. Provision has been made for 164 beds. It is a modern, very well-equipped hospital. It is a hospital which was planned and built particularly to suit the climatic conditions of that region. There are two white physicians, one full-time and one part-time. Several visiting physicians also go to the hospital. Then there is a white matron as well as a number of white sisters. In addition there are quite a number of Bantu sisters, staff nurses, nurses as well as a number of midwives. This hospital fulfils a very great need there. It truly is an asset and a credit to that area. Hon. members will realize that the fact that the Nursing Act is not applicable to the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel creates certain problems for us, and actually aggravates the position. In the interests of the inhabitants it has now become necessary for this Act to be made applicable. The position is also being aggravated further because the Nursing Council cannot recognize the hospital as a training school. It will be appreciated that it is of the utmost importance that some of the people living there should be trained to treat their own people. It also creates employment opportunities for them. The solution to this is to be found in amending the Act so as to make it applicable to the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel. This is the only thing this Bill seeks to do.

In conclusion I just want to say that book the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Bantu Administration and Development were consulted in this matter and that they have no objection to this Amending Bill. In addition we have a request from the Nursing Council that this Bill be placed on the Statute Book as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House will support the Bill. There are however one or two remarks I want to make. Firstly, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question in regard to something which I am not sure I understood correctly. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he said that this would from now on be a training centre for nurses or whether it would not be?

No, the Nursing Council would like to make it a training centre.

I agree with those sentiments. I think that it is absolutely necessary for us to have a training school in that area because it is not easily accessible. One should take every opportunity possible to get as many people in the surrounding areas to take up nursing. Recently I read in a newspaper report that the Nursing Council wants to make it obligatory for those people who go into this profession for the first time, to obtain matriculation standards of education. If that is going to be the case and if the Nursing Council is adamant that nobody shall become a nurse unless that person has passed matric, I think we will find ourselves in serious difficulties in some of these areas. For the life of me I do not see why we at this time, where we have such a shortage of nursing and medical personnel, should insist that nurses should pass matriculation. I would urge the hon. the Minister to do what we are doing at the moment. If a Bantu woman, a Coloured woman or an Indian woman has passed Std. 8 and is of satisfactory character and wants to join the nursing profession, I think we should encourage her to do so. I draw this point to the hon. the Minister’s notice. I think it is terribly important. It will not only affect our nursing services in the areas outside the large cities, but it will also of course cut down the enrolment of those nurses who wish to come into the nursing service who are now living in the towns. As I have said, we on this side of the House will support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members for their support. I just want to tell the hon. member for Rosettenville that the question of school qualifications and the training of nurses is enjoying my attention at the moment. I want to agree with him that we should not prevent those who are competent to undergo training, and to serve their own people properly, from doing so, particularly as far as the non-Whites are concerned. I may just say that the school facilities in the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel are reasonably good. I have no special knowledge of that, but from what I saw there that day, those people are really in a privileged position, as far as I am concerned, in comparison with the people around them and even beyond our borders.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, section 43 of the Mental Disorders Act, 1916, provides for the admission to hospitals in the Republic of patients from a proclaimed territory, i.e. territories outside South Africa, on condition that the government of the territory concerned accepts liability for the payment of the maintenance expenses. Proclamations in this regard were issued in respect of certain of the former British dependent territories and Mozambique. In the past no difficulty was experienced in recovering these expenses from the governments concerned, but since 1967 the Government of Kenya has, unfortunately, not been responding to demands sent to it in respect of outstanding expenses amounting to R1,218. As a result of negotiations between the Treasury and my Department it has now been decided that the only way of rectifying the matter is to include a provision in the Act in terms of which expenses incurred in such cases may be defrayed from Government funds if the Minister, after consultation with the Minister of Finances, is satisfied that it will not be possible to recover such expenses from the government concerned. I regret the need for presenting a Bill of this nature to this House, but one cannot accept responsibility for the lack of action on the part of other Governments. This is the only way in which this matter can be remedied legally so as to write-off the small amount and to make provision for possible future cases of this nature.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to support the hon. the Minister with the introduction and the passing of this Bill. I should just like to remark that I hope that the failure of one country to pay dues should not discourage us from allowing those people in surrounding areas who need our medical help from coming into this country. In the interests of our own country and with the good relations that we hope to have with our surrounding areas, we should at all times help those that we are able to help. We do not have to encourage them to come here, but at least let us not refuse any special treatment that they may want to get at our hospitals.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that once a person who needs medical attention is in our midst from outside our borders, we should do everything in our power to look after such a person as we would after our own. But when it comes to a matter of encouraging people to come here, it is perhaps a little different and I do not think that is what the hon. member intended at all.

I said “not encourage …”.

Yes, because we have this problem especially on our borders and we would not like to encourage people outside our borders or other governments not to do their duty towards the public health of their own patients. I thank the hon. members and the other side of the House.

Motion put and agreed to.,

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is connected with the announcement made in this House by the hon. the Prime Minister on 20th July of this year in regard to the significant breakthrough made by the Atomic Energy Board through the discovery of a unique process for the enrichment of uranium and, as was indicated by the hon. the Prime Minister, seeks to establish the corporation to which he referred.

Since 1963 this House has from time to time been asked for funds for the special research project of the Atomic Energy Board, and funds have accordingly been appropriated from time to time. From the nature of the case it has not been possible to furnish many details in regard to this project, and it is still not possible to do so to-day. But, now that we have achieved success, I should like to express my appreciation to this House for having trusted the Government and our scientists with the object they had in view and also for the attitude the House has always displayed in all cases of this nature. The production of uranium in South Africa owes its origin to the requirements of the Manhattan Project which was started during the war. The Manhattan Project was a joint project of the U.S.A. and the United Kingdom. They established a Combined Development Agency. This is an organization which, as I have said, was established by the U.S.A. and the United Kingdom for the purpose of providing these two countries with uranium supplies. They disclosed the fact that in a paper by a certain Mr. R. A. Cooper, a South African and a geologist, I think, mention was made as far back as 1923 of uraninite found in South African gold ores. As a result samples of gold ores of various gold mines in the U.S.A. were examined. By these means confirmation was obtained that materials were present in these gold ores which, having regard to the large tonnage of ore dealt with on the Rand, could be regarded as significant and considerable. The State Mellurgy Laboratory, now known as the National Institute for Metallurgy, was designated to carry out, under the supervision of a Uranium Research Committee, further research work in regard to the extraction of uranium from samples obtained from the Blyvooruitzicht, Western Reefs, Vogelstruisbult and East Daggafontein mines. Initially the laboratory devoted attention to a flotation technique for the extraction of the uranium, but it soon became clear that this was not the most effective method. Thereupon attention was devoted to an acid leaching process, and sulphuric acid and ferric sulphate were used as leaching reagents as long ago as 1946. These reagents are still being used today in the initial extraction of uranium from ores.

However, this first recovery process, which appeared to be economically feasible, was subsequently substituted by an ion exchange process based on an analytical method developed in the U.S.A. With the aid of this a method was developed which has appeared to be a highly economic and effective metallurgical process. This process was subsequently accepted all over the world and applied to the extraction of uranium from low-grade ores.

After this process had over a relatively short period been tested at the experimental installations at Blyvooruitzicht and Western Reefs, rapid progress was made with the work in connection with the design of full-scale installations, and in 1952 the first major uranium extraction plant at West Rand Consolidated was put into operation. During the first full year of production, i.e. in 1953, 558 tons of uranium concentrate were prepared, and in 1960, when the peak of production was reached, the output was 6,437 tons. Within a space of ten years this industry had virtually developed from nothing into one of the greatest sources of revenue in the country, with an annual export value in excess of R100 million. In order to achieve this, 17 uranium extraction installations were designed and built for the purpose of processing nearly 20 million tons of slimes from 28 mines. A new company, Calcined Products—at present the Nuclear Fuels Corporation—which is known as Nufcor, was established to convert the product of the extraction installations, i.e. ammonium diuranate, into the dry calcined concentrate, U₃O₈, which is the export product. In the meantime the demand for uranium had dropped, i.e. from 1960, and the production in 1965 was only 2,900 tons. The number of producing mines was decreased to eight. However, this may be regarded as a temporary phase if regard is had to the estimate that the world’s uranium requirements will amount to 80,000 tons a year by 1980, whereas the present production amounts to only 20,000 tons. In other words, a fourfold increase is being estimated for the next ten years. It is being envisaged that by the middle of the seventies there will be a lively uranium market, and the uranium industry is already planning for this contingency. South Africa has already earned R1,000 million from its uranium sales, and it is not impassible that the annual revenue from uranium will once again reach the R100 million mark.

Having completed its work, the Uranium Research Committee recommended that its functions be transferred to another body which would be more suitable for ensuring the rapid progress of uranium development in the country. The then Prime Minister, the late Dr. D. F. Malan, accepted this recommendation, and this is how the Atomic Energy Board was established in 1948. Actually, for the first decade since its establishment, the Board acted in a regulating and controlling capacity only. However, in 1959 a special research programme was approved for the Board. It was clear that the research work in connection with uranium extraction techniques would have to form a very significant component of the general research programme, and that this work would have to be carried out at the State Metallurgical Laboratories. The second phase of the uranium programme included numerous new characteristics in the research into uranium. It was fully appreciated that attention could not only be devoted to the production of an unrefined concentrate for sale abroad, but that the production of more refined products such as uranium metal had to be investigated as well.

In 1960 a start was made with work in connection with the erection of a pilot plant for the production of a variety of refined uranium products. The first material to be manufactured, was uranium metal, and after that it was possible, with the aid of a pilot plant, to produce nuclear-grade uranium dioxide pastilles, uranium tetrafluoride and uranium hexafluoride on a limited scale. All of them are highly important intermediate products at the various stages in the production of fuel elements for nuclear reactors. As I have already indicated, this uranium hexafluoride, a very corrosive and poisonous gas, is the gas being used for the enrichment of uranium throughout the world. This is no secret.

However, problems in regard to the extraction of uranium were not neglected, and attention was given to a solvent extraction process to replace the ion exchange process, which had played such an important role in the earlier days. The benefits attached to this are, in the first place, that the former process offers a cheaper method for the recovery of uranium and, in the second place, affords the opportunity for the manufacture of an exceptionally pure product at the mines themselves. Because of the close co-operation among the uranium industry, the Atomic Energy Board and the National Institute for Metallurgy this work was crowned with success by the development of the so-called Bufflex and subsequently the Purlex process. The latter process is already being applied in practice on a large scale at six mines, where a virtually nuclear-grade product is supplied at a cost which is less than that of the original raw product. Two more installations of this kind are under construction at the moment.

The next step was the conversion of uranium dioxide into uranium tetrafluoride (UF4), the intermediate product in the manufacture of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) which is used as the initial material for the enrichment of uranium. A suitable process for the manufacture of uranium tetrafluoride was developed, and a large-scale pilot plant was erected by the Nuclear Fuels Corporation, which was established in 1967. This plant is being operated with so much success that it is possible to produce uranium tetrafluoride economically. However, the ultimate object is the conversion of uranium tetrafluoride into uranium hexafluoride. This development has progressed to such an extent that Nufcor is already entering into contracts for the marketing of uranium in the form of uranium hexafluoride. What is significant, is that South Africa is in a position to produce uranium hexafluoride at competitive prices, and the only reason why this is not being done as yet, is the fact that production will have to take place on a large scale, i.e. roughly 5,000 tons a year, to be competitive, and a market for this quantity must be guaranteed.

Progress has now been made to the next logical stage, i.e. the enrichment of uranium and, as has been said, this Bill seeks to establish a corporation to render this service. I should like to point out that, in terms of the Atomic Energy Act, this Board has already been invested with the necessary powers to enrich uranium, and the first question that may arise in the minds of hon. members is whether the Atomic Energy Board itself should not carry out the research and development work from beginning to end, or whether it is wise at this stage to invest two bodies with this power.

However, I want to point out two aspects to hon. members. In the first place, as we are dealing here exclusively with the enrichment of uranium for peacetime purposes, i.e. mainly nuclear power, the Atomic Energy Board will, for two reasons in particular, not be suitable for this purpose. The Atomic Energy Board is geared for research, and this corporation is in actual fact going to become a production corporation now; a corporation which will most probably enter the field of commerce later on. In the second place, hon. members can appreciate that with this new, unique process, secrecy is of the greatest importance. The Atomic Energy Board consists of persons of the highest integrity who have rendered wonderful services to our country, but persons who are, inter alia, representing certain organizations. Therefore, in view of that, it has become essential for us to establish a corporation, the members of which may only be appointed by the State President. I may remind hon. members of the fact that, as I said on a previous occasion, two years ago it was necessary for us to constitute, in addition to the Atomic Energy Board, an ad hoc production committee to advise the Government in regard to the possible effectiveness or ineffectiveness of this process. What is actually happening now, is that this production committee is being converted into a board of this corporation so that the production of enriched uranium may be proceeded with in this pilot plant.

Another question hon. members have asked me, is whether the establishment of the corporation will not involve unnecessary duplication of costs. I should like to give hon. members the assurance that this will not be the case. The corporation will co-operate very closely with the Atomic Energy Board and will make use of certain expensive facilities which the Atomic Energy Board already has at its disposal, as well as the expert services of the National Metallurgical Institute. It will draw specially trained personnel from the Atomic Energy Board.

For the information of hon. members I may mention that this pilot plant will mainly be installed near the premises of the Atomic Energy Board at Pelindaba. Good progress has already been made with the construction of roads as well as everything that could be done without its becoming known that such a project was in fact being developed there. However, contractors, as well as architects, must now be called in, and the whereabouts of the development that is taking place, can no longer be kept secret. I hope that on a subsequent occasion I shall be in a position to tell hon. members what this specific installation will be called. However, it will be erected in the vicinity of Pelindaba. From the nature of the case everything will not be done there, but in the main the pilot plant will be constructed there.

Another question that may arise, is why the enrichment of uranium and the costs this involves should now be proceeded to, whereas the use of enriched uranium for generating a nuclear power station is, for instance, not an absolute requisite. The answer here is merely that the enrichment of uranium enhances its value by 100 per cent or more. Whereas uranium is, therefore, the source of energy of the future, it is undeniably necessary for our available reserves to be utilized in the most economic manner. What we are proceeding with now, is nothing but the refinement of this metal. This object can be achieved by our own enrichment plant, whereas through this process South Africa is also becoming independent of countries abroad for its needs in this regard.

I should now like to deal briefly with some of the clauses of the Bill. Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill make provision for the establishment of a uranium enrichment corporation and lay down what its functions and powers will be. However, it is important to note that the exercising of the general powers of the corporation will be subject to the directions of the Minister of Mines and to the relevant provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, which provisions will retain control over the enriched product for the Atomic Energy Board. This is a very important point, and hon. members should take note of it.

Furthermore, I should like to call attention to clauses 5, 6 and 7, which deal with the finances of the corporation, and in particular I want to point out that the amount of R50 million mentioned in clause 5 (1) should not be connected with the cost of the proposed project. Hon. members might have seen in the newspapers of the past week that the impression was created that this project would cost R50 million. I do not want to mislead the House, but this is not the case at all. The amount of R50 million is mentioned in clause 5 (1), but in subsequent provisions hon. members will see that this amount can be supplemented by the Government so that it may even be more than R50 million. Therefore, hon. members should not accept now that this project will cost R50 million. It may cost much less. However, the large-scale installation, which will also be taken care of by this corporation, may cost much more. The fact of the matter is that any funds not required for immediate use, are to be invested with the Public Debt Commissioners, whereas clause 7 (5) makes provision for the tabling of the reports and statements of account of the corporation, unless disclosure of such reports may in the opinion of the Minister jeopardize the safety of the State or be contrary to the public interest. Clause 8 of the Bill is being deemed necessary as it almost stands to reason that rapid, effective, regulatory control will be essential when the corporation’s activities come into full operation, and that it would not be practicable to control all these activities by way of legislation as such.

Finally, I should like to call attention to clause 14, in which provision is being made for the transfer of the relevant assets and liabilities of the Atomic Energy Board to the corporation. For essential reasons these clauses have been drafted in broad terms because of the pioneer work done by the Atomic Energy Board in this regard and in view of the essential costs and transactions connected with it.

In conclusion I should also like to associate myself on this occasion with the congratulations extended by the State President and by the hon. the Prime Minister to those scientists who, with perseverance, have made this unique break-through and who have made the introduction of this Bill possible. We wish to express our sincere gratitude to Dr. Roux, Chairman of the Board, Dr. Grant, Director-General, Dr. Robinson, Director of the National Institute for Metallurgy, and to every scientist and technologist associated with these two bodies who have in some way or other had a share in this project, as well as to their wives, who had to spend many hours alone at home at night. This Bill is a very important step in the direction of uranium enrichment in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, following the very important announcement of the Prime Minister last week, there is to-day before us a Bill to provide for the establishment of a corporation for the enrichment of uranium. We on this side of the House join again in the congratulations that have been expressed by the whole country for the achievements of Dr. Roux, Dr. Grant and Dr. Robinson and their team of scientists who have discovered what appears to be a new method of enrichment of uranium. We on this side of the House are not inquisitive to know what this process is. I think it would be in the interests of the country if this process is kept secret and that the secret is well guarded. We have still a long way to go before we will know whether or not this discovery is going to be economically, commercially and industrially successful.

The Minister has told us to-day that an initial grant of R50 million is going to be provided for the Corporation to start its work. It would appear that the cost of establishing a pilot plant will take up most of this amount. It is going to take a long time to spend the R50 million until we can establish this pilot plant. We, and we hope the country as a whole, will not be too impatient to know what the results of this new discovery are going to be. We have in the past heralded a find of oil in the southern part of our country. This, as we know, was heralded with much jubilation. People became a little despondent when the barrels of oil did not immediately start pouring out of the pilot wells that were sunk.

Whether we will hear more about this in the future I do not know, but as far as this uranium discovery is concerned I would urge people not to be too impatient and to give this pilot plant a chance to show what we in this country can do in regard to the enrichment of uranium. It will not only have to be successfully demonstrated in this pilot plant that the process of enrichment can be successfully undertaken but I feel that the method will also have to be able to compete with the present known methods of enrichment. If through our new method we are able to keep pace with or improve upon the present known methods of enrichment, then we will know that we have a successful discovery on our hands. But it will take time and, as I have said, we must be patient.

The Atomic Energy Board will, of course, lose some of its most brilliant men through the establishment of the Uranium Enrichment Corporation. I also see in the Bill that the Uranium Corporation will have the power through the Minister to second persons from the Atomic Energy Board to work with them in the new corporation. However, where the Uranium Corporation will be engaged almost entirely upon the process of enrichment of uranium, the Atomic Energy Board will also have several other research and production works on its hands. Whether or not the manufacture of isotopes and the work as far as reactors are concerned is going to suffer as a result of the loss of some of its men I do not know. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what he is going to do to make sure that there is no fall in the quality of material that we have at present and which we hope to have in the future under the aegis of the Atomic Energy Board. I would say that we should keep a sharp lookout to make sure that the excitement of establishing a new corporation does not on the other hand detract from the value of the work that is going on at the Atomic Energy Corporation.

Sir, after those introductory words, I would like to say one or two things about the Bill itself. The composition of the board is one matter which I think must be dealt with by the House. The number set down, not less than five and not more than nine members, may have to be revised. We have to bear in mind that this is not only a scientific project that is going on but that in due course when the pilot plant has given way to the real manufacture of enriched uranium, we will be faced then with the possibility of having to market our uranium and having to do it on a commercial and industrial scale. For this reason I feel that at this time we should consider who shall sit on this board. I would like to see private enterprise represented; I would like to see market experts and experts on industrial know-how represented. With due respect to our scientists, very few of them are real businessmen. If we are going to load the board with scientists then I feel that as far as chemistry and physics are concerned the work done by this corporation is going to be top class, but it is perhaps going to be difficult to get rid of the manufactured product. For that reason I say that this House ought to consider who shall sit on this board, or at least have the opportunity of advising the Minister as to who shall sit on the board. Here again I would like to see greater encouragement given to the universities who are working in the field of nuclear physics to continue with their research work. I feel that a corporation such as this should set aside a branch of activity which will be devoted almost entirely to correlating the findings of universities and the encouragement of universities to keep their experimentation and their research work going.

Sir, I looked through this Bill and I did not find any mention of health hazards which may result even from the establishment of the pilot plant, and I hope that in due course the Minister will introduce a Bill to provide for compensation for harm done to the health of workers, and that provision will also be made for the workers to make sure that they do not come into contact with health hazards unless suitably protected.

A lot of money is going to pass through the hands of this corporation; many business deals are going to be made, and although provision is made for an auditor to look through the books, I feel that we in Parliament should be entitled to an annual report. Provision is made in the Bill for an annual report but it does not come under the scrutiny of the Auditor-General. I feel that the Auditor-General should be brought into the picture. Under the Bill as it now reads the Minister may from time to time appoint an auditor but this auditor may be from outside, and I think it is not good enough for us in this House to vote so much money for a corporation which, we hope, is going to deal in millions and millions of rands, without having the Auditor-General scrutinizing the accounts. The only part that is going to be secret is the actual discovery of this process, but the business arrangements should not be secret and the corporation’s books should be open to our scrutiny.

I think the fixing of prices when enriched uranium is sold is a matter for the board because these are commercial deals. I do not think the Minister should have more than an interest in what is going on; I do not think he should be an outside director of any of these transactions. But if I understand the Bill correctly the board is only secondary to the Minister in these matters; I think it should be the other way around. The board should have the right to recommend to the Minister what the price should be.

Then there is one aspect which is not mentioned in the Bill but which I think should come under the direct control of the Minister and that is the countries with whom we are going to trade in uranium. I think he should choose the countries with whom he wants to deal and I think that those countries who want our goods should show their bona fides. We do not want to blackmail them into giving us their friendship but we should at least let them know that we want and expect their friendship. I would say that we should have no trade relations in this regard with communist countries.

Sir, at the moment uranium is a by-product of the mining of gold. Unfortunately for us we know that the life of our gold mines is becoming shorter and shorter, and we want more and more uranium to be mined. This is a problem that the gold producers will have to work out with the Uranium Corporation, but this does not mean to say that we will only find uranium where gold is present. I sincerely hope that the Uranium Corporation will make arrangements to have the whole of our country re-surveyed and re-prospected with a view to finding more and more uranium. As the Minister knows, there is probably a tremendous amount of uranium available in this country at the moment, uranium that is not tied up with the mining of gold. I would like to see that we utilize as much of this uranium as possible and as quickly as possible.

Sir, fortunately we on this side of the House have a member who is well versed in uranium matters. He will presently address the House and give us the benefit of his experience. I want to wish this corporation great success, and I sincerely hope that its findings in the years to come will be worthy of the jubilation that we have had during the past week.

I should like to express my appreciation for the standpoint adopted by the hon. member for Rosettenville, and I should like to emphasize what he said in connection with uranium as a by-product of our gold industry. For this reason it is extremely important for continual routine research to be done into further deposits, because you can imagine for yourself, Sir, that our uranium production would virtually disappear if the day were to come when, for economic reasons, the gold industry could no longer play the role in South Africa’s domestic economy that it ought to play. Of course, the chances are always good that incidental discoveries could be made, as in the twenties when Dr. Cooper accidentally discovered the uranium ore in the Witwatersrand gold-bearing rocks. At the time it was, of course, merely of academic interest. The parallel, continual production of gold and uranium therefore appears to be a sine qua non for the future.

The hon. member for Rosettenville referred here to a few other aspects. It goes without saying, of course, that we shall not trade with communist countries. He also referred to the importance of the Auditor-General having authority in the accounts of the Corporation. In my opinion sufficient provision is made in clause 11, where the Corporation is exempted from certain provisions in the Companies Act. The State President may also play a role there. Under this clause he may from time to time by proclamation repeal, amend or allow provisions of the Companies Act of 1926. It is therefore a matter which is, in fact, under control, and I do not really see why the hon. member has doubts about it. The hon. member also has doubts, and he expressed doubts about the clause concerning Board of Directors. Of course, he now thinks that the Government will appoint a log of ignorant Nationalists to the Board of Directors. But I just want to refer to the report of the commission of inquiry into the possible application of nuclear power in the Republic of South Africa. The composition of that commission of inquiry is quite illuminating, and I want to refer the hon. member to it. The chairman was Dr. H. J. van Eck of the Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa. The vice-chairman was Dr. A. J. A. Roux, of the Atomic Energy Board. The members were Dr. M. G. Atmore, of the Anglo-American Corporation of South Africa Limited, Professor E. L. Clarke of the S.A. Kunsstowwe en Chemiese Nywerhede Beperk and Mr. S. Craib of the General Mining and Finance Corporation. I wonder if the hon. member objects to such excellent people who made the report which was submitted to this House and is the basis for this legislation.

You did not listen.

I just want to emphasize that in connection with staff matters these utility companies always draw staff from other Government Departments, and that they then actually place other Government institutions in a very difficult position. I believe that this staff question has already been emphasized here so repeatedly that we shall, in fact, find a solution for it. I think we must leave the solution in the hands of those who know; then we shall get a decisive answer. In this technological century in which we are living there is, of course, a scarcity of this type of researcher, and we can only hope that there is, in fact, a solution for it.

The hon. member also referred to our method of enrichment having to compete with the known methods elsewhere in the world. Here the report in connection with the development of nuclear power in South Africa tells us very clearly of the position and the recommendations. They have already obtained a decisive answer about this question of competition with foreign production. For this reason they built the small pilot plant, which the hon. the Minister also spoke of, and the problems of the supplying and processing of South African materials have already been unravelled. Now the hon. member is expressing slight doubts; he considers that it is not altogether successful. I just want to leave this House with the thought that a decision has already been reached about this question of whether it can withstand foreign competition, and about whether this could succeed in our South African domestic economy. There is, of course, still the other aspect which will be involved with this, and that is the establishment of other integrated manufacturing industries, inter alia, I imagine—and this is what the report of the commission on nuclear power also mentions—the zirconium alloy components, which are a natural pre-requisite for the essential alloys. I should like to associate myself with what was said in this hon. House in connection with the fine achievements of our scientists in this new field where we are once more giving a lead to the rest of the world.

Mr. Speaker, it is with a sense of privilege that I take this first opportunity of addressing this House. It is a privilege not only because I am a new member, but also because the subject of this Bill is a matter of special interest to me personally and because the topicality and importance of this subject have been so greatly enhanced by the statement which was made in this House by the hon. the Prime Minister last Monday. My own interest derives from the fact that until my election on 22nd April I was in fact head of the Nuclear Fuels Corporation of South Africa and uranium adviser to the S.A. Chamber of Mines. I therefore hope that the House will be interested if I speak of the significance of this development and place it in the context of industry in South Africa in order to explain precisely why it is of such very great potential industrial importance to South Africa, and why the discovery which was reported to this House is a matter of such very high merit from the scientific and technical points of view.

In order to put the discovery into its context, I would like to deal briefly with some of the scientific principles involved, simply in order that they may be better understood and also so that the magnitude of the difficulties involved may be better understood. None of these matters is secret; they have been widely published in the technical literature, and I will confine myself to such principles.

Basically the problem is, of course, that uranium in its natural state consist of the atom U.238 and its isotope 235, which might be described as the “nervous sister” of U.238 in that it is fissile and thus lends itself readily to the production of atomic energy. The problem then is that U.238, which is the main constituent of the element, is itself stable and consists of some 99.3 per cent of the element in its natural state. U.235, the fissile part, consists of only 0.7 per cent, a ratio of 1 to 146. The problem, therefore, is to increase the amount of uranium 235 in relation to the isotope 238; because isotopes are chemically identical and from the point of view of their atomic character tend to be very similar, it is an extremely difficult task to separate these isotopes. The principles by which they may be separated were discovered as long ago as 1919 and published then. After that time a great deal of work was done, especially on the light elements and notably with a view to the production of heavy water. It was in the period from 1942 onwards, during the Manhattan Project to which the hon. the Minister referred, that special attention was given to the separation of the heavy isotopes of uranium. This proved to be an extremely difficult task.

A great deal of work has been done since those days and the general techniques used have been briefly these—

The first attempt made to separate the isotopes was by means of a centrifuge technique. The centrifuge technique works very much on the principle of a cream separator. It is a kind of super churn which separates out the light isotopes from the heavier ones. The engineering problems were at that stage so severe that the project was abandoned. Work was then done on electro-magnetic means intended to exploit the difference in the electrical charge carried by the ions of the two isotopes. Work was also done on another slight difference, namely the thermal difference in the behaviour of two isotopes when exposed to a temperature gradient. Eventually it was decided to use the gaseous diffusion method. This, briefly and simply, exploits the fact that the light molecules of gas travel more easily through a porous membrane than the heavier molecules, and in this way separation is reached between them. There is, of course, a great deal more technical data of which some is secret, and which I do not know, involved in these processes, but these are broadly speaking the main principles.

The gaseous diffusion method was in fact developed in the United States for the purpose of its nuclear programme. Three very large plants were built which cost upwards of R2,000 million to install. They use electricity to the extent of between 6,000 to 7,000 megawatts at full capacity, which is roughly equal to the amount of electricity generated in the whole of South Africa. This gives some idea of the scale and the cost of these vast industrial plants. The United Kingdom, France, and we believe Russia and China, followed the same method. They erected gaseous diffusion plants and these are being used to-day for the separation of uranium isotopes; mainly, and even in the case of the first two countries, for their military programmes, although now possibly they may be adapted to the production of uranium for the generation of electricity.

Recently there has been a new development. Because some countries, like South Africa, are nervous of the situation where the commercial enrichment process is obtainable only in one country, a joint project has been started between Britain, Germany and Holland to build a new type of centrifuge. They feel they are able to tackle this now because new metals, new carbon fibres and special bearing techniques now permit them to develop this centrifuge, which the House will recall was once abandoned during the Manhattan Project. A great deal of work has been done on this and a great deal of money has been spent, and there has been close collaboration between these three nations, but it is not yet certain whether this new project will in fact be competitive with the gaseous diffusion plants existing in America. I mention these facts because I think they help to bring into context and bring into perspective the great importance and the great sophistication of the technique which we are discussing in terms of this Bill.

If the project now under discussion is successful, it will have vast industrial implications for South Africa. During the remainder of this century the electrical requirements of South Africa will probably multiply eight times. In an ordinary developing industrial country the tendency is for the electricity demand to grow by 10 per cent per annum, which means that each seven years or so the electricity demand of such an industrial country is doubled. If this vast growth is taken into account and if we bear in mind that one ton of uranium can produce as much electricity as 20,000 tons of coal, we get some idea of the enormous significance of this development, the enormous potential of atomic energy and the vast kind of industry which may grow out of the project we are discussing to-day.

I think I have said enough to indicate that if the project for the enrichment of uranium in South Africa is successful—we accept that up to the stage it has reached, it has indeed been successful, but at the same time we feel it has still some way to go in order to reach full industrial exploitability—it will have enormous implications for South Africa’s own industrial growth in the first instance, because this depends on the adequate and cheap generation of electricity. For our export trade it will also have important consequences. At the moment uranium is being exported as an oxide. As the hon. the Minister has mentioned, attempts are being made to export and sell it in a higher phase, i.e. the uranium hexafluoride stage, but this is a new industry which is still in its infancy here. The further upgrading of uranium to an enriched stage, which is a highly sophisticated stage, would in fact greatly enhance the value of our exports. All these things are of vast importance. Therefore we certainly look forward very much to the development of atomic energy and particularly to the added value this corporation for the enrichment of uranium may bring.

Without wanting to be controversial, I should like to put forward two suggestions for the consideration of the Minister. From what I have said, it will be clear that the production of enriched uranium is a highly sophisticated industrial undertaking. If successful, it will involve the creation of vast and highly expensive plant and highly sophisticated techniques. We should like to feel that an opportunity will be given to South African industry, especially our more highly sophisticated industries, also to make a contribution in the field of commercialization, industrial exploitation, international marketing, etc., whereby they could enhance the value of this product.

Secondly: It has been found in other countries that it has great merit to turn over nuclear fuel business to private enterprise. In countries which have made the most rapid advances in recent years—notably the United States, Western Germany and Japan—the central atomic energy authorities have been allowed only to play a supervisory rôle, while the development and exploitation of atomic energy have been left to private enterprise which has in fact carried it forward. Britain and France took the other route. They established strongly centralized atomic energy authorities—in other words, state controlled. They, however, have now reached the stage where they have so far fallen behind the other three countries in competitivity and development that they are reviewing their positions. The U.K. has reached the position where to-day it has before its own Parliament Bills for the establishment of commercial enterprise to exploit atomic energy and develop fuel processes. The proposal there is that the Government should hold 51 per cent of the share capital of the industries to be established. Even this has been severely criticized, although I would say it can be justified on security grounds. In our Bill there is a proposal that the State should hold 100 per cent of the shares—in other words, no shares will be made available to private enterprise. I feel that once we possess the vast experience of those large industrial countries which have been in this business for a long time, we shall find that there can be definite advantages in seeking the participation and collaboration of industry on a basis of shareholding. I hope very much that the present proposal, i.e. that the shares in the corporation should be held 100 per cent by the State, will not be a permanent feature but that some thought will be given to the co-operation of private enterprise in South Africa.

In conclusion I should like to point out that this Bill provides for the next stage in the development of our uranium industry and the next stage in the development of the enrichment process. The stage which has been reached has, I think, been satisfactorily and excitingly concluded. It does now need a pilot plant stage where the economic success and viability of this process may be tested in full industrial conditions. It is only when this has been done that we shall know whether or not proceeding to a full industrial plant will be justified.

We feel that this Bill setting up the uranium corporation, which will in turn set up the plant, is a good Bill and we certainly wish the corporation every success.

I should like to pay a tribute to the hon. member for Von Brandis, on his maiden speech and to congratulate him on it. I believe it has been a maiden speech which has more substance in it than those we usually hear in this House. The hon. member’s speech is remarkable for its content and in future when debates of this character take place in regard to this little known substance which has created so much interest recently, we shall look forward with a great deal more than common interest to such debates because we know we have an hon. member in our midst of the standing of the hon. member for Von Brandis.

May I say to the hon. member for Etosha, who seemed to take exception to what my hon. friend, the hon. member for Rosettenville, had to say about the members of the board, that he cast a reflection on them, that that was in fact not the case. No reflection was cast on the members of the board who have been engaged in their work for so many years …

It has become the fashion to express doubt in regard to the members appointed by the Government on the boards of these utility companies …

Sir, there was no reflection of any kind cast by the hon. member for Rosettenville on anybody whatsoever. I want to make that quite clear.

But the reason why I rise at this juncture is to say that after what the hon. the Minister has said, as well as other speakers, including the hon. member for Von Brandis, we must all I think be convinced of the importance to South Africa of this new process which has been discovered by our scientists. My object is to emphasize the need for security. The more important the discovery, the greater the need for security and not only in regard to those matters which affect us as a commercial nation, once uranium is available for commercial purposes, after the pilot plant has proved its object and opened the way of the development on a large scale of this industry, but also right throughout the whole of the processing. In South Africa we have become accustomed to read about the defection of other people. Let me say here once again to my hon. friend the hon. member for Etosha, who is always a little careful about the possibility that his water, uranium or something else may be stolen, that there is no question of casting aspersions on anyone. However, we do read of defections in other countries. The more our processes become the processes of a sophisticated scientific and industrial nation the more attention will be focused on us …

It does not help to have a sophisticated one; the sine qua non is objectivity …

May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we want some sophisticated members of Parliament as well; then they may be able to follow the argument which is being used …

You are the last one to say that. [Interjections.]

The more valuable the asset you have, the more will the eyes of other people be cast with cupidity on that object. That is human nature throughout the world. The great nations are to-day competing with one another, for the slightest possibility of getting some small chance, some small opportunity, to get ahead of the others, to give them one small benefit ahead of the other nations. A discovery such as this must be of immense value, of incalculable value, to the great nations of the world. That makes the need for security so much greater, not only when we have reached the stage where we can produce enriched uranium in a volume large enough to deal with it as a commodity, but also in these early stages, because I am quite certain that the scientists of other nations would regard it as sufficient if they could only get one hint as to the vital principle underlying the precise method achieved by our scientists here in South Africa.

So, Sir, I should merely like to stress that point. As a matter of fact, I am not sure whether the Minister should not, in consultation with the Prime Minister, consider the question whether on a matter of this kind and importance we should not have a closed session of Parliament, a secret session, to deal with such aspects. We are amongst the sophisticated nations of the world now as far as this matter is concerned. Of these there are virtually only four now. What could it mean if the knowledge underlying this discovery became of more general knowledge throughout other countries of the world who are to-day looking with very suspicious eyes, shall I say, on South Africa? The security attached to this particular discovery to my mind transcends the need for security in any other matter at our disposal here in South Africa. Therefore, I urge this upon the Minister and ask him to give further consideration to the question of top security about all aspects of the production of uranium here in South Africa.

The hon. member for South Coast raised the matter of top security and of the importance of top security in relation to this matter. Also the hon. member for Rosettenville said that this secret should be very well guarded. In that I cannot agree with them more and the fact that that opinion has come across the floor of this House does help me. Everyone connected with this can now take special note of the necessity for top secrecy in this matter. Whilst saying this I think I should just point out that it was possible at Pelindaba to work on a product like this for nine years without anything having leaked out. I think this can count as a tribute to those South African scientists engaged on this particular project. However, that fact should not lull us into taking things for granted. I should like to point out to the hon. member that in this Bill as well, in clause 8, provision is made in this connection. It is being provided that the Minister may make regulations inter alia in regard to “the preservation of secrecy in regard to the affairs of the corporation”. In subsection (3) it is provided that these regulations may provide that any person who contravenes or fails to comply therewith, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to such fine not exceeding R10,000 or imprisonment for such period not exceeding 20 years as may be specified in the regulation or to both such fine and such imprisonment. This is in line with the Atomic Energy Act.

I do not want the stable door to be closed only after the horse has been stolen.

May I say that it is my sincere wish that we shall never have to use this provision. I can assure the hon. member that over the years and since the announcement by the hon. the Prime Minister, we have again given special attention to all the security arrangements; we have looked at these de novo and have also called in the advice of experts. May I say, however, that, in the interests of security, we should not even have a closed session of Parliament to deal with this particular matter. That will be going far too wide. If I may say so, Sir, even a closed session of Parliament to discuss this particular matter could not afford us the necessary security.

*Another point in respect of which I suppose hon. members expect a reply from me is in connection with my reference to the patience shown by this House throughout the years and also to the insight shown by hon. members in not asking unnecessary questions. I want to point out, however, that during the past years I went as far as possible in enlightening them. I want to refer hon. members briefly to what was said in this House. In 1967 I said the following (Hansard, Vol. 21, Col. 6744) —

I was referring to uranium—

In the same debate I said the following (Hansard, Vol. 21, Col. 6754) —

I think hon. members will agree with me that I could not have gone any further than that in informing Parliament in connection with these matters. I continued as follows—

In 1968 I said the following (Hansard, Vol. 22, Col. 311) —

During the Budget debate in 1968 we also discussed these matters, and then I said the following (Hansard. Vol. 24, Col. 6883) —

In the same debate I also said the following (Hansard, Vol. 24, Col. 6884) —

†I have referred to these few remarks of mine to indicate to hon. members that in years gone by I have gone as far as I possibly could in this Chamber to inform them that we were carrying on research at the Atomic Energy Board at Pelindaba. The hon. member for South Coast raised the question of the importance of security. I have dealt with that.

I should like to add also my congratulations to the hon. member for Von Brandis on the occasion of his maiden speech. I have certainly listened with pleasure to him. I am sure that to him Monday last, his first day of debate ever in this Chamber, and when the Prime Minister made this announcement, must have been a very special day, because of the fact that he was head of Nufcor up to the time of his election. May I say to the hon. member that he has given us ample proof that he is knowledgeable on this subject. I am sure that if he continues in this way he will be capable of making very substantial contributions in the debates to come.

*The hon. member for Etosha remarked on the constitution of the board and also referred to what was said by the hon. member for Rosettenville in this regard.

†May I say to the hon. member for Rosettenville that I welcome any suggestions as to the type of person we should appoint to this very important board. Naturally I think it would be out of place, both from hon. members’ point of view and from my own point of view, to mention names, but may I also give the assurance that the production committee which has advised the Government in the past few years, was constituted not only of scientists. More than half of the members of the committee were gentlemen in commerce and industry. It is certainly the intention to appoint that sort of person on to this particular board.

The hon. member also raised the question of trading, which will be watched over by the board. I can assure the hon. member that it is the position to-day that we do not deal with communist countries, and it is not our intention to do so. We choose the people to whom we sell uranium very carefully. That will be the case in future as well.

The hon. member for Rosettenville raised the question of pollution. May I say to the hon. member that this corporation is of course subject to all the laws of the country relating to pollution and health hazards of that kind. It is also subject to certain provisions in the Atomic Energy Act. I feel that that aspect is catered for by these provisions.

The hon. member also said that we might lose brilliant men from the Atomic Energy Board to this new corporation. If anything, this development will stimulate and support research, because there will be such a close liaison between these bodies. I would think that we will be using especially the top men for both the Atomic Energy Board and the corporation. I am sure that, instead of losing men, this will create new and added opportunities for our scientists to carry on their research, because after all a country which has enriched uranium at its disposal, and is able to enrich its own uranium, is in the very best position to carry on its research.

The hon. member for Von Brandis raised two further points. The first point was in regard to the participation of South African industry in this matter. I think it is absolutely necessary that the Government should finance this project and that no outside organization should, at this stage, be brought in at all, for security and for other reasons. The hon. member knows, however, that the Prime Minister did indicate in his speech that we shall be prepared to consider taking in other countries as partners under certain conditions. The Prime Minister made a very special point of indicating that this will be for peace-time purposes only, and that non-communist countries only would be considered. I think that later on that would certainly perhaps also apply to South African industry. Hon. members must not forget that at this stage as far as the erection of the pilot plant is concerned, although they are not participating financially in this project our industries are making a very substantial contribution to the erection of the pilot plant as well as benefiting from it financially.

Then the hon. member raised the question of the participation of private enterprise in the supply of atomic energy in years to come. With due respect, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I do not think this is a matter which we should raise in this particular debate. I may point out that at the moment the question of the supply of atomic energy in years to come is solely the responsibility of the Electricity Supply Commission. That is a matter which can be discussed during other debates. It will most probably be discussed under the Vote of the Minister of Economic Affairs.

*I do not think there is any matter I have overlooked. I am grateful to hon. members for the fact that the quality of the debate was appropriate to the extreme importance of the corporation which was discussed here this afternoon.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill is comparatively simple and basically it contains only two adjustments which have become necessary in order to ensure the effective functioning of the Atomic Energy Board.

In view of certain developments which will result in a considerable extension of the board’s activities, a reorganization of the board’s activities, especially on the administrative level has become necessary in the first place.

In terms of the existing section 12 of the Atomic Energy Act (Act No. 90 of 1967), a chairman is at the head of the board, but he is not the board’s chief executive officer as well. The chief executive officer of the board is the director-general appointed in terms of section 16 (1) (a) of the Act. The director-general is, however, not a member of the board.

It will promote the planning as well as the implementation of the board’s activities of the person who acts as chairman at meetings of the board, is the board’s chief executive officer as well, and this will, what is more, bring the Atomic Energy Board in line with the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research in this regard, where the president of that body is also the chief executive officer. For reasons of uniformity, the opportunity is also being used to do away with the designation “chairman” by substituting the designation “president” for it, as in the case of the C.S.I.R. and the other younger councils such as the Medical Research Council and the Human Sciences Research Council. Furthermore, I may say that this brings it in line with the practice in other countries, where nuclear power plays an important role. All the clauses of the Bill, except clause 4, deal with this adjustment. I may add that although the office of director-general now falls away, the position of the present holder of the post is protected by clause 5 (2).

Clause 4 contains the second adjustment which has become necessary and makes provision for the expropriation of land by the Minister of Agriculture on behalf of the board. Because of the special nature of the board’s activities, it cannot be established on practically any land, and the provision seeks to prevent advantage being taken of the needs of the board, which is basically a research institution and will become of ever increasing importance to this country in this technological age, and the exploitation of those needs. Furthermore, it is necessary because the provisions of the Expropriation Act, in terms of which land may be expropriated by the State for public purposes, are not applicable to the needs of the Atomic Energy Board according to a ruling of the government law advisors, and the board therefore finds itself in a very delicate position in cases where it simply must obtain certain land in order to function effectively and safely. I want to emphasize that it is sometimes imperative to obtain land especially for the sake of the safety, not so much of the people who work there, but of the people in the neighbourhood. However, I want to draw hon. members’ attention particularly to the fact that the provisions of this clause will not be automatically applicable to land required by the board, as it is being laid down specifically that the provisions will only apply in cases where the board satisfies the Minister of Mining that it does need the land, but cannot obtain it on reasonable terms. This provision is being made as it is not the intention to eliminate in future normal bargaining in connection with land required by the board. Mr. Speaker, these are the different aspects of this amending Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support this Bill. It seems to me that a rose by any other name should at least smell as sweet. I fail to see the necessity to introduce a Bill containing five or six clauses which deals only with the change of name from “chairman” to “president”. I find it quite strange to think that this sort of thing is necessary in our country. The hon. the Minister tried to explain why we have to have the name changed from “chairman” to “president” and I suppose that it is something that has to be done. We on this side of the House have no objection to this being done.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It is my special privilege and an honour for me to-day to submit this Bill to the House. We are at present living in an age of mechanization and automation, the world of the computer. This Bill gives effect to an efficient system of population registration which was envisaged as long ago as 1950 by the then Minister of the Interior, the late Dr. T. E. Dönges, with the introduction of the principal Act. It also serves to prove that the Government is keeping pace with developments and changing circumstances in the world of to-day and does not hesitate to tackle and to carry out major projects which will be to the benefit of the country as a whole. Mr. Speaker, we are undoubtedly dealing with something of great significance here and I am convinced that both we and future generations will still derive great benefit from the foundations which will be laid here to-day with the piloting through of this Bill.

Before I deal with the proposed amendment Bill itself, I should like to furnish a general survey, as well as the background history, of the envisaged new system. On the instructions of the then Minister of the Interior. the hon. P. M. K. le Roux, given to the Public Service Commission, a general inspection of the Department of the Interior was commenced during October, 1966. At an early stage of the inspection the investigating team found that it was not possible to continue with the old separate systems of births, marriages, population and deaths registration owing to the rapid growth of the population and the shortage of manpower in the Public Service. It was also decided at the time that a central firearms register and a central drivers’ licence register should be established and maintained. The investigation revealed that the inclusion of all the separate registers in the population register could, from an administrative point of view, entail great benefits. Because the envisaged reconstitution and maintenance of the population register would entail far-reaching administrative implications, the then Minister of the Interior and the hon. the Prime Minister were informed at an early stage, and on the instructions of the latter, the Cabinet was fully informed of the envisaged system by the Chief Public Service Inspector and the Public Service Inspector in control of the investigation in Cape Town on 25th January, 1968. On 19th and 20th March, 1968, the caucuses of the United Party and the National Party, respectively, were fully informed on the envisaged system by the above-mentioned two officers who replied to questions in regard to it. On 20th March, 1968, the then Minister of the Interior gave a radio talk, in Afrikaans and English, on what was being envisaged and at the same time gave a Press release. On 25th April, 1968, the entire envisaged system was explained during a Press conference at Cape Town. The development of the system was then continued with and on 12th November, 1969, the envisaged amalgamated and computed population register was explained and demonstrated to the Interior group of the National and United Parties. During the past week I arranged for the Secretary and Deputy Secretary, who are in fact in charge of this investigating team, to address the Interior group, not only of the Government, but also of the Opposition, in regard to this matter. The most important objective of the system are to make public administration more efficient: to facilitate the maintenance of the various comprehensive registers and to eliminate duplication: to save the State and the public manpower and money; to provide the public with a better service and to consolidate all the separate identification documents which every member of the population already has into one handy identity document. Members of the investigating team visited ten West European countries and attempted to take what was best from an administrative point of view from the registration systems of those countries and incorporate it in the envisaged population register for the public. Systems similar to what is being envisaged, some of which have already been in existence for several decades, are also being applied in all West European countries, with the exception of one, with major or minor alterations.

The planning of the system has reached such an advanced stage now that it is hoped that it will be possible to introduce it on 1st June, 1971, and I deem it advisable to explain the system once again in broad outline. As has already been mentioned, it is being envisaged in the first place to expand the existing population register of almost six million handwritten record cards by incorporating other registers of importance, i.e. those of births, marriages, deaths, drivers’ licences, firearm licences, professions, educational qualifications and addresses, on a computed basis and by so doing to establish a population register in the true meaning of the word.

With a view to the effective classification of society in a progressive country and modern state, such as the Republic of South Africa, a population register compiled on the above-mentioned basis is a necessary and almost indispensable instrument in our public administration. Apart from the fact that certain existing administrative deficiencies are now being properly remedied, the duplication of particulars is now being eliminated. In addition to this it is also obvious that a register which is compiled on the envisaged basis can be utilized very effectively in regard to, inter alia, the provision, at short notice of all kinds of fresh and complete statistics which may be needed by the Government for planning purposes.

Secondly, the elimination of the existing identity cards, drivers’ licences, firearms licences, birth certificates, marriage certificates, death certificates and certificates of compulsory immunization against smallpox as separate identification documents and their incorporation into a single document which will be known as an identity document is being envisaged, and this will be so designed that it will be issued directly upon receipt of the notification of birth of a child. I can just add here that the “identity document” may even be abbreviated to I.D. That, however, we will leave to popular usage. I foresee that this term may perhaps be a little long for ordinary use. If the public wants to use I.D.. which after all is I.D. in English as well, we are at least still maintaining a parallel usage. This is something which may become popular usage. I shall leave it at that, however. The envisaged identity document will contain no information of a confidential nature, for example particulars of parents, antenuptial contracts, whether the person was married in a church or a magistrate’s office and, in the case of a person who has contracted a second or further marriage. the fact that he was previously married, divorced or a widower.

Apart from the fact that the number of separate identification documents which are issued annually will be reduced from almost 1½ million to approximately ¼ million, it will in respect of the majority of cases no longer be necessary for the public to request birth, marriage and death certificates. Statutory provision is being envisaged for the issue free of charge of attested copies of such certificates where it is perhaps not practical for the holder to display his identity document to the persons or bodies concerned. Almost ¾ million such certificates are being issued annually upon payment of a fee.

The introduction of the envisaged system will go hand in hand with the allocation of a new identity number which will be used as uniform reference number by all State and semi-State organizations and it is hoped also by private organizations such as banks and building societies. In order to enjoy the full benefits associated with this the public will be expected to furnish, in suitable cases, their identity numbers when dealing with such organizations. In addition it is being envisaged to make available a concise guide together with the new identity document to each member of the population. The purpose of this is to ensure that every person will be conversant with the provisions of certain legislation and prescriptions which might affect him, and more specifically in regard to the general concept of registration and identification.

Finally, the establishment of a central address bureau as an integral part of the envisaged population register is also being envisaged. Arising out of this the public will only need to give notification of changes in address to one central point in the public administration and they will also be exempted from most obligations which are at present imposed on them in this regard by a multitude of other official bodies. This may also pave the way in future, to the benefit of both the public and the State, to the complete elimination of voters’ and citizen force registrations. Details of addresses will under no circumstances be furnished to the private sector, unless it is deemed to be in the interest of a person himself. No criminal records or any other possible prejudicial particulars will be included in the envisaged population register. The benefits this entails for the State are vast and collectively of almost incalculable value. It is expected, inter alia, that there will be an annual saving of at least R3 million and 500 units.

It will, however, serve no useful purpose to go into all the details of that on this occasion. As far as the more important direct benefits for the individual are concerned, the envisaged system briefly presents the following possibilities: Notification of changes in address will only have to be given at one point. The bother of having a multitude of loose identification documents in one’s possession, will be eliminated. The possession of a guide will eliminate numerous inquiries and visits to public offices. It will no longer be necessary to apply for identity cards, and for abbreviated birth, marriage and death certificates only in exceptional cases. It will no longer be necessary to have separate photos taken for identity cards and drivers licences. Normally it will no longer be necessary for a woman to have her identity card and drivers’ licence renewed after her marriage. Civil banns and special marriage licences will, it is hoped, be eliminated.

As has already been indicated, the implementation of the system will be commenced on 1st June, 1971, and it will, if nothing unforeseen occurs, have been completed in about five years. The only expenditure which will result for the public is the cost of two copies of a passport photo in respect of persons who have already reached the age of 16 and who cannot hand in their identity cards. All motor car drivers would in any case have had to furnish such photos for the new drivers’ licences. Further details on this will be subsequently announced. The system will apply to all population groups, except the Bantu population group. The possible application of the system to the Bantu population group is still receiving attention.

The Amendment Bill which has been published in advance in the Government Gazette for general information has now been lying upon the Table as well for a long time, and in addition members are in possession of an explanatory memorandum which has been made available. Hon. members ought therefore by this time to be completely conversant with it, and I am not going take up the time of this House by giving a long drawn out explanation of the various clauses. We can if necessary deal with them in detail during the Committee Stage. There are however a few clauses which I nevertheless deem necessary to elucidate more fully here. But before I proceed to do so I just want to draw hon. member’s attention to the fact that, as will be noted, the proposed amendments do not actually amend the principles of the Principal Act. On the contrary, the principles have already been incorporated in the Principal Act and are simply being defined more clearly and expanded, and are being given more effective legal force. In addition I also want to emphasize most strongly that the proposed amendments make no change to the existing provisions regarding a person’s race classification. The status quo is being maintained in this connection, and we must therefore refrain from holding a race classification debate to-day and confine ourselves to the actual amendments aimed at giving legal effect to the new system which I have sketched rather comprehensively and which are without any doubt to the benefit of all population groups.

I think the following clauses require a little further explanation on this occasion:

Clause 5:

This amendment comprises a substitution of section 7 of the Principal Act, and provision is being made therein for the possible inclusion in the register of the following additional details in respect of a person—

The same particulars which I have already mentioned, plus certain others mentioned in subsection (2), can also be included in respect of those Bantu who have to be included in the register, for example those who are in possession of licenced fire-arms or who have drivers’ licences. The inclusion of the above-mentioned particulars is essential in order to be able to keep the central register completely up to date. It will be noted that the same particulars with the exception of the details as mentioned in the new section 7 (1) (c), that is to say the persons race classification, can be included in respect of a person to whom an identity document has been issued in terms of the Identity Documents in South-West Africa Act of 1970. In this connection hon. members’ attention is drawn to clause 3 (c). The inclusion of the particulars in respect of the inhabitants of the area of South-West Africa to whom identity documents have been issued is also necessary in order to keep the central register completely up to date.

The other clause to which I want to refer in detail, is clause 7. Section 10 of the Principal Act which deals with notification of change of residence is being substituted by a new section 10, and the reason for that is that without the addresses of members of the population, the practical value of the register will be and will remain a limited one. Notification of changes of address by persons whose names are included in the register, as is already provided in section 10 of the Principal Act, is indispensable for the maintenance of the register. Because section 10 of the Principal Act has never been applied owing to the large staff which would have been needed in order to do so, it is realized that it cannot be expected in future that every single person will comply with the statutory requirements in this regard from the word go, nor is it the intention to take drastic steps in a summary way. It is expected that the recompilation of the register will stretch over a period of approximately five years, after its commencement on 1st June, 1971, and this will be accompanied by intensive education of the public. As in most West European countries, where no problems are being experienced with notification of changes in address for the maintenance of population registers, it should be possible to obtain in due course the co-operation of our country’s population as well. The proposed amendments entail, as has already been indicated in the explanatory memorandum, that in the first place it will be possible to make the same requirements which already apply to Whites and Coloureds, applicable to Bantu as well, but it will be possible to exempt the latter in terms of section 21. In addition this also entail that apart from normal residence, notification will also have to be given of the persons’ change of postal address and that a control measure is being introduced in order to help ensure that the individual complies with the statutory requirements in this connection.

Now I would just like to say something about clause 9. The objectives with the proposed amendments of the existing section 13 of the Principal Act have already been set out in the explanatory memorandum, but I deem it desirable once again to focus hon. members attention on the fact that the details as mentioned in paragraph (g), i.e. blood group, allergies, etc., will only be included at the request of the holder of the identity document. These details, as well as those mentioned in paragraph (f), that is immunization, have been arranged in consultation with the Department of Health. The holder of an identity document also has a choice in regard to the inclusion in this document of certain particulars as mentioned in paragraphs (e) and (f), i.e. his marital state and additional immunizations. Furthermore I can add that it will not be possible to utilize the identity document for election purposes before each voter or potential voter is not in possession of such a document, and it has been established that the particulars which being kept in the register are fundamentally correct. It is also being proposed therefore that provision should be made for the subsequent introduction of paragraphs (k) and (l) of the proposed section (2) relating to elections.

Mr. Speaker, I want to let the above-mentioned explanation suffice because I do not want to deal here with every minor consequential clause, which is self-explanatory. That will not be necessary. I am submitting this measure with every confidence that it will enjoy the support of the entire House because it will be of such great benefit to the entire country and the population.

Mr. Speaker, since the principal Act was passed this House in 1950, six hon. Ministers of the Interior have entered upon the scene, five of whom have since departed from the scene. In each of these years, whether the House assembled in January or in July, we anticipated an amendment to the Population Registration Act. Never has our anticipation been failed by the hon. Ministers of the Interior.

Sir, we to-day consider this proposed amendment to the Population Registration Act after the main Act, providing for the constitution and the setting up of a register, has been in operation for a period of 20 years. Within those 20 years the magnitude of the work that has been achieved by that register was to produce, as the hon. the Minister told us this afternoon, approximately 6½ million identity cards and to have those names entered into the register. The proposal before us this afternoon is that in so far as the work in respect of the 6½ million identity cards is concerned, we move back to square 1 and start again with identity documents. The hon. the Minister has emphasized that the Bill before us this afternoon envisages a scheme of great magnitude. I agree with him, but I say that because of that magnitude it becomes most important that we in this House examine the practicability and the necessity of all the provisions which are in the Bill before us. The hon. the Minister’s predecessor arranged in 1968 that we could have a verbal preview of what was intended in so far as the population identification system was concerned, and we appreciated it. We had it in 1968. But the hon. the Minister and the hon. members of this House will be aware what we have before us is a complete somersault, a complete reversal of the approach of the 1968 scheme which was put before us. The 1968 scheme was based on the proposition that every citizen should have a travelling document because it was found that not even one in a thousand applications for passports was refused. The whole idea of a new type of identity document was that it should be basically a passport. That is absent from this Bill and that is one of the points in this Bill, which the hon. the Minister will appreciate, which makes our approach much different from any approach which we may have had or may have contemplated in regard to the 1968 exposition. The House and the hon. the Minister will be aware of the fact that we on this side of the House will support all measures which are intended to improve administration, the economy, in so far as our national expenditure is concerned, and measures which will eliminate wastage of time and which may result in a saving of manpower. I think when we consider these measures and particularly when we come to the details of this Bill, we must weigh up against those savings the effect that the Bill and its provisions may have on the inherent right of privacy and the protection of his own personal dignity of every citizen in South Africa. The hon. the Minister made a point of it and assured us that there will be no assault on privacy in so far as this Bill is concerned, for instance by saying that the addresses of individuals will not be supplied to any person except with the consent of or for the particular benefit of the individual concerned. That is not strictly so. Clause 13 of this Bill, which amends section 17 of the principal Act, provides that the Secretary may supply (any information to) “any Department of State, any local authority or statutory body for any of the purposes of that Department, authority or body with any particulars recorded in the register in relation to any person whose name is included therein”, and in the following subsection (2) (b) it goes on to say that “on payment of the prescribed fee, if any, any particulars which are included in the register will be furnished to any person whose name is included, provided that the Secretary is satisfied that it is in the interests of the last mentioned person to furnish such particulars”. I cannot really imagine that the Secretary is going to apply his time and his attention to the determination of whether or not the furnishing of an address of X, Y or Z to an individual who requests it, is in the interests of that particular individual. I mention that because of the points which were made by the hon. the Minister in his introductory speech.

The principal Act, as hon. members will recall, had two major objectives. The one was to classify the population into race groups in a register and then to provide from that register a means of identification for the Individual which was to take the form of an identification card. Now this Bill sets about attaching to that already existing register, the race classification population register, other personal details regarding the individual which are at the present time kept in various registries in different sections of his Department and other departments. Now, what in fact does this involve? If this scheme has the blessing of this House, what does it involve when this Bill now brings together all these various registries in one register? I wonder whether we do appreciate the magnitude of the task which is being taken on and how great it is, although the hon. the Minister has referred to the magnitude of the task. I say this in the light of the figures I have available. As I have mentioned already, there are 6½ million race classification records; there are some 6 million voters’ cards in the country; and there is an unknown number of cards dealing with passports. When one realizes that some quarter of a million South Africans travel abroad each year, one can imagine the magnitude of those comings and goings being recorded as they must be recorded in terms of this Bill. Then we can add to that the addition to this register of 30,000 immigrants per year. Then there are some five and a half to six and a half thousand marriages each year and the normal number of births and deaths having to be entered on the cards.

One goes on to the number of firearm licences. The figures is something in the vicinity of a million and a half. Furthermore, there are 2½ million drivers’ licences which include a vast number of Bantu and the Department’s responsibility will now, if the Bantu’s name is entered into the register as holding a driver’s licence, be to go through (a) to (m) for his details. They will have to go through all his details, such as his place of birth, his marriage and every detail as provided for in subsections (a) to (m) of section 7 of the principal Act which is being amended. Is this really something which should be done for the benefit of the State in general and will there be any saving in the adoption of this new procedure? When one comes to the question of the result of this codification of the personal details of every South African, you will have in this register the life story from birth to death of every South African in so far as his education, occupation, his licences, his marriages, his divorces, and so on, are concerned. What is the danger then? If someone wishes to find out merely whether a person is in possession of a driver’s licence or if he wants to find the owner of a particular revolver which is licensed, the life of that person whose name is in the register is laid bare in all its aspects to a person who wants to know a certain item of information if that register is completed. If it is put on to a computer, it becomes even worse. I understand the position will then be in the form of something like television, if I may refer to that subject here, where a regional office can press a button and have on its screen the life story of any individual on whom they want to check. That is what will happen under such a register. We will then all be put into this folder and from this folder we will be computerized and from the computer we can be revealed in our factual nakedness on a screen for all to view. I believe that if this is done, every citizen will become more of a digit in the affairs of the State instead of a citizen. Add to this the provisions in this Bill that it is now compulsory for a hotelier or a landlord to go to a tenant and say to him after 17 days: “Have you notified your change of address to the Address Bureau?” He must satisfy himself that that man has done so, because if he does not satisfy himself he must himself, within another 45 days, report that man’s presence in his block of flats or hotel to the Address Bureau. If he does not do it he is prosecuted. What must he then do? He must ask the individual to have a look at his identity document. He then looks through the identity document and sees all the details he wishes, because every page can be scrutinized.

He only needs to look on the first page.

What will the tenant do? Will he hold the rest of the pages and say: “Only look at the first page?” Immediately the landlord will say: “What are you trying to hide from me?” That is the difficulty with this document. If I apply for a job, produce my document to my employer and say: “Page 1 only, that is all you need to know about me,” he will say: “Why can I not see the rest of it? What are you hiding?” Obviously this is what is going to happen. One must either show everything, or nothing. That is the position. The obligation to furnish addresses is something that goes far beyond a duty that should be imposed on a man.

Clause 5 of this Bill provides that no less than 13 additional details are to go into this register, and not only those which the hon. the Minister mentioned. One that intrigues me is information as to the official language in which he is to be served. Is every citizen to be asked to send in a little document which officials of the department will look through as to what language they should write in to the man? Is that what is intended to be done?

It is done now.

I hope the hon. member for Brakpan will, when he speaks, tell us where 6½ million people are asked what language they are to be addressed in, because that is what is being asked here. What is more, when one looks at the immediate steps that are to be taken, it is all very well for the hon. the Minister to say that in future one will only need one photograph and that that will do for all one’s licences, etc. What he forgets is that 6½ million people will now have to have photographs taken again if this Bill is adapted.

Let me deal with the question of an identity document. Why must we have this cumbersome and complicated document? What does an individual require? He requires some document that will identify him as a person by name. The position now is that we do not only have what is essential for identity, but will then have a plethora of other forms and information which the hon. the Minister regards as being necessary. We then have a third section of what we might ourselves choose to put into our identity documents. The original intention of a passport has fallen away, but this document we are now going to have has nine additional details to those that already appear on our identity cards. To whom must they be produced? To whom must this “Book of Life”, as it has been termed, be produced? It must be produced to peace officers on application, or if it is not in one’s possession it must be produced at a police station. By regulation it must also be produced to any other authorized person. When one starts on the electoral aspect, one finds that this document must be produced to all and sundry. On the other hand, if I want to go to a bank merely to identify myself with this form of identity document, I must lay bare all the details of myself, when all that is required is my identity.

The other point that worries me is that the hon. the Minister said that there will be a saving on the issuing of duplicate marriage certificates and birth certificates. But surely that is not the case. If I die and somebody else is handling my estate, and there are claims on insurance policies, is my whole “Book of Life” then going to be posted to some clerk in an insurance company so as to take out from there the fact that my death has been registered? When the death certificate has been entered, I do not have to hand the document back, because it remains part of the estate documents. The copies of certificates will, however, be required. Copies will be required of birth certificates and marriage certificates for a multitude of reasons. As now, they will continue to be required. There will certainly be no saving in that regard. I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he can deal with one particular matter in his reply, namely clause 3. This Bill makes it clear that the register is intended to record the names of “all persons permanently resident in the Republic”. That will be South African citizens and aliens with permanent residence rights. Also, the names of “all South African citizens not permanently resident in the Republic, except such citizens who are permanently resident in the Territory of South-West Africa”. The hon. the Minister will notice that in the proviso there is the following: “… unless he is also such a person as is referred to in paragraph (a) thereof”. I have read this clause several times, but I may be wrong. As I read this clause, it can indicate that one can be permanently resident for purposes of this register in the Republic and permanently resident in South-West Africa at the same time. I do not think this is intended, because if it was intended it would lead to a great deal of confusion.

There are provisions as far as regulations are concerned in this Bill which are very wide indeed. The evidential value of certificates can be settled by regulation. This can affect the question of proof of ownership and a multitude of matters which, I think, is going far to have the evidential value of documents settled by regulation.

In conclusion, I want to say that we are not satisfied that this scheme is a practical one. We are not satisfied that this scheme will result in a saving of manpower. We believe that there is an undesirable categorizing of citizens in all aspects of their life into one little pigeon-hole each. The identity documents as such go far too wide in so far as what is necessary for the mere identification of citizens is concerned. This approach of the citizen being stamped and regarded, as I have said earlier, as a digit in the State is not the approach that we would like to see from this side of the House. We would like to see the preservation of the privacy and the dignity of the individual and his having, as he has now, a form of identification. We do not want to see his race classification on it. Give him a number. Why must a Coloured man going to a bank place in front of the bank manager a document stating that he has been classified a Coloured? It is of no concern to the bank manager. It only concerns him to identify an individual with a number. Give a person a number which can be utilized with a photograph as identification. Let us have, as we have now, the privacy of birth and marriage certificates which are kept, put away, and used by the individual as and when he needs them. I therefore wish to move the following amendment—

Mr. Speaker, the United Party has not changed at all over the years. Besides, from the way the hon. member for Green Point expressed himself here this afternoon, he is suffering from such a complex that even in respect of a positive measure such as this he cannot get out of the old groove. He said that in 1950 the United Party decided to oppose the Population Registration Act, and they looked forward to doing so at each amendment of the Act, whether it was positive or not. They are resolved to continue with this to the end of time, because they are United Party members and cannot change, not even in modern times. [Interjections.] Of course he said so. As far as the United Party is concerned, the position is just we are back in 1949.

This puts me in mind of what I read on 10th April of this year in this Hertzog newspaper. There they wrote about this proposed legislation. In this Hertzog snear paper it was stated (translation) —

Now the hon. member must come along and prove that what Die Afrikaner, the newspaper of his election partner who is not here today, said on 10th April is now coming true. I say that we are right back in 1949, when the United Party, at the instigation of the hon. member for Yeoville, had just issued these reports. Here is the same thing the Hertzog newspaper printed 20 years later, only in English. Here it is stated—

In other words, the United Party members decided in 1949 that an identity document was a Gestapo measure. It is part of the police state. They still adhere to that to-day. In spite of all the positive elements contained in this measure, we did not hear a single objective utterance here from the hon. member for Green Point. He breaks everything down. He comes to the fore with trivialities to bear out why the United Party does not support this legislation. What did the hon. member actually say? Absolutely nothing! He uttered trivialities about the dignity and the privacy of the individual. The hon. member made a tremendous fuss about that. What were his proofs? As proof he advanced that when the owner of a flat or the lessor of a house asked the tenant whether he had given notice of his change of address, the person would then have to show him his identity document, and the owner would then begin to sniff around from page 1 to page 24. What nonsense! The hon. member is not ignorant of what is happening here. The hon. member knows that the documents come in a folder. At the back of the folder there is a loose slip of paper. Once a person has changed his address, it no longer appears in the front of the book on page 1. The new address then appears on a small card, printed on a control machine, which is stuck into the back of the folder. All the person needs to do is simply to open the folder and show the man the address. Then he knows. The hon. member is aware of that. That this will be the procedure has been revealed to him on several occasions, but he wants to imply here that it is a Gestapo measure.

In addition, he said that it would be a tremendous expense, while the Minister spoke of R3 million being saved. He said it was just nonsense. He maintains that there would not be a saving. If someone dies and one must have a death certificate for his estate, you will have to go along and hand your book in and it will then be kept there, or one would, as before, have to get a certified copy again. But he does not point out how simple the procedure will be as compared to the past. All that happens is that one goes with one’s reference book to a responsible person, such as a magistrate, who is also mentioned in the Bill, and then asks for a sworn copy of the document concerned. Then it is finished and done with. One then gives it to your attorney or to the person administering your estate. One gets it for nothing. At present one has to pay for it. The hon. member came along and blew this and other trivialities up to prove that we are now again busy with a Gestapo measure. Why does he do this? Until yesterday they supported this measure, because it is nothing but a positive measure. At all eight discussions, to which they were invited, they had nothing but the highest praise for this measure. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) waxed lyrical about the possibilities when the matter was demonstrated to him. But what is the hon. member for Green Point now doing here? He is using a platform here, as dozens of United Party members will subsequently do, to fabricate propaganda to aid the Hertzog supporters in the next election. That is all. They cannot see beyond Die Afrikaner. They received instructions from Die Afrikaner on 10th April to adopt this attitude in the House. Hence the about-face.

I am not prepared to halt at 1949 like the United Party members. I want to ignore them. In reality the hon. member mentioned one small point worth considering. That was the possibility that the book could be used at banks and building societies as far as the identity number was concerned. I want to concede that this is a matter we could discuss in the Committee Stage. If the matter has something in it, the Minister will probably be prepared to consider it. This is perhaps one of the little matters he mentioned here to which we could give attention. But I do not want to go after the hon. member for Green Point any more. I really thought there was more to the United Party and the hon. member for Green Point than the attitude adopted here and the disparagement of such a positive, useful measure. Therefore I want to try to be a little more positive about it and to express a different attitude to what the United Party expressed here to-day under the whip of the Hertzogites. The time has come in South Africa for every member of our population to accept and to know that in the modern times in which we live it is necessary to have an identity document, and that the person who does not have identity documents in his possession is finished; that a person who does not have identity documents is himself living in a shadow. That is why it is important for us to create something positive here with which to arm our people in these modern times.

I think that, in general, this measure is being welcomed outside as a positive step forward. I must honestly say that the present identity card had too little to be accepted as a proper identity document. For many people it was merely a card on which one’s race was indicated, and therefore some of them also saw in it a stigma. The newly proposed identity document fits in with modern thinking and modern standards. It is an imaginative step forward in the present age of the wonder machine, the age of the computer. The tailing of the identity document into our existing population register brings it in line with the idealized conception we have always had of it, i.e. a population register in the true sense of the word, an indispensable instrument in the hands of the State to serve every individual, and the people as a whole, in several spheres. The new identity number, which is now being given substance and meaning, plays an important role in this, because merely by writing down a person’s name and his identity number the basic particulars of that person will be known.

Mr. Speaker, this new population register truly creates exciting prospects. In the course of time it is going to help to get rid of large numbers of paper mountains that have grown in various Government departments. It is an enlightened undertaking which is, more than anything else, going to streamline the activities of Government departments and break up the cobwebs of orthodox red tape. The extent of the possibilities that could arise from this undertaking can scarcely be accurately gauged by the uninitiated. Apart from the fact that all the individual source documents are now being gathered together in one register and kept by the individual in one folder, quite a few other processes will be simplified by it. There will be a tremendous saving of time, manpower, money, space and storage space. Just think, Sir, of the advantages already mentioned by the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Green Point: The 6½ million hand-written record cards of the existing register which can now be done away with altogether; the 1,600,000 individual identity documents which are now issued annually and which can be reduced to about 220,000. If we think further of the 2½ million drivers’ licences, the 1.4 million firearm licences and the approximately 100,000 additional graduands, and the later inclusion of the 2 million white and 700,000 coloured voters’ index cards, it gives one a vague idea of what an economizing effect this undertaking would have.

Although the register will not contain any criminal record or detrimental information in respect of a person or be made available to any private individual or institution, it will be a valuable means for control and security purposes. Control will be possible in things over which it was very difficult to exercise central control in the past. I mention, for example, the case of bigamous marriages. In the past it was very difficult to trace such bigamous marriages. Then I mentioned the question of drivers’ licences. A person in one province who had been guilty of an offence and whose drivers’ licence had been suspended, could simply go to another province and get a drivers’ licence there. And it was very difficult to establish a central point of control for the easy tracing of such a person.

Sir, there will be more efficient control over the residence of aliens. There will be greater possibilities for the tracing of illegal immigrants and for the elimination, to a very large extent, of the falsification of identity documents.

Sir, the success of this whole system rests on the compulsory system of notification of change of address which, in fact, exists under section 10 (1) of the existing Act, but which has never been implemented. I want to agree with the doubts expressed here about the failure of several attempts in the past to make notification of changes of address compulsory; on the one hand because no proper control could be exercised, and on the other hand because there was no legal enforcement, but above all because there was some hesitation about tracing and punishing offenders. That is why, over the past twenty years, the provisions of section 10 (1) of the principal Act were not carried out, and that is also why those provisions in respect of the requirements of the Electoral Act in connection with changes of address of voters and radio licence holders, etc., were not complied with. We shall consequently have to expect opposition in this connection once more. People have simply got used to not giving notification of changes of address and, what is more, others have specifically tried to keep their new addresses secret because they wanted to dodge certain responsibilities. We shall have to satisfy these people who are hiding away because they have debts, because they do not want to comply with their contractual obligations, because they had not paid tax, or for any other reason, that these central address registers would not be at the disposal of anyone who was on their trail. We therefore accept that there will have to be an educating process in this connection. The Department therefore proposes making a brochure available to every individual in which he will be informed of his obligations in this connection. I think that over a period of five years the practical considerations involved in the use of this document will convince people to accept the fact that they must furnish changes of address.

Sir, we must not flinch from this task we have. This is an important step, in this modern day and age, from which the Government does not flinch. The success of this scheme will depend chiefly upon the prompt execution of this provision that notification of changes of address will be compulsory. After the five years have elapsed, after this educating process, we shall have to take drastic action. The population of South Africa, like the population of any modern country, will have to accept that the furnishing of changes of address is a basic rule of life which must be complied with. In this process certain obligations will also be placed on third parties, but the entire process will be facilitated to such an extent by the computer-printed forms that no one will have any reason for not complying with the requirements of the Act. That is why I say that there is so much that is positive in this Bill. It opens a new door in South Africa for streamlining our Public Service and, as I have said, for breaking down the mountains of paper which have piled up in the Government departments.

But then there is also the important hidden asset in this Bill, i.e. that it could eventually be applied to the drawing up of our voters’ rolls and for the conducting of our elections. The condition of our voters’ rolls in the recent general election indicated how important and necessary it is for drastic modernization in this connection. The task of keeping the electoral index up to date for 2 million Whites, three-quarters of a million Coloureds, and at a later stage for the Indians as well, when they elect their Council, and to duplicate this for all the various electoral offices, has simply become an impossible task. With the large-scale urbanization of our people, the existing system has become quite hopelessly inefficient. Therefore I see in this measure also this important hidden asset, i.e. that this population register will be available much more quickly than we envisage here to-day, in order to draw up for South Africa a modern, up-to-date voters’ roll which we will be able to use in a very practical way in elections.

It is my privilege to say from this side of the House that, because there are so many benefits, assets and adjustments in this modern day and age, we heartily support this measure.

I was told by hon. members that, as I had already had the privilege of being in this hon. House before and as I had therefore made a maiden speech before, it would now be against the laws of nature if I were to make a second “maiden” attempt. Therefore, I want to start straight away by taking part in this debate.

It was with great interest that I listened to the speech made by the hon. member for Parow, and what I found so illuminating, was that he had to go to Die Afrikaner for his first tirage, that he had to procure some light from them. All I can say, is that this is really not surprising. After all, the people who write for Die Afrikaner are the political children of that side of the House. If there is anybody in this hon. House or outside who knows the hon. gentlemen on the other side, then it is probably the members of that party, the so-called Hertzogites. But I myself am not prepared to believe them in this matter. I should like to believe that in this respect we know the hon. members on the other side a little better than the Hertzogites pretend to know them, and I do not want to accept the story about the police state. Therefore, the hon. member for Parow is not getting terribly far with that idea. The hon. member for Parow said we were going to try to make propaganda out of this matter. You know, Sir, one can only make propaganda out of a matter if one has some ground for that propaganda, and if the hon. member perhaps thinks we could build up this matter into a little political propaganda, it simply means in effect that amongst the people of South Africa there are a large number who are in complete agreement with the United Party on this particular matter. The hon. member started with his speech, and he did not even listen to the amendment of the hon. member for Green Point; he did not listen to the contents of the amendment.

I should like to put it this way, i.e. that it is possible for one to approach the Bill before the House from two angles. On the one hand one has what I shall call the national register. This is a register in which one will find that information relating to more or less the course of life of every person has been assembled. All the information which is being asked for now, will be incorporated in the national register. For something of this nature one requires large-scale co-ordination, because at the moment the sources of information are to be found in various Departments. And no thinking person would have any objection to the creation of such a register. [Interjections.] No, the hon. member is merely convincing me once again that he did not listen. He was still engaged in preparing his speech. I repeat that we have no objection to the creation of a co-ordinated register comprising all the information requested in the Bill. This is a major task which, in the course of time, the hon. the Minister will perhaps be able to regard as his specific monument in his Department. Whether that monument will remain undamaged, is something else again, but this is a task one need not complete in the space of five years. It is a major task which can be completed over a long period and which may be of great benefit to the people all along. But I repeat that I have no objection to the creation of a national register, but that is not the end of the matter.

Now one has another instrument, either a book or a card, or any other document, through which the person taken up in the national register finds himself connected with that register. That is the identity card at the moment, as we see it. The identity card has been in circulation in South Africa for quite a number of years, and even at this stage it is still something new to a great many people. Every now and then it is lost; I challenge any hon. member to try to fight an election on the basis that people must show their identity cards. Those cards are simply not available. After so many years it is still a novelty with the people of South Africa. But now we do not stop at the identity cards; we are going much further. Now we come to an identity book, an identification book, and this is where the objections of this side of the House come in, i.e. in regard to this book one has to have on one. Now it is no longer an identity card; that is now being withdrawn. Incidentally, the hon. member for Parow said it would no longer be necessary for one to file the 6½ million identity cards. Now, once one has compiled the national register, one would have a file for every person, and that file would contain all the documents, and it is out of this file that the identification book would be hatched. This is what we are objecting to, for this book does not merely stop at a number or a photograph; it goes much further, and the United Party’s objection is that by having to produce this identification document now and then, one would find oneself in the position where one would have to reveal one’s whole life to the onlooker. [Interjections.]

Sir, I should like to see what those hon. members would do if the women of South Africa were to hear that in future the identity number would immediately give an indication of the age of the lady in question. Sir, the hon. member for Parow said that one would, after all, not go through the whole book; one would only look for the required piece of information. But if one merely shows the book to an intelligent person, such an onlooker would, merely by looking at the number, know what the age of the lady is. [Interjections.] Yes, hon. members are laughing, but here one has a deep-rooted difference between the regimented line of thought of that side and the free line of thought on this side of the House.

A police state!

From the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks; but the hon. member must not bring up that story about the police state again. I did not say anything. I do not know why he is so fond of the police state. It seems to me as though his heart is overflowing.

Mr. Speaker, let me come back. I repeat that this is the basic difference between that side and this side of the House. The Government side are prepared to take steps which they call “effective steps”, and even if the privacy of the individual were to suffer, they are still saying: “We are going down on our knees before the idol of efficiency. We are going down on our knees before the machinery of government”. The United Party says that there is a much more important consideration. The State must be prepared to serve. That is true. But when the State is rendering service, the decisive factor ought always to be that service should be rendered in such a manner that there is no invasion of the privacy or interference with the right of the individual. If we should find that this is being done, it would seem to me as though it is an objective approach—it is not a subjective approach, such as that of those hon. members—an objective approach to say: Has the time not perhaps arrived for us to be cautious in respect of this type of thing?

Sir, I may be wrong, and the hon. the Minister will be the first to correct me, but I have an idea that this idea of identification documents, which is now being adopted so freely by the Western world, may have had its origin in the so-called authoritarian state of 30 or 40 years ago. I am not so sure whether in the long run this will be in the interests of the freedom of the individual. It is true that the State is rendering more service, but now the State is also getting total control over the individual. That is why we say that one should proceed cautiously in this regard.

Sir, I am saying this with respect, but this blue identification booklet reminds me of the “grocery” books the older generation used to keep. I do not think that this book will be welcome in the hands of the people of South Africa. I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister and his Department cannot think of another instrument which could be integrated with his national register and which could then furnish the full particulars in regard to a specific person. What is wrong with my identity card? I have a number on my identity card. Once that number has been recorded in the national register, it would merely be necessary to press a button in order to open my book of life in the secrecy of the machinery of government. The system can work as easily as that. Now I have to carry my book around with me, and if the bank sees this book, they will know my life-story within five minutes. I have an idea that this book is merely the beginning. The system can still be expanded a great deal. An hon. member has already referred to radio licences. There are more things for which provision has not been made in this book, and I have an idea that the day will come when a bank loan, a Land Bank loan, will be indicated in this book! [Interjections.] Sir, I put it to this House that the purposes for which this booklet may be used, are legion. I put it to this House that, by using this booklet for the purposes for which an identity card is being used at present, private information will be made available to the public. Thirdly, I put it to this House that any system permitting of something of this nature, is wrong in my modest opinion. It is my private information, and if it is made available to a bank, it may just as well be made available to the public. We must not think that this information will only be obtained by the bank. In the course of time the use of this booklet will become more and more extensive, and before one knows where one is, it will be impossible for one to turn left or right without this book of life or identification book. I believe that this is a wrong principle. I do not think that the people, who have not even become accustomed to the identity card as yet, should allow such a system to be introduced. As it is, it will take the people of South Africa years before they are going to use their identity cards. In fact, Sir, at this very moment there are still numerous people who do not have these cards. There are numerous people who are still trying to escape the police. There are numerous people who have a feeling of deep concern in respect of their identity cards.

Sir, we are too ready to compare our pattern of life with that of the countries on the Continent of Europe. South Africa’s population pattern is a thousand times more complex, and we are unfortunately living in a country where one’s race has acquired a tremendous significance. In fact, sometimes we are so obsessed with the idea of race that the hon. member for Parow said a moment ago that the identity card as an identity document had actually gone out of fashion, as the whole matter was hinged upon the question of race. Sir, I believe that this will be a mistake. I believe that the Minister will be able to create the same national register by means of coordinating his departmental machinery, but before connecting us with that register by the issue of such a booklet, he should kindly think twice. He is dealing with personal and private information, and I do not think that the hon. the Minister has the right to place us in a position where we shall be forced to make that type of information available to the public.

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that this was evidently not the hon. member for Maitland’s first speech in this hon. House. He said himself that we should not regard him as a newcomer to this House. I did not know the hon. member previously. I only made his acquaintance this year, but it seems to me as if he was run over by a “Carr”. It seems to me, if things like that continue to happen to him, we will have to take our leave of him again at the end of this term, and then it will be for good. The hon. member said that he was an old member of the House. Looking at him, he looks like an old United Party man, and after listening to his stories, I say that they are old United Party stories. There was nothing new about them. The United Party, in fact, puts me in mind of the old anecdote about the frog who wanted to boast to his fellow-frogs. He saw a big animal and puffed himself up further and further until he burst. The hon. members of the Opposition give me the same impression. In the recent election that Party made a few minor gains. Now they have to prove something to the people outside. Now they are boasting. In every speech from that side, they puff themselves up a little further each time. The hon. member for Maitland, just like the frog in the story, merely said “Poof!”, and then resumed his seat. He and the hon. member for Green Point were not even able to talk for twenty minutes on this measure they are opposing to-day. It really seems to me that we have an Opposition which is so tired that they cannot even devote all their available time for discussion to the debate.

When are you coming to the Bill?

If the hon. member for Wynberg would listen, I shall come to the Bill right away. I shall not ask her what her age is either. I may say that politically the hon. member does not seem to be older than 16. Legislation is still to be introduced in this House which will allow girls of 15 to marry, and then they will probably not allow the hon. member into this House.

Sir, this amendment Bill is before the House now, after a further thorough scientific investigation was instituted by the Minister and his Department. This very thorough scientific investigation is not merely associated with the overseas trip recently undertaken by Mr. Fourie, the official, in order to investigate this matter there. The history and the background of this legislation has also been gone into thoroughly. We have at least, as new generation Nationalists, gained for ourselves a new historical depth once more. We try to discover where these ideas came from. It is very clear that we looked once again at previous laws and the reports of commissions of inquiry previously conducted. I am thinking in particular of the commission which reported in 1935. At the time that commission only sat for eight hours and just about all they did was to obtain information in regard to Holland. When the National Party, through the person of Dr. Dönges, submitted this measure for the first time, he also indicated the reason why it could have been possible for us to have learned from the experience of that commission, but also why we had not made much use of its findings. In 1944 as well there was an inter-departmental committee on social security. This report was brought out in 1945, and was also looked at. In 1947’48 there was the Fagan report, which also recommended that a national or social register be compiled. They advocated it very strongly. During 1948 there was the report of the four Administrators of that time.

We know all this. It is an old story.

Yes, these are old stories, but this matter has a specific historical depth. Neither the hon. member for Maitland nor the hon. member for Green Point looked at these matters. I just want to say that the hon. member for South Coast, who was at the time Administrator of Natal, expressed his opinion through this report of 1948. Hon. members would do well to read what was written in that report.

Quote.

I can quote what was stated in the report, but unfortunately I do not have all the time in the world at my disposal.

You have plenty of time. You may as well read it.

I shall quote later what Dr. Dönges said at the time. That hon. member stated, inter alia, in the report—

Read on. I challenge you to read the next paragraph.

We can discuss this again. This was said at the time by that hon. member when he was Administrator.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

That hon. member can say what he wants to say later. Before Dr. Dönges introduced that Bill at the time, they had once again made a very thorough background study of the matter. At the time the then Director of Census and Statistics, Mr. Raats, as well as Mr. Lewis, the then Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, went abroad and instituted an investigation. Those two gentlemen undertook an extended tour abroad. They visited eight countries where a population register was in operation in some form or other. Mr. Fourie, who was recently overseas, visited no fewer than ten countries. I want to reintegrate here to-night that this is not the first time the hon. Opposition has been opposed to such a measure. If we look at the debates of that time we note that they also fought it tooth and nail at the time, with this difference that they then did so in such a way that it at least offered a little resistance to us on the Government side. I now want to read out to the hon. member for Maitland, who is apparently resting for a while after his “Carr” accident, what the then Leader of the Opposition had to say. I am quoting from Hansard of 8th March, 1950 (Col. 2533) —

This is precisely the same prediction which the hon. member for Maitland is now making, 20 years later. I shall return to this at a later stage in my speech. I want to ask the hon. House a question: This Bill was then passed, but in what way has South Africa been so regimented that the freedom of the individual has been affected? In the past election the United Party said that it is time we had another Government, but these are the same old stories, the same mentality, the same reasons for previous generations to reject them. For the same reasons the younger present generation will also reject them. General Smuts went on to say—

Hon. members must listen now to what views the then Leader of the Opposition had in regard to what was going on in the minds of South Africans. I am reading further—

In other words, it is the view of the United Party that South Africa and its white public is not adult enough to keep pace with …

Oh rubbish!

That is what General Smuts said. He said that the Whites of South Africa were not competent to order and to regulate their own society according to contemporary Western standards and methods. That is what the United Party thinks of the South African public.

I want to make a further quotation, i.e. of what a certain Colonel Jordan had to say. Inter alia, he said the following (Hansard of 8th March, 1950, Col. 2536) —

The amendment in this Bill has nothing to do with race classification. It deals with the documentation of particulars. Arising out of what I said a moment ago to the hon. member for Maitland, when I was quoting Gen. Smuts, I want to put something else to this hon. House. Twenty years have passed since Dr. Dönges introduced this Act in 1950, and the race situation and the population situation in South Africa has continued to improve further each year. It has improved to such an extent that although United Party members each spoke for 50 minutes 20 years ago in opposing the legislation, they are only able to speak for 20 minutes about it now. This is proof that the rules and regulations which the National Party has instituted for our national community have become better and better because the convictions out of which these were born are the best for our community. Gen. Smuts is dead now and I do not know what became of Colonel Jordan. I come therefore to the hon. member for Yeoville, who is not present at the moment.

What did he say about this at the time? He used these words shortly prior to a provincial election on the Witwatersrand (translation) —

These are the ridiculous statements the United Party came out with. This is the way these people argue in respect of every measure with which the National Party comes forward. He went on to say—

I think these are disgraceful statements. The same applies to the remark made a moment ago by the hon. member for Maitland to the effect that women will not want to say how old they are. I am certain the hon. member for Wynberg is not ashamed of her age, is she? At the time Mr. Tighy made a remark to the effect that the Bill put him in mind of a funeral. Dr. Dönges thereupon said: “The political funeral of the United Party”, and that is true. They are slowly dying, year by year. Any Act, as is the case with this Bill as well, is at least aimed at serving people, not only people as individuals and singly, but also at serving people within and together with their community, the individual, as well as in his community context. If it has ever been necessary to establish a clear classification for the community, then it is to-day, particularly in these modern times in which we are living. We find this classification even in the primitive and semi-primitive communities. I am using the word “primitive” in the good sense of the word. With that I mean those people who are not acquainted with the norms of civilization of the Western world. Even these people have as a facet of their living patterns the social organization out of which and around which that community is developed outwardly, from the small family unit to the larger family unit ultimately until it covers the entire community. Every facet of their particular living pattern is included to give in this way a pattern to the way of life of the entire community. If the primitive community had this, how much more should the modern community not have it?

There are numerous reasons why the modern community is beginning to make greater and greater demands. Not only is the modern community making greater demands on the Government of the day, but it is also making greater demands on every member of the community. Reasons for that are attributable to technological development which has been taking place, particularly after the Second World War. It has to a large measure affected the human spirit and the nature of the human community. Another very important reason is the increase in the human population. There is no nation or country in the world where the number of inhabitants in the country does not increase annually. Then there is also the speed with which people move from one community to another, not only within their own territory, but also from one country to another. There is in addition another very important reason. People may think that I am being foolish when I say this, but there is, particularly in the Western community, a tendency towards the so-called permissiveness, a cult which will increasingly affect orderly communities in future. Things are different now to what they were among the primitive communities of a thousand or two thousand years ago, because this tendency is being encouraged by the modern community. It is making things more and more difficult for the proper classification and stability of a modern community of the future, and that is why it is the duty of the Government to lay the correct foundations now, at this juncture for its society. The Government must lay down a sound basis, not only for the next 10. 15 or 20 years, but also for the people of the 21st century and even for the people of the 25th century. As the centuries roll on, human communities will find it even more and more difficult to maintain orderliness. Fortunately man also has the ability to assist himself by means of his technical discoveries in this problem which modern communities cause him. The Department of the Interior will also have modem technical means and discoveries such as computers, etc., at its disposal. As man’s material cultural discoveries develop, it will be possible to harness them to the benefit of his spiritual life. The purpose of this Bill is to facilitate the documentation which goes hand in hand with the Act in question in respect of the preservation of particulars in years to come. As the years go by, every Department will have so many particulars that we must in fact systematize our systems now, so that we will not in 50 or 100 years’ time be saddled with a record system which will be almost unmanageable and therefore worthless. This Bill will also serve to assist the public administration. The hon. member for Green Point objected to the particulars which we will now be able to consolidate by means of this Bill. He said that the National Party would make use of these particulars with ill-intent. The hon. Opposition puts me in mind of the story of the principal who rattled off a list of nouns to the teenagers in his class who then had to tell him what they associated with those words. In the front of the class a blonde girl was sitting, and he asked her what she thought of when the word “motor-car” was mentioned. She replied that it made her think of sex. He then asked her what stars made her think of, and she again answered “sex”. When he asked her what the teacher made her think of, her reply was once again “sex”. He then wanted to know from her how it was possible and she then replied that everything made her think of sex. The same applies to the United Party. They are running away from everything the National Party is doing. The hon. member for Green Point said that we will now have all particulars consolidated into one and the same document. This fact upsets him terribly. Let us take a closer look at what particulars will be required. The particulars which are now going to be required and which one will be able to find in one and the same document, are particulars which are already available to people. One can inquire after them everywhere. If any person wanted to use them for a harmful purpose, then he could get hold of them now. It might perhaps take a minute or two longer, but he could get hold of them. We already have an identity number. The particulars in respect of births and deaths are already available. Particulars in regard to the question of classification are already available. The hon. member also deplored the fact vehemently that a person would have to state whether he was Afrikaans or English-speaking. Surely that is not something wicked to ask of a person. I have often had to complete documents in which I was asked whether I wanted my correspondence conducted in Afrikaans or in English. I think that is a very poor argument on the part of the United Party. It seems to me they are ashamed to be Afrikaans or English-speaking. I shall also use this in an ensuing election. It is not a denial of the rights of a citizen in South Africa to say that he wants his correspondence in Afrikaans or in English. It is after all a privilege and a right. The National Party will not deprive our citizens of that privilege and that right. After all, we recognize both languages in our country. I simply cannot understand why the hon. member for Green Point used 20 minutes to have his say and did not do so. This Bill is to the benefit of the citizens of the country. It is no invasion of the freedom of the individual, in regard to which the hon. member for Maitland to-night and General Smuts 20 years ago had such a great deal to say. It is no invasion of the freedom of the individual or of the community. The hon. member for Maitland said that the State would by this means obtain certain control over the individual. Surely it is absolutely ridiculous to allege a thing like that. The deduction one can make here is that the United Party still stands where they stood in the forties and fifties. They are still so wrapped up in the ideology and the philosophies of the people of those years that they simply cannot extricate themselves f om it. This is ridiculous. This is no invasion of the freedom and rights of the individual. At the time they said that the public would reject this measure; today they came to light with the same story.