It is for me an exceptional pleasure to avail myself of this opportunity to extend to the hon. member for Parktown my sincere congratulations on his appointment as main speaker on finance on the side of the Official Opposition. For several years now he and I have had occasion to cross swords across the floor of the House, and let me tell him, without there being any need for him to blush, that I have always found in him a worthy opponent. He is a person with an analytical brain who is able to convey his views in a lucid and clear manner. Where the hon. member went wrong, it was because he departed from pure economics and tried to combine politics with economics. [Laughter.] I am sorry that hon. members opposite are laughing at the hon. member for Parktown in this way! If the hon. member for Parktown wants us on this side to listen to him in future, I want to ask him to keep to the true and correct course of economics. As a person who has been sitting in this House much longer than he has, I should like to give him a few items of advice in his new capacity.

In the first place he must, in his contributions to financial debates, try to be constructive and positive. I am doing so because, in general, we get nothing positive from members on that side of the House. I know that it is not always easy to be constructive when hon. members have to criticize the policy of the Government. But I want to ask the hon. member to try nevertheless to do so. There is in addition a second request I want to address to him. I had a great deal of respect for his predecessor, the former member for Constantia, and on various occasions I stated my respect for him. But there was one thing which was very striking in Mr. Waterson’s contributions, and that was that he was able to complain with such relish, so much so that we on this side called him the Jeremiah of that side of the House.

Now I am afraid that the hon. member for Parktown, with all his talents, may develop into a second Jeremiah. When at one stage I closed my eyes and sat listening to the hon. member, it seemed to me as if I was listening to the former hon. member for Constantia again—such was the lamentation of the hon. member. But he does so in a much more refined manner; he does so with winged words, like a true poet, and that is why he is so dangerous, for with that welter of words, with his poetic and elevated language, the danger exists that he can influence all my hon. friends on the opposite side so that all we will subsequently get from their side will be a chorus of lamentations.

This brings me to the serious side of this debate, to that matter which comprised the basis of and set the tone of this debate, and which is in a certain sense a reproduction of what is also happening outside. In my entire economic and financial career, I have never heard so many complaints and so much self-pity being expressed on the financial-economic front as during this very period we are now going through. In 1948 we heard many complaints. Then the old Government had been replaced by a new Government, and for that reason one could think that there was a degree of motivation for those complaints, because the old Government was perhaps afraid that the new Government would not make the grade. But even those complaints were not so bad as the ones we are hearing to-day. In 1961 we heard more lamentations when we established a Republic outside the Commonwealth. At that time there might also have been reason for those lamentations among people who felt uneasy about the future.

But to-day I find little reason for this creation of pessimism, of fear and of pretended uncertainty which we find outside and which is being stirred up by the Press of the opposite side of the House. It seems to me as if there are bodies who are deliberately bent on making pessimistic propaganda in order to cloud the financial-economic climate of our country; it seems to me that there are people sitting there who are intentionally creating fear and pessimism and uncertainty among our people, and that there are bodies who have as their goal not the promotion of the economy of South Africa, but the overthrow of the existing order and the destruction of the existing political dispensation.

That is why we are to-day finding, in certain magazines and newspapers and from that side of the House during this debate, politics of intimidation, where mention is being made of economic crises, of catastrophes, of recessions, of deterioration and of stagnation—of all those things with which one can characterize an economy at its weakest. Let me say that this psychosis is one of the most dangerous things which can occur in the economy of a nation. This fear which is being instilled into our people, is much worse than what they fear; it undermines our spirit and our initiative; it creates a bad impression at home and abroad, because how can people abroad have confidence in the future of South Africa if hon. members on that side of the House themselves have no confidence in the future of the economy?

Sir, it is so unnecessary. It is so unreasonable and so unfounded. Surely there is no reason for this panic; surely there is no reason and no grounds for this fear psychosis which we find to-day among certain persons and bodies. A well-known businessman and statesman once said “We have nothing to fear but fear itself”. We have nothing to fear but fear itself, and I am afraid that there are people who are fomenting a fear psychosis which is worse than the thing they fear. After all, I know our people; I know our industrialists, our traders, our mining people and our financiers. I have worked together with them for a great many years. I have the greatest respect for our people. They have already gone through very difficult times, times which were far more difficult and onerous and more serious than the times which we are at present going through. If they went through those times which we have known in the past, then I see nothing on the economic horizon of which we need be afraid.

Mr. Speaker, the National Party has been in office for 22 years now, and during its period of office the country has come to know great prosperity. In the 22 years the National Party has been in office this country went through a period which, according to all witnesses, was the most prosperous period which South Africa has ever experienced. Do hon. members on the opposite side of the House think that this Government is simply going to relinquish that hard-won prosperity; that we are simply going to destroy the welfare for which we have fought with a quick reversal of policy? Surely it is unthinkable that a party which has worked so hard for the industrial development of our country as this party has done, would now suddenly want to destroy what it has built up with such great effort over the years? I have said time and again that the policy of separate develpment. or whatever hon. members on that side want to call it, can only be applied and implemented if South Africa is economically strong. Only when we can hold our own both at home and abroad, and only on the basis of our economic strength, can this party carry out its policy. That economic strength we have already acquired, because we can to-day converse on an equal footing with the world in the financial sphere, as we are in fact doing, and whatever people outside South Africa think of us today, South Africa has begun to compel respect in the world on the basis of its financial-economic strength.

Sir, I have spoken about the past 22 years, but I can make this period even shorter and speak about the past ten years, those ten years which have been written of in a magazine such as the Financial Mail, as “the fabulous "sixties”; which has been written of as the Golden Decade in the economy of South Africa; as a period in which the growth of South Africa was almost the greatest in comparison with the growth of other countries in the Western world. Do hon. members think that this party will allow all that growth and everything we have gained over the past ten years to go by the board and drift away and that we will expose our political policy to dangers because of economic weakness?

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken about the past ten years, but I not only want to speak about the past ten years; I also want to speak about the past year. I stated here in my Budget Speech that the year which ended on 30th June of this year, brought us a real growth of no less than 6 per cent. The hon. member for Pinetown asked me what role agriculture had played in that. I just want to tell him that if we include agriculture in the calculation in every case, then the growth during this past year was 7 per cent as against 4 per cent in the previous year. I almost think that hon. members on the opposite side, for the purpose of their arguments, would have welcomed it if we had come forward here and had announced a lower growth rate.

The hon. member for Parktown levelled numerous accusations against us on this side of the House. One of the first things the hon. member for Parktown said was that we were a party and a government “whose objectives have never been achieved”. Sir, these are some of those prophetic, winged words, one of those general expressions which the hon. member makes such frequent use of and which mean nothing, to come and tell us here that this is a Government whose objectives have never been achieved. What is our principal objective in the economic sphere? That hon. member knows as well as I do that the chief objective of this side of the House in the economic sphere is to maintain an average growth rate of 5½ per cent over a period of years. That 5½ per cent need not always be the same in one year; it can be lower one year and higher the next, as long as it is 54½ per cent over a period of five years. That is our objective, summarized in one sentence. Now that hon. member cannot tell me that we have not achieved our objective of 5½ per cent over this period.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, in a speech he made outside this House, Spoke of a 10 per cent growth rate as an ideal for this country. I am very glad the hon. the Leader did not repeat that percentage in this House. He has probably been advised in the meantime not to use that figure again. But does the hon. member really want to tell me now that he believes that the ideal for South Africa is to seek to achieve a real growth rate of 10 per cent per annum? The per cent which we achieved last year, in the calendar year, is not enough for him; he wants it to be 10 per cent. Does the hon. member think that something like that can ever be achieved without paying a heavy price for it? And the price which one has to pay for that is usually the price of inflation, which is in the end going to smother the growth rate so that you will be unable to show any further growth. The hon. member mentioned the example of Japan, that Japan had such a high growth rate, and that we in South Africa should also endeavour to grow as Japan has grown, with a crash programme of labour training. But I wonder whether the hon. member knows what price Japan is paying for that tremendously high growth rate, the price which any similar country pays in social costs and which such a country pays in the form of inflation which is ultimately going to smother that growth rate.

But South Africa is being accused here of not being able to achieve this growth rate owing to its labour policy. If we were to change our labour policy, we would be far better off; if we were to bring in more workers, we would increase the growth rate. I know that labour is a problem and I shall dwell on this problem at a later stage, but I think my friends will agree with me that labour is not the only problem when one wants to increase the growth rate of a country. If one wants to bring about the economic growth of one’s country, it is not merely a question of labour. There are many countries which have tremendous labour resources, but which are not showing any growth whatsoever. To be able to grow one also needs capital, and we as a young country do not have the capital to maintain a real growth rate of 10 per cent. In order to maintain a growth rate of roughly 10 per cent in a world where there is a scarcity of capital a country needs an expanding infrastructure, in addition to capital. Have hon members given any thought yet to what it will cost us, with our country of vast expanses, in infrastructure to be able to maintain a growth rate approaching 10 per cent? I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will probably have to think again before he insists that we should maintain a growth rate of 10 per cent. In spite of the labour problems employment in industry was 6 per cent. One of the hon. members on that side of the House asked me where that 6 per cent came from, because it was a greater percentage than the natural increase of the population. He asked whether it was not true that it came from the unemployed. That 6 per cent of the increase in the labourers in industry could have been partially due to the natural increase in the population, which could perhaps have been 2½ per cent. It was partially due to immigration and due to the fact that more and more women are entering the business world and industry. It was also due to the fact that more and more people are changing from agricultural and other occupations to industrial occupations so that we can to a large extent explain that 6 per cent in that way.

All this talk about our economy being on the downgrade, this talk which I have now refuted, is refuted even more conclusively when I point out that the physical volume of our industrial production has grown by 10½ per cent in the past year. That is a wonderful growth. There is no stagnation in a country where the industrial production is growing by 10½ per cent as far as its physical volume is concerned. If we take into account that the 10½ per cent growth has consequently taken place with a 6 per cent increase in manpower, I can deduce from that that an increase in productivity of approximately 4 per cent took place. I mentioned in my Budget Speech that there has during the past few years been an inflow of foreign capital, mostly for private investment in South Africa, which amounted to R270 million. Do hon. members think that investors during this period of capital shortage in the world, would make direct investments totalling R270 million in South Africa if they were dealing here with a retrogressive and stagnating economy?

My friend the hon. member for Pine-town mentioned an example here of a person whom he knew who wanted to invest R1 million or R2 million in South Africa or elsewhere but who then came to the conclusion, after he had probed and investigated everything, that South Africa was not good enough for him and that he would invest his R1 million or R2 million in Canada. While that hon. member mentioned this one example to me, I can mention to him scores of other examples of people who weighed the pros and cons and who eventually brought their millions to South Africa. Does that look like a stagnating economy? Does that look like an economy which is on the downgrade? Does that look like an economy in respect of which we should instill fear into our people?

Even if it were true that we have perhaps developed more slowly during the past few years as a result of labour, capital and other problems, this would still not cause me to be alarmed. If I had told the House last week that our growth rate had declined to 3 per cent, 2 per cent or even less, even that would not have been reason for me to be afraid and to allow a spirit of pessimism to spread through the country and to harbour fear for the future. Hon. members must realize that in no country in the world does economic growth continue upwards in a straight line. In every national economy there are the ups and downs, the variations and fluctuations; there are the high-water marks and the low-water marks. Even those countries about which so much is being said and which are being extolled to such an extent, each one of those great Western industrial countries have at some stage or other in their history experienced a period of economic recession.

Let us look at a few of the most important countries in the world. In Western Germany, the economy giant of Western Europe, the growth rate in 1967 was nil, and 6.9 per cent the following year. In 1966 the growth rate of Holland was 2.5 per cent, and 6.2 per cent the year after that. The growth rate of the United States of America was once 2.3 per cent, and it then increased to 3.4 per cent, and has now dropped to almost nothing. In 1965 the growth rate in the much-praised Japan was 2.3 per cent and was subsequently increased to 10 per cent. In 1966 the growth rate of Australia was 1. 2 per cent and 6.3 per cent the following year. So I can mention one example after the other to hon. members of how countries need not always maintain the same growth rate.

If there has been a decrease as far as we are concerned, there is no reason to become panic-stricken. A report in the Rand Daily Mail of 31st July, 1970, stated the following—

From a report from New York I just want to quote the last section. It reads as follows—

I mention this to indicate that it would have been an absolute erroneous argument if hon. members had been able to indicate this year that there had been a small decrease this year in the real growth rate.

My friend the hon. member for Parktown will permit me to come back to him for a moment. During the course of the recent election, when people were speaking from platforms and there was no fear of being contradicted, some of our friends on the opposite side made allegations which were not consistent with the truth, allegations which were prejudicial to the reputation and honour of South Africa. My hon. friend, the member for Parktown, with his winged words, said something according to a report in the Rand Daily Mail of 9th April, 1970, of which the heading reads “Policies hold South Africa back, says Em-din”. The report continues—

Does the hon. member still remember making this speech?

Yes.

Then the hon. member furnished certain figures—

Will the hon. member admit that he said that?

Yes.

Do you know, Sir. what the hon. member did? The hon. member com pared two sets of figures, but he did not take a look at the price index in the two countries and the depreciation in value of their money, [interjections.] It is true. If one takes those particulars as they are against current figures, then it is correct. But the hon. member omitted to mention very important figures, in order of course to place South Africa in an unfavourable light. He omitted to mention that prices in Australia had during that period increased by 157 per cent, as against 83.0 per cent in South Africa. If one were to take those price increases into account, then the real growth in South Africa was 163 per cent and in Australia 135 per cent. If one really takes those figures, as well as the population growth, into account, one will find that the real growth per capita in South Africa was 64 per cent, and in Australia 50.7 per cent. I greatly regret having to mention these matters, but I think it is necessary for us on this occasion to rap hon. members on the opposite across the knuckles a little for things which they have said in the past.

But let us come now to a few other charges which were levelled at this Budget. In the first place, the charge was levelled that we were not doing enough for industry. “This Budget is doing nothing for industry”. Allow me in the first place, Sir, to say that the way in which hon. members stated this matter in this House was an insult to industry. They said that industry was not getting enough from this Budget, as if industry comprised a lot of indigent, destitute people who were coming with open hands to the State to receive alms. I have too much respect for the industrialists of my country to treat them in that way. Let us now see what the industrialist himself has to say. In the Cape Times of 13th August, the day after the Budget, the following report appeared—

Each of the points were being reviewed. The report continued—

And so the report continues. This is the industrialist himself speaking and telling us, in reply to the complaint of those hon. gentleman that this is not an industrial Budget, that this is refuted by the industrialist himself.

Was that their final opinion?

Yes, it was. The industralists did in fact say that they greatly regretted the 2½ per cent loan levy, and that they hoped it would be removed as quickly as possible, but they also stated that they understood why it had been included.

Another point which hon. members made, was that this Budget was doing nothing for the “man in the street”. Sir, on reading through the hon. members Hansard, one after the other, one finds that almost all of them speak of this mythological “man in the street” without ever defining what they mean by that. The “man in the street” receives nothing from this Budget, they said. Who is this “man in the street?” I should like to mention all those who fall under that designation. Let us in the first place take the businessmen in South Africa, our traders, our industrialists and our bankers. They are also probably part of “the man in the street”, not so? Every day we read in our newspapers and financial magazines how the profits of our business undertakings are growing year by year. Nobody can deny that things are going well with the businessman of South Africa. It was possible for us to have such a great surplus on our income precisely because things are going well with the businessman of South Africa.

Let us look at the employees, the officials, the workers, the people who draw salaries and wages. They are also probably part of the “man in the street”, not so? The hon. members who say that “the man in the street” receives nothing, are the same people who are complaining, as the new member for Constantia also did, that cost inflation is rampant in South Africa to-day because wages and salaries have increased so tremendously and because things have gone so well with “the man in the street” in so for as he is a wage and salary earner. In fact, statistics prove that wages and salaries have increased by 10 per cent as compared with the previous year.

I come now to pensioners. What have our pensioners received during this period? Mention is always being made of our pensioners and how little they are receiving. If we go through the figures in respect of our pensioners. we find another side to the story. I find it significant to hear what the hon. member for Parktown said after my Budget Speech. One of the first sentences he uttered was that this Budget was doing nothing for the poor man—as if those hon. members on the opposite side are so concerned about the fate or the fortunes of the poor man. The hon. member forgot that an announcement had already been made in February of this year of quite a number of social measures, such as pensions, etc., to alleviate the lot of the poor man. If the figures are brought together to indicate what has already been done for the poor man. I find that no less than R14? million has already been appropriated in the Budget for social services in some form or another for the poor people in our country. I also found that, in order to keep the costs of foodstuffs as low as pos sible for the poor people in our country, there are this year subsidies to the amount of almost R66 million on dairy products, wheat, mealies and other agricultural produce. Is this not a concession to the “man in the street” in order to help him in this way?

But those are subsidies for the farmers.

I think we had better not argue with each other on this matter. Then there are the farmers who to-day find themselves in a very difficult position. Perhaps they are not the “man in the street”, but “the men on the farms”, but what have we done for the farmers in this Budget? I have a few figures which I want to mention in this regard. From the Revenue Account of this Budget no less than R91 million is being provided to the farmers. From Revenue Account, if I add the amount in respect of Water Affairs which is mostly for farmers, R120 million is being appropriated, and if I include South-West Africa in that calculation, there is an additional R20 million. If I were to add up these three amounts, no less than R231 million is being given to our farmers, directly or indirectly, in this Budget.

Now I want to ask hon. members whether they still want to persist in this accusation that we are doing nothing for the “man in the street”. Let us consider the workers for a while. I have here a report on an interview which was given by Mr. J. A. Grobbelaar, the General Secretary of the Trade Union Council of South Africa. He is certainly not a member of the National Party. This is what Mr. Grobbelaar said—

Then he went on and mentioned the things they had asked for. Unconsciously and without thinking of that letter, he stated that all his request for the workers had been complied with in this Budget.

I come now to the other “man in the street”, i.e. the public servant. The hon. member for Green Point made an eloquent speech on the conditions of the public servants. I listened to it with pleasure. When I made an interjection here and out a certain question to him, the hon. member for Green Point immediately revealed that he was not aware of the salary improvements which are already taking place in the Public Service, some of those salary improvements which have not even been completed yet and which we are still working on this year. Salary improvements were introduced in the years 1953, 1958, 1963, 1966, 1968 and 1969. This year every one has shown an improvement in salary. The conditions of service improvements in the year 1968, when certain alleviating measures were introduced for the public servants in respect of medical schemes, overtime remuneration, subsistence allowances, vacation savings and pension benefits, amounted to R25 million. In the year 1969 the State again proceeded on a large-scale to pay increased allowances and salaries to white staff, white teachers, non-Whites, university staff, the staff of statutory boards and all kinds of other similar benefits which amounted to almost R82 million.

I can now announce that the Government has decided to revise the entire salary structure of the Civil Service and allied bodies and that salary improvements of the officials will take place. This will cost the Government no less than R61 million. If we add to that the almost R8 million in respect of non-Whites, we are going to effect salary improvements which will amount to almost R70 million. Let me remind hon. members that this is R70 million in one year. It includes teachers. The R70 million is equal to approximately 3½ per cent of the expenditure of the Government on Revenue Account. Then hon. members on that side of the House must not tell me next year that there has been too great an increase in Government expenditure. These salary improvements in the Public Service will come into operation on 1st January, 1971.

I come now to another point about which the hon. members of the Opposition had so much to say. This is the question of taxes and sales duty. It seems to me the hon. members of the Opposition have very short memories, and that they have forgotten that this Government introduced tax relief in March of last year for certain groups of our taxpayers, through which we forfeited an amount of approximately R108 million. Hon. members will recall that there was a time when the lower income groups in South Africa paid the lowest tax in the world, but that certain middle and higher income groups paid the highest tax in the world. Through last year’s changes we have now, however, brought about that the taxes of all those groups in South Africa are approximately the lowest in the entire world. The hon. member for Heidelberg quoted here from a document from London which is based on an objective study. It reads as follows—

Then comparisons were drawn between the income and salaries of people in other industrialized countries. They pointed out that in all those cases the direct taxation in South Africa was among the lowest in the world.

Did they take the natives into consideration too?

I do not know what the hon. member means by that question, but let us look at the position of individuals as it is being compared in this document—

And so I could go on mentioning the various salary scales. The hon. member for Yeoville is shaking his head. In other words, that hon. member knows much more than these people who made a direct study of personal taxes. [Interjections.] Now there is such a chorus of voices on that side of the House that one cannot reply to it. In any case, in the same breath it is being said—

That was a year ago. Therefore, as far as cost of living is concerned, South Africa is also amongst the lowest in the world.

Hon. members also had a great deal to say about the purchase tax. I think hon. members on that side of the House owe me an apology. Last year, when we introduced the purchase tax system, the hon. member for Transkei and a few other members on that side of the House said here they would make me a bet that the revenue from the purchase tax would be between R200 and R300 million. Is that true?

Yes.

One hon. member from the Other Place even betted a farm in Adder-ley Street that I would derive R200 million from the purchase tax. And what did we find? Over the past year we received R113.6.

For three quarters.

No, for the whole year. I know what the hon. member means, but I shall not allow myself to be caught by it. We made a calculation for the whole period of 12 months, and up to the end of March it worked out at R113.6 million. They also said this purrchase tax would have a tremendous effect on the cost of living in South Africa. However, the findings of the Reserve Bank are that it only contributed 1 per cent to the cost of living.

There is yet another matter to which I want to refer, something which the hon. member for Parktown claimed. In a speech during the election campaign he said, according to the report published in The Sunday Times of 5th April, 1970, that “tax surpluses have reached R1,400 million”. According to this report—

Did the hon. member say that?

These are figures Mr. Waterson used and have never been refuted.

In this booklet of hon. members opposite, it is being stated that the Government “collected R1,240 million more than it has spent in the last 20 years”. The hon. member for Parktown has gone a little further by saying that it was R1,400 million. I do not have the time to go into this matter fully. To certain extent the figure of the hon. member corresponds to the official figures. But he and others tried to create the impression with the people that we were overtaxing the people by R1,200 million to R1,400 million, and that this amount had simply vanished into thin air, had simply evaporated. Why did the hon. member for Parktown in his speech and the hon. member for Yeoville in this yellow pamphlet not tell the people that virtually all of those so-called surpluses had been used to help to finance the Loan Account of the country? Why did they not tell the people that it was a good policy, that it was a good policy for business people and for the State, not to finance capital works from loan funds only, and that part of the revenue had also to be used for that purpose? For the past 20 years this Government showed a surplus virtually every year, and these were used to reduce our loan commitments. If we had not done that, the State would have had to pay an additional R70 million in interest to-day. On a later occasion I should like to take up this matter with hon. members again …

We can talk again.

Yes, then we can continue our discussion. Now I am coming to points raised by hon. members individually. The hon. member for Musgrave asked a number of questions in regard to building societies. His questions were interesting, but his statements had a false premiss. In any case, I do not think it is necessary to go into this matter any further, because it is my intention to introduce amending legislation on building societies later on in this session. On that occasion I shall therefore be able to deal fully with the questions put by the hon. member.

The hon. member for Von Brandis made an interesting speech on our balance of payments, on the decline in the future of our gold production and on the fact that our industrial production was not sufficient for filling the gap in our balance of trade. He said that we had to make greater use of our base metals in order to fill that gap, and that it was desirable to refine our base metals through processing before we exported them. His was a very fine speech, full of data and full of facts, but in actual fact it did not contain anything new, and the hon. member will forgive me for saying that. Those points have frequently been raised by myself and by other hon. members in this House. In fact, our entire industrial process in South Africa is a process of raw materials being processed to enhance their value through labour—whether it is our timber, or our diamonds, or whatever; our industrialization process is to a large extent a process of refining our raw materials. The hon. member did not lay his finger on the real problem. It is easy to say that we should refine our raw materials more, so that we may export them to countries abroad in a refined state. But what the hon. member did not say, was where we were to sell those refined raw materials. We made a study of this matter in the past, and this study revealed that the majority of the industrialized countries of the West had built up major industries for the purpose of processing raw materials of this type themselves, and that in order to protect those industries they had walled them in with high tariffs. It will be no easy task to scale those tariff walls. Therefore. I can assure the hon. member that we have already given attention to this matter.

The hon. member for Pretoria (District) dealt here with a consumers’ council. We took cognizance of his ideas and also of the consumers’ council, which was established to act in the interests of protecting consumers. In as far as it is possible, I should like to lend him the necessary support in regard to that foundation.

An hon. member, I think it was the hon. member for Constantia, spoke about the freeing of interest rates. He wanted to know whether, now that we had freed interest rates the next step would not be to raise the credit ceiling. Well, the freeing of interest rates is not necessarily a first step in the direction of raising the credit ceiling. If, in thes times, we were to proceed to either removing or raising the credit ceiling, we would have an interest war which would be detrimental to this country. Secondly, it is unnecessary for the credit ceiling to be raised. We know that at present all the banks are reasonably liquid. In my Budget speech I mentioned that over the past eight quarters we had, on an average, allowed an additional R100 million per quarter for credit provision purposes. Thirdly, if we were to raise the ceiling for credit facilities at this stage, it would possibly be the beginning of an inflation such as we in South Africa have seldom witnessed before. Mr. Speaker, by way of interlude I should now like to turn to the hon. member for East London (City), who is not present at the moment. The hon. member made a speech here in which he used winged words and language I had never before heard from the hon. member in this House.

Somebody wrote it out for him.

But the curious feature of it all, was this: Just as the hon. member for South Coast had repudiated the labour policy of that side, so the hon. member for East London (City) drew a line through the whole financial policy of hon. members on that side. None of them repudiated him, and for that reason I will simply have to assume that we are dealing once again with the politics of double-talking so that they may tell the voters outside, “That is the way we talked,” when it suits them, and then to come forward again with another story when that suits them. What did the hon. member say? I want to mention three points. In the first place, the hon. member for East London (City) wanted to know what the prosperity which we had been enjoying over the past 22 years, was attributable to. He is, at least, honest in this respect; he admitted that there had been prosperity over the past 22 years. Having asked what this prosperity was attributable to, he said—

Then the hon. member went on to say—

I want to emphasize this again: “It is the enormous reservoir of manpower that we have been using profitably that has brought us prosperity.” In other words, the hon. member for East London (City) is now saying clearly that our prosperity over the past 22 years under this Government is attributable to the fact that we have been using the manpower in our country profitably.

Sir, I am going on. The hon. member referred to the freeing of interest rate control and said—

Sir, you see the critical attitude he adopts towards “the freeing of interest rates”. And then, in regard to this matter, he said—

Sir, hon. members opposite said that they agreed with the lifting of interest rate control. The first thing my hon. friend over there said, was that we had allegedly copied their policy, and soon after that the hon. member for East London (City) said that he had never heard of something which was so bad for and so detrimental to the country. Do you know what is going to happen now, Mr. Speaker? In certain parts of the country they are going to say that we, the National Party, followed their policy by lifting interest rate control, and when this no longer suits them, they will use the words of the hon. member for East London (City) by saying that it is the most harmful thing that has ever happened in this country.

Now I want to refer to a very strange thing, to which I should like to receive a reply from that side. Sir, all of us expressed thoughts on inflation here. The hon. members on the other side even moved to my motion an amendment in which they mentioned rising living costs as one of the reasons why they rejected the Budget. I assumed that they would be against inflation, but what did the hon. member for East London (City) say? I see the hon. member for Hillbrow, who shares a bench with him, is turning his head slightly away from him! He said—

And he mentioned a few countries—

The hon. member continued in that vein, and then he said this—

Now I want to ask the hon. member and other hon. members opposite this question. Is this the policy of the United Party? Is it the policy of the United Party “that the hon. the Minister is obsessed with inflation” and adopts the attitude that inflation simply has to go up, for no country can grow without inflation? But he is not the only one who said these strange things. The hon. member for Mooi River also said in passing in his speech, “The Minister is hidden away behind the spectre and bogy of inflation”. He referred to the “spectre and bogy of inflation”. That is what the hon. member said; our fight against inflation is something behind which we are hiding, and it is a spectre. In other words, am I to infer from that that such a thing does not exist, and that it is folly on the part of the Minister to fight against it?

But the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also had something to say about the matter. I do not want to misinterpret the hon. member. This is a newspaper clipping, and I do not know whether newspaper clippings are always correct, but in this newspaper clipping taken from a speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and reported in The Argus on 13th August, he said this—

What does this mean? He asked, “Are we going to stare ourselves blind at the dangers of inflation?” I find this a very strange admission on the part of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, i.e. that we are staring ourselves blind at the dangers of inflation; and these are the people who, to-morrow or the day after, are going to spread the story outside that this Government cannot keep the cost of living in check.

Now I should like to come to the important question that was spotlighted in this past debate. I should like to say a few words about this predominating problem of labour, which has become the focal point of the discussions in this debate and the prevailing point at issue in our economy. In this regard I should like to refer to the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I must tell him that I listened to his speech in this House with pleasure, not because of what he said, but because of the way he said what he had to say. Like the hon. member for Parktown, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition spoke in winged words, in a poetic language and with a sense of inspiration. He floated in the air with his wonderful ideas on the wonderful riches which South Africa could conjure up by means of his “crash programme” for the training of 20 million people. When I had the courage or felt free to interrupt the hon. the Leader in all innocence by telling him to stop speaking in generalities and to mention something specific to us, the hon. the Leader was visibly upset. He pointed his hand at me and said he knew that this was what that hon. Minister wanted; he did not intend to speak about cents, unlike the hon. the Minister he was not interested in cents but in greater things. Those are the hon. members who are telling us every day that we are ideologists and that our grand ideas do not descend to the level of reality, but here the hon. the Leader of the Opposition came along and told me that I should not speak about cents, pennies and such things, for he was engaged in more elevated flights of thought.

I want to mention a few points in respect of the problem of labour. In the first place, I want to say that this Government is thoroughly aware of the necessity of our economy being developed rapidly for the sake of our internal and our external security. Hon. members on the other side of the House have often accused me wrongly, and used my words wrongly, of being a person who wants to break the economic laws.

Bend.

They said I wanted to bend them; this is weaker than breaking them. I repeat what I said, and that is that there are times in the life of a nation when its life is at stake. In times of war, when its life is threatened, it may bend the economic laws temporarily for the sake of its continued existence as a nation. I also say that this cannot go on all the time; it can only go on for a limited time, and to that I want to add what I have already said in this House: Only what is economically possible, is permanently possible politically. We on this side of the House believe—I have already said this, and I am not ashamed of repeating it—that in the long run our political policy will only succeed if it is also well-founded economically. That is why we believe in the economic development of our country. The Government is aware that if it wants to develop this country economically, it must harnass all the production factors, whether it is raw materials, whether it is the talent for enterprise, whether it is capital or whether it is labour. In order to do this, we must make the best use of our labour, White and non-White, skilled and unskilled and of all our production factors. I think we agree up to this point. At least, I hope the Opposition agrees with me.

We may not agree from this point on. I want to make the statement here that the maximum utilization of the manpower is not something which is suspended in the air, as was the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but that the maximum utilization of manpower is something which takes place within the framework of a definite socio-economic structure and within the framework of a definite political context. If one’s employment has the effect that one destroys this socio-economic structure and that one breaks this political context, one would be creating much greater difficulties for oneself than one would be solving through such employment. I want to illustrate this. South Africa’s rapid economic development is characterized by the fact that here in South Africa we have always known calm and peace in the sphere of labour. This industrial calm and industrial peace are factors which other nations have envied us. It was one of the biggest strides made in our economic development, and any step which may lead to the destruction of industrial calm and the industrial peace of our country, will definitely imply major disadvantages to our entire nation. One cannot simply break down an established labour pattern which has brought great prosperity and happiness to one’s country, for on the one hand it creates dissatisfaction with certain people who feel that their existence is being threatened, and, on the other hand, it creates with others expectations which cannot be satisfied.

Let me mention an example to you, Sir. In the United Kingdom the non-Whites represent between 1 and 2 per cent of the population. In some cities the percentage of non-Whites is much bigger. Some time ago I read that in one of the cities where there is a large percentage of non-Whites, the bus drivers were furious because non-Whites had been appointed as bus drivers. What did they say? They said that they had nothing against their non-white brothers, but that they were of the opinion that if there were a vacancy for a bus driver, a white person should preferably be appointed to that post. This is a form of job reservation. I also want to refer to the position in the United States of America. There the non-Whites represent 10 or 11 per cent of the population. There we find an inverted form of job reservation, as the firms are obliged to draw at least a certain percentage of their employers from the ranks of the non-Whites. That policy has given rise to certain expectations among the non-Whites in America, expectations which could not be realized. That is why there are in America at present riots, violence and that almost “sick” community. It is because there are natural divisions in America and because promises were made and expectations were created which were not fulfilled.

It is dangerous to disturb the labour pattern of a country radically all at once, because in doing so one may do one’s economy more harm than good. It is splendid to speak, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did, of 20 million inhabitants in this country. In winged words he spoke of a 20 million potential as though we were dealing here with a uniform 20 million individuals who are all alike. He did not admit that there were fundamental differences, an inherent difference which was ordained by nature and which may not be ignored by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, by me or by anybody else. I want to add that I understand that our entrepreneurs, our business people and especially our industrialists want more labour in order to expand their industries and businesses and to increase their profits by those means. That is their work and their right, and I understand that. But in saying that I understand this about my industrialists, I expect them on their part also to understand that the Government also has duties and tasks of its own which include more things than merely the economic sphere. They should understand that the Government was elected with specific instructions and political tasks, which it has to carry out; otherwise it would be disloyal to those by whom it was elected. Having said that, I want to say that in my opinion it is wrong if we on our part always adopted the attitude that our business men were mere materialists who were only striving after profits and gain. In the same way it is wrong that they should accuse us. as the Government, of being mere ideologists who are not looking facts in the face. I want to assume that on the part of the industrialists there is a great measure of patriotism, but I also want them to assume that the Government appreciates the economic needs of the country and that within the structure of our policy we shall do what we can so as to meet the needs of industrialists as well. I want to assume that between us as South Africans there are sufficient common interests constituting a basis on which we can build further. I shall not tell the business men to stop trying to make money and expanding their enterprises. In that case, however, the business men, too, should not tell me that I do not have the right to implement the political policy of my party.

To be more concrete, this Government is determined to bring about under its policy the greatest possible development of the Bantu homelands inside and around those homelands. The Government is also determined to afford the non-Whites, through that development of the Bantu homelands, inside and on its borders, every possible opportunity to develop to the highest possible level. The Government is determined to proceed with that development, but in the same way the Government is also determined that white South Africa, the country of our people, will enjoy the greatest possible measure of economic prosperity. Is it necessary for us to quarrel about this? Surely, these two lines of thought are not incompatible with each other. Is it not possible to strive after this twofold objective? Are our industrialists not prepared to co-operate with the Government to achieve this objective, which I believe is also, in a different respect, the objective of the Opposition party, the objective of the improvement and the development of the homelands so that they may become areas capable of supporting the non-Whites? I think it is possible that common ground will be found between us. I think that if we want to understand one another, we shall find that it is possible that, if our industrialists want to co-operate with us to develop this part of our country as we should like to develop it, they will experience every willingness on the part of the Government to help them to bring about the greatest possible development in the white part of our country.

On an agency basis?

I think that through that idea a basis, a sphere, has been created for a fruitful dialogue with one another. I shall stop accusing the industrialists of being materialists, if I ever did that. But then they should stop accusing me and my party as being mere ideologists. I believe that if we understand one another’s standpoints, we as South Africans will be able to find a method whereby we shall achieve our objective, their objective and our common objective of developing the whole of South Africa. I say this is not impossible.

The other day the hon. member for Constantia said that to use the double negative was a typical way of being evasive in industry. It is not impossible for us to do something of that nature. As the question of doing things does not depend on the Government only, I say that it is not impossible that, if our industrialists are prepared to do their share as well, we as the Government will be only too glad to do our share in conjunction with them. If this happens and when we succeed in developing, with their assistance, the homelands of the Bantu to their highest potential. this will not be impossible. Yes, it is possible that we shall do everything in our power to develop our own white country to the highest level possible. If this does not happen, I am afraid that we shall be talking at cross-purposes, whilst there is the greatest possibility of finding common ground and conducting a fruitful dialogue with each other.

The Leader of the Opposition said here that we should call in the Economic Advisory Council to give a decision on the viability or acceptability of the Government’s economic programme in respect of the development of the Bantu. I want to tell the hon. member that we are not prepared to accept that proposal. The Economic Advisory Council is a body comprised of people of high standing for whom I have the greatest respect, but the Economic Advisory Council is not called upon to give decisions on matters of an economic and a cardinal political nature, as its members have not been elected by the people and are therefore under no obligation to justify their actions to the people.

Now I want to sum up. If we refrain from reproaching one another and calling one another all sorts of names, if each of us admit that the others also have their rights, tasks, duties and responsibilities, and if we shall accept that in the economic and political spheres there is extensive common ground which affords standing-room to all of us as South Africans and where we can supplement one another, then I believe that the way has been cleared for a candid dialogue and a fruitful discussion through which the one will assist the other so that we may be brought to a solution to our problems. I hope that I have succeeded in showing the hon. House, in the first place, that in South Africa we are still living in a period of exceptional prosperity and that, at a time when major uncertainties and problems in the financial and economic spheres are prevailing throughout the world, we in South Africa are one of the countries in the world where the greatest measure of stability prevails. I think I have pointed out that we have problems. There is no doubt that we do have problems in respect of labour and capital, and that there must be people who have the courage to tackle the future. However, I also believe that I can prove that, as was the case in the past, we South Africans have no cause to fear the future. If we have the confidence and the will, there is nothing to prevent us from once again rising in our fatherland to great financial and economic heights in the years that lie ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill was not opposed by us at the Second Reading. We do not intend opposing the Third Reading of this measure either. However, I think it is necessary that I should recall that during the course of the consideration this Bill which we accept as complementary to, and administratively necessary for the implementation of, the Book of Life Bill which has already been approved by this House, we suggested certain amendments in this regard. We have reservations as to certain administrative aspects of this Bill. As I say, these reservations, refer to detailed matters of administration. We brought these questions to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister and to the attention of this House during the Committee Stage. We believe that the hon. the Minister and his department will in due course find that there was substance in the points which we have raised and the problems which we have foreshadowed.

To ensure efficient and accurate records, the central register must function. It must function as a register for the whole of the population of the Republic. That is provided for in the main Act and one trusts it will be implemented in the application of this particular Act. If it does not so function as a single entity, we believe that firstly, accurate population static-tics will not be readily available and secondly, there will be an overlapping of responsibility between departments of State, resulting in inefficient administration, unnecessary expense and a wastage in the productivity of the Civil Service personnel that are engaged in implementing this legislation which is now before us. I think it is necessary that I should draw attention to the fact that in the past it has been impossible for members of this House to ascertain from the hon. the Minister’s predecessors the cost in money and in personnel of the establishment of the population register of which this Bill is now a supplementary part.

This Bill will give to the hon. the Minister power to vary the present processes. It will also impose responsibilities upon him. I trust that the hon. the Minister will appreciate that the House will be entitled to the information which it has been denied in the past, in future in a form and in such detail that it can undergo the scrutiny of the Auditor-General and the Select Committee on Public Accounts as to the manner in which this scheme is being implemented and the cost in which the country is involved. The responsibility for such information will rest upon both the hon. the Minister of the Interior and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, but primarily on the hon. the Minister of the Interior. We hope that the hon. the Minister will make certain that in applying this Act he will in future be able to give to the House the information which we require as to cost, both in money and in manpower, in fulfilling the obligations imposed upon him by this particular measure.

I thank the hon. the Opposition for its co-operation up to now. I have taken cognizance of the points raised by the hon. member for Green Point. I may differ from him as regards the possible effect of this measure. As I have said, basically this legislation is a mixture of what is good from the past and the new which is required by present circumstances. We are moving rapidly ahead. As regards the matters of streamlining, more effective utilization of manpower, mechanization, automation and other means, I may assure the hon. member that this measure will result in greater efficiency. There is the requirement, however, that everyone concerned in this matter has to co-operate in order to make a success of a measure like this. We therefore invite members of the Opposition, as, in fact, we invite anybody else, to come and see whether or not this system is functioning more efficiently. I am extending this invitation so that hon. members may convince themselves that in this regard we are concerned with a better system indeed, one which is in the best interests of the country and which will in due course bring about a saving in manpower. When hon. members have convinced themselves of this in the course of a number of years it will be proof to them, too, that the National Government is able to adapt itself to changing times in a way which is worthy not only of the confidence of the people, but also of the confidence of the Opposition.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move:

1. 3. Section 7 of the principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution for subsection (1) of the following subsection:

Agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment:

To insert the following subsection to follow subsection (3) of the proposed section 15:

1. (4) Subject to the provisions of section 17, compensation (the amount whereof shall be ascertained as provided by section 7 (2) and (3)) shall be paid to any person whose property is injuriously affected by the exercise of any function which an officer is in terms of subsection (3) empowered to perform.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

New clause to follow clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, I move:

8. The following section is hereby substituted for section 17 of the principal Act:

1. 17. Notwithstanding anything contained in section 7 or 15 no compensation shall be paid to the owner or occupier of any nursery or of any other land or premises in respect of the destruction of any plant—
   1. (a) on account of its having been infected with citrus cancer; or
   2. (b) planted, raised, kept, removed or imported in contravention of any provision of this Act or the regulations; or
   3. (c) which owing to contact with any plant referred to in paragraph (a) … or (b) is infected, or is in the opinion of the Minister liable to have become infected, with any insect pest or plant disease which the Minister considers to be specially dangerous.”

Agreed to.

Further new clause to follow clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, I move:

That the following be a new clause to follow clause 7:

1. 9. Section 21 of the principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution for sub-section (1) of the following subsection:

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name, as follows:

1. (g) by the addition of the following sub-section:

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Sir, I am sure that I speak on behalf of every member of the police force when I say that we welcome this Bill. This is a welcome step. It affects those members of the force who, as the Minister said the other day, went on pension prior to 1st January, 1964.

There is still a large number of policemen who went on pension prior to 1964 and who even went on pension 30 to 40 years ago. It just shows what a tough crowd of men they were and how well they served South Africa under most arduous conditions. They did not have the vans and the helicopters to use which they have to-day. In those days it was just physical endurance on their part. They were out on patrol for days on end and they were exposed to the elements.

Order! The hon. member must coniine himself to the clause.

They are the people whom this Bill is now going to help in the evening of their days when they need it. We welcome it and we bless the Bill in every way, and we hope the Department will help them still more when the time comes again.

I, too, wish to welcome this Bill, but I want to raise one or two points on it. There are two schemes, one of which was introduced prior to 1st January, 1964, which is contained in the Bill before the House at the moment and which will be referred to as the B Scheme, and the one after 1st January, 1964, which is the A Scheme. The A Scheme members pay 50 cents a month for 10 years, which gives them a total amount of R60. The members in the B Scheme will have to pay R6 a month, which is R72 a year, for the full duration of their membership. In one year they have to pay R12 more than the other members. I think this is very unfair and I shall be very glad if the Minister can do something about that to make it the same for both schemes. Then maximum hospitalization is limited to R7 a day. I should like to ask whether accommodation can be found in all Government hospitals in South Africa today at that figure. The Defence Force has a similar scheme, but their condition is that hospital treatment is restricted to the tariff applicable to civilian patients in the general wards. Can that also be altered as far as the police are concerned, and can provision, also be made that a doctor may recommend a private ward in exceptional circumstances? This Bill is to assist, and if you do not do that you are not assisting these members.

I want to reply briefly to the ideas expressed by the hon. member who has just sat down. I should like to point out, as I said the other day, that this is in actual fact a private scheme. The only thing we are doing by means of this legislation is to provide authorization for regulations to be made for creating a fund such as this. This was, in fact, the problem previously when people lodged complaints with me and other members of this House that this was not really something which concerned the State or the Department as such. What is, in fact, being done, and this is the only way in which the Department is concerned in this matter, is that the fund is being administered by the Department of Police. For this purpose a small amount is paid annually to the State in respect of each member in order to have this fund administered by the Department of Police.

The result is that it is not and never has been my task to determine exactly what these members should pay. This is something which the members of the South African Police themselves do, and this is being administered by the senior members in the force. They have the power to create this fund and in terms of the amendment which we are now effecting, they will be able to make regulations for creating such a fund. Consequently the best I can do for the hon. member, is to promise him to convey his ideas to the members of the South African Police who are in charge of this fund.

That was my intention.

Mr. Chairman, this is the clause which gives the Railway Police extra powers in respect of a search on railway property where they have reason to believe that someone is engaged in an activity adverse to the security of the State and also if they have reason to believe that there is any package or receptacle on a person which might be used for the same purpose. In principle we have no objections to these powers being granted to the Railway Police. However, we have two amendments in mind. It is provided here that a person who is being searched can ask to be taken to a sergeant who then will give his decision. We feel that it is only fair that he should be informed of his rights when he is arrested by a Railway Police officer and is to be searched. The other amendment which we would like to see is one to the proviso of the whole of subsection (3) which is in respect of the searching of women. At the moment the Railway Act provides that when a woman is searched she must be searched by a woman. However, the Criminal Procedure Act provides in respect of the South African Police that it should also be done with strict regard for decency. We feel that there is no reason why this should not be applied as well to the South African Railways and Harbours Police Force. I accordingly move the amendments which stand in my name on the Order Paper in the hope that the hon. the Minister would accept these reasonable amendments.

I move the following amendments—

1. (b) by the substitution for the proviso at the end of subsection (3) of the following proviso:

Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendments.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister will do us the favour of giving us some more information on the proposed amendment in this clause. It would appear that its purpose is that the value of rations which are granted to railway workers will not count in future as a part of his pensionable emoluments. I should like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister which members of the staff will be affected by this. I do know that the staff in the Catering Department will be affected, but are there other staff members, besides these, who will be affected by this amendment? Secondly, I would be grateful if the hon. the Deputy Minister could inform us whether the value of these rations is declared to the Receiver of Revenue as part of the income of the employees with a view to their assessment for income-tax. If we had this information, it would be easier to consider the value of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I gladly reply to the first question put by the hon. member. He wanted to know which staff members would be affected by this provision. The hon. member was quite right when he said that the most important group of staff members which will be affected by this, will be the catering staff. As the hon. member probably noticed, a question by an hon. member in this connection appears on the Question Paper. These people obtain their refreshments there. It is only done in exceptional cases in respect of other staff members. The second question which the hon. member asked, was whether these estimated values of rations are declared in a person’s income returns for the purpose of income-tax.At the moment, as far as I know, the income-tax of all salaried persons is paid only on their salaries after certain deductions, on which income-tax is not paid, have been made. Income-tax is paid on the amount of a per-son’s actual salary cheque. These rations which are issued to persons cannot always be calculated according to a certain standard. They are provided to staff members only when they have to perform duties away from their homes. The catering staff, for example, receive these rations while they are on duty and while, after the forward journey, they are waiting to go on duty again for the return journey. Usually, however, the value of these rations is not a figure that can be calculated precisely. This is why I replied to the hon. member’s question in this way.

Mr. Chairman, I am not satisfied with the last reply given by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I wish he could have consulted someone in the Department of Inland Revenue. The Income-Tax Act provides very clearly that in ones income-tax return, very clear information must be furnished about any additional privileges which one enjoys as an employee. The house one occupies must be declared, as well as any rations, transport allowances and transport facilities one receives. One is then taxed on that. It is extremely difficult for us on this side to decide whether we can support this clause unless we know the exact position. We did not think the hon. the Deputy Minister sounded very sure about this matter. We are inclined to oppose this clause, because it is very clear that a benefit which staff members have enjoyed for many years, is now being taken away. Any doubts we may have will be removed if we can be certain that the value of these rations is taxed as income, because then they actually formed part of this employee’s income. It would then be an injustice to these people if this benefit were taken away. I in any case think it is an injustice. We heard no justification for this step in the Second-Reading speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister.

I should like to give him another chance to give us clarity on the question which I put to him, and also to motivate this proposed amendment for us. Why must this privilege which the people have enjoyed for years, suddenly be taken away from them now? What will the value of that be to the Railways? What will the Railways save as a result of this measure? Why is it necessary to make this saving at the expense of a section of the staff which has for generations enjoyed it as a privilege and a right? I shall be very grateful if we could obtain some more information, because at the moment the position is very unsatisfactory as far as the proposal in question is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the hon. member for Yeoville, particularly as you find that in the preceding paragraph, paragraph (b), that an allowance granted in lieu of the provision of free quarters is: calculated for pension purposes. I assume that means that it applies to a person on relieving staff, where he is granted an allowance. If he goes away from his quarters—even for a short period—he would be allowed to count any allowance granted for that period as part of his emoluments for pension purposes. That is no different from the food which a person gets on a train. If a person, for instance, is sent away from his home for a week on railway service and he draws an allowance for the period that he is away, that is to compensate him for the inconvenience and the cost of being away from home. If a person travelling on a train gets free rations, what is the difference between the principle involved of the free rations and the person who is being paid R3 a day, for instance, whilst relieving or being away from his home base? The principle seems exactly the same. Like the hon. member for Yeoville, I should like to have more information on this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I shall give this information again. Some employees working in the catering department are at present entitled to free food while on duty. The value of this free food has been determined at R6 a month for adults and R5.50 a month for trainees. These amounts are regarded as pensionable emoluments and in respect of this the employee contributes to the New Superannuation Fund. In other words, here the Superannuation Fund is not being prejudiced in any way, because the value of the contributions has been determined in this way.

I now come to the next question which the hon. member asked. The value of free food is taken into account in the determination of the proposed wage scale for catering staff. In order to eliminate the administrative work connected with the principle of free food, it is the intention to provide food free of charge to the staff concerned in future. It was simply to avoid the administrative problems that this was decided upon. I think it has been put very clearly. Hon. members may have misunderstood me a moment ago. The value of this food has already been determined at R6 and R5.50 respectively.

It is included for the purposes of their pensions?

Yes. In other words, they contribute their share and the State contributes its share. Because it is calculated in this way, it is also calculated in his emoluments. I repeat: Income tax is based on the actual receipts, the emoluments. The value which is calculated in this way, will have to be reflected in that. Is the hon. member satisfied with that reply?

It is so simple that even I understand it.

Mr. Chairman, now we have clarity. This money counted as part of a staff member’s salary.

Yes.

A staff member contributed to the Superannuation Fund according to that and his pension was calculated according to that?

Yes, that is correct.

In addition, that amount was disclosed to the Receiver of Revenue and the person was therefore taxed in accordance with that. These people have therefore been deprived of an important privilege. They are therefore being done an injustice. Their pensions will be less in future.

No.

Why not? It is stated very clearly that the pensionable emoluments of the staff will no longer include this amount in future. This we cannot support. I do not think the hon. the Deputy Minister realizes what he is doing to these people. He is breaking down the rights which they have built up over the years, because for years they have contributed to a pension fund, and when they retire, their pensions will be reduced. I am sure he does not want to do this, but this is what is stated here. It is very clear from the explanation given by the hon. the Deputy Minister that he had not thought about it in this way, but this is the position. The new sub-section (1) reads, inter alia, as follows (I shall quote from the English version of the clause, which I have here) —

Then follow two paragraphs, and the old paragraph (c), which reads as follows, falls away—

Therefore I am afraid the Opposition cannot support such a measure. We shall be obliged to vote against it. However, I hope it will not be necessary. I hope that the Deputy Minister, who obviously does not understand what he is doing here, will rather withdraw this provision and will let it stand over so that he may reconsider it. The fact of the matter is that a section of the staff is here being done an injustice of which the Deputy Minister is not aware.

Mr. Chairman, this benefit was taken into account when the new wage scales were provided. In other words, the new conditions of service were improved.

Everybody’s were improved.

Yes, but special provision is made here. This value is taken into account and added to the increase. I want to make this very clear. This amendment of the Act is simply aimed at facilitating the administrative work. That is the only reason for this amendment. Staff members will suffer no losses in respect of the Superannuation Fund and their pensions, because when their salaries were increased this was taken into account. Nothing is being taken away from the staff. The procedure is merely being simplified.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think that the hon. the Deputy Minister has done his homework on this matter. I think he has come to the House with a measure which he himself is unable to explain or to understand.

The increase in salary took this into account.

Sir, the Deputy Minister has only now, during the course of this debate, been told that the salary was increased to provide for this. This is something which he did not know earlier. He has also said during this debate that they still receive free rations. Now what do they get? Do they receive double—both allowance and rations? Do they get paid and then receive their rations as well, or are they paid R6—and R5.50 in the case of a learner. Incidentally my experience is that young lads of 17 to 20 eat far more than older people and yet they apparently receive less. They receive R5.50 and the older person receives R6, which is illogical to start with. Has the hon. the Deputy Minister never had any sons? Apart from that, and assuming that the younger man eats less, although he probably has to work harder physically, these people have, according to the hon. the Deputy Minister, had their salaries increased by R5.50 and R6, respectively, over and above the standard increases given to everyone. Is that correct?

That was taken into account when the salaries were revised.

No, it is not a question of this being taken into account. Is it correct that, over and above their share of the Langlaagte R60 million, they have received an additional increase of R6? This is important. If this is in fact the case, it affects the whole position. If they have received their share of the R60 million, little as it may be, they will have it paid to them as cash. However, it may again be deducted because they receive food equivalent in value to R6, to compensate for the extra R6 they have been paid. Unless they are receiving the money in cash it is not just a question of this being “taken into account”. Unless their wages have been increased by R6, they will not benefit because this clause does not allow anything to be taken into account for pension purposes. That is the point. If they are being paid the cash or it is added to their wages and paid to them over and above their old wages, then it will count for pension purposes, but then how will this arrangement work, taking into account the fact that they still get the actual food? If they are receiving the food and not the cash, this section of the Act, after the deletion of those words by this clause, will provide that it does not count for pension purposes. What the hon. the Deputy Minister is telling us is simply that it is taken into consideration in determining their salary scales and that that does not affect their pen sionable allowances. We are not satisfied that the hon. the Deputy Minister has done his homework or has given a clear explanation to the Committee.

Mr. Chairman, it is very clear to me that these hon. members who are so concerned about the railway staff do not know what steps are taken when an increase in salaries is announced. In the first place, when an increase in salaries is announced, the General Manager of the Railways is instructed to come to an agreement with the seven staff associations by means of the Federal Staff Association and with the separate staff associations about the distribution of this increase in salaries. In the negotiations which then take place, these amendments are also discussed. In other words, when those negotiations are conducted, the General Manager of the Railways submits the draft amendments of regulations and payment to the staff associations concerned.

Order! I just want to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that the way in which it is done is not under discussion, but only the amendment itself.

Mr. Chairman, as the reason why these members do not want to vote for this amendment, they made the statement that the members of the Railways staff who receive free food, will lose part of their pension benefits because that amount is now in respect of free food and will therefore no longer be paid to them. The fact of the matter is that when they are negotiated with, they are told, “We are now going to give you this food free of charge. The cost at which we have always calculated it, was R6 in the one case and R5.50 in the other”. In other words, they will receive free food; they will no longer pay for it. They used to pay for it. This is what the hon. members must realize. They will now receive free food whereas they had to pay for it in the past. If these hon. members are so concerned about the staff shortage, they should welcome a clause such as this, because it is an encouragement, especially for our catering staff and this staff, because they will know that the food for which they used to pay, they will now receive free of charge.

Section 5 (1) (e) of the original Act makes provision for the Minister to appoint one person to represent university colleges. The amendment now before the House makes provision for a person to be appointed by the Minister to represent universities for non-Whites as well as university colleges. I can understand the reference to universities for non-Whites as the university colleges referred to in the original Act have since become universities. As far as I am aware, however, there are now no other university colleges; yet this amendment makes provision for a person to represent them. It seems therefore as if this provision is made for something that does not exist or is it the Government’s intention to initiate other university colleges?

I have an amendment which I should like to move here. I want to apologize to the hon. the Minister that due to lack of time I have not had the opportunity of informing him of this amendment. My amendment is as follows—

1. (f) one person appointed by the Minister to represent colleges established or deemed to have been established under the Advanced Technical Education Act, 1967 (Act No. 40 of 1967).

I think it is in the interests of this measure that there should be somebody looking after the students of colleges for Advanced Technical Education. When the Act establishing colleges for Advanced Technical Education was passed by this House in 1967 it was clear from the attitude of the then hon. Minister that he attached great importance to the role these colleges would play in the field of technological training. At the moment we have seven such colleges: the Cape, the Natal, the Witwatersrand, the Pretoria, the Port Elizabeth and one for the Vaal Triangle. In certain aspects of their training they are given training which is equivalent to that given at universities. Furthermore, they offer this type of training to both language groups and in centres where universities do not offer certain training. Let me quote a specific example to make my case clear—the training of pharmacists.

Order! Will the hon. member, before he proceeds, bring up his amendment?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I shall do so.

Order! I should like to draw the hon. member’s attention to the provision of Standing Order No. 59 in terms of which debates in committee on an amending Bill shall be confined to the proposed amendments to the principal Act and such other relevant amendments as may be subsequently moved. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea is an amendment to the principal Act and for that reason I have to rule it out of order.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, surely the hon. member’s amendment is relevant to the clause which purports to add to the sort of people who will constitute this committee? The hon. member suggests that other people should also be consulted. Therefore, is it not relevant to this clause?

No. It has to be relevant to the amendment proposed to the principal Act.

Would it be in order if the hon. member moves the insertion of the word “and” and thereafter the terms of his amendment?

No. In that event the hon. member would be extending the scope of the clause and that, too, is inadmissible.

As regards the first point made by the hon. member, I want to point out to him that the university college for Indians is not yet an autonomous university. It is hoped that it will attain that status in 1971. In the meantime it is necessary for us to make provision here accordingly. As regards his amendment which was ruled out of order …

Order! The hon. Minister may not discuss that amendment.

May I just point out that section 5 (1) (b) of the original Act provides that the Minister may appoint three persons to represent donors. This does not necessarily mean that those persons have to be donors themselves. Therefore, a vacancy were to occur here, I shall be able to see whether I cannot accommodate the hon. member.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 6:

At the Second Reading the Minister indicated that he would move an amendment to make the benefits granted to companies applicable to individuals as well. That undertaking of the hon. the Minister was welcomed by us on this side of the House. I myself also said we accepted that individuals should be allowed to do so, and that companies, too, should be given that right. When the hon. the Minister replied to the debate, he said—

That is the legal opinion on the clause and on the original Act that was obtained by the Minister. In terms of this amendment companies may evidently determine when they make donations in what direction or by what university their donations are to be used. To this I should like to move the following amendment—

The acceptance of this amendment will result in an extension of this principle. In terms of the legal opinion it was possible for a company or a person or an organization in the past to indicate in what direction the donation was to be used. The proviso which is now being added here, however, refers to a company only. The only motivation I can see is that the persons who are administering this Fund or who are concerned with the collection of funds seem to be of the opinion that if companies enjoy this privilege, it will contribute to a larger income for the Fund. We believe that the same privilege should be given to persons and organizations as well.

Order! I have to rule this amendment out of order, because if the word “person” is substituted for the word “company” a new group of people will be included, and this was not contemplated at the stage at which the principle of the Bill was discussed, i.e. at the Second Reading. Consequently I am unable to accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Sir, may I again address you on a point of order? The Interpretation Act provides that any reference in an Act of Parliament to “person” shall include divisional councils, any company incorporated or registered, any body of persons, corporate or unincorporated. Sir, it still retains “company”, in other words, “company” is not taken out altogether; “company” is left in by reason of the definition in the Interpretation Act of the word “person”, which encompasses both companies, persons and bodies which are unincorporated. Sir, my submission to you is that this clause provides that a company in making a donation to this fund may specify to which university the money should go. In my submission that does not alter the principle which was adopted at the Second Reading, which was that companies, that form of person, should have the right to determine where that money should go.

The substitution of the word “company” by the word “person” will extend the scope of this clause, and therefore I cannot accept that amendment.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

The hon. the Minister, when he moved the Second Reading of the Bill, gave no real apology for the failure of the Government or the Department itself to gazette regulations. This is what the hon. the Minister said—

When the Minister replied to the Second-Reading debate, I unfortunately was not here, but I have the Minister’s speech in front of me and I have been through it very carefully. He said quite clearly that my charges against him or his Department for failing to promulgate any regulations were unfounded and unduly emphasized.

I did not say they were unfounded; I said they were exaggerated.

The Minister said in effect that he was not obliged to make regulations; in other words, it was not mandatory but merely permissive. That was the hon. the Minister’s point, as I understood it from his speech. Now I would like to point out in this context, when he said it was not mandatory but merely permissive, that in terms of the original Act he is correct. But look what is involved here in the public interest, and I am specifically talking now about the meetings of this Committee and the allocation of this money. The hon. the Minister, in reply to a question I had on the Order Paper about 10 days ago, told us that 600 bursaries and loans had been granted in the last five years, that 573 loans in fact and 127 bursaries had been granted and that a total of R141,219 had been paid out for the subsidizing of these students since 1965, because in the first year of the fund’s existence (1964) so little was paid in that it could not operate. Then the Minister went on to say in his reply to the Second-Reading debate that an officer of his Department, in order to step up the funds, had been sent round collecting money and had raised contributions to the level of R100.000 That is what I gathered from his speech. I might just tell the Minister in passing that a lot of the universities are disturbed about the activities of this collector, not that he may not be a very good man but he has called on a lot of donors who normally give to the universities and has said to them—I pass no reflections on the man himself—that instead of paying the money to the universities direct, they should give it to him for use by the Government through this fund. There is a considerable degree of disquiet about the way this has been done and donors are considerably confused as a result. Then the hon. the Minister went on to say that the fund was in need of a stimulus. The Government has in fact allocated R500,000. This money is the taxpayer’s money and not the State’s, and only the interest on that specific amount was available. The hon. the Minister tried to make another point as an excuse for not drafting regulations. He said the committee was only advisory. I quote from his speech:

With respect, if the Auditor-General comes to the hon. the Minister and suggests that it is necessary to enact legislation for the purpose of validating all the meetings they have had for the last six years and if, in fact, the hon. the Minister says that their powers are only advisory and that only he has the ultimate say about what has to be done with this money. I think it is more necessary than ever for his own protection and in his own interest that regulations should be drafted with regard to the administration of this fund. I cannot understand the situation at all. The hon. the Minister in his reply in the Second-Reading debate said that the members of the committee received no payment, their work was purely public spirited, while the original Act lays down that they like others who serve on this type of board, may receive subsistence allowances and travelling allowances, which are decided upon by the hon. the Minister in consultation with the hon. the Minister of Finance. However, in every respect public money is involved and no report is being made to Parliament. This concerns the regulations. No report is being made to Parliament about these funds.

Order! The hon. member may not discuss the regulations themselves; she may only discuss her amendment to the clause.

My amendment is that the hon. the Minister shall make regulations; that it shall no longer be permissive but that it should be mandatory in view of the fact that public money is involved. This is my whole point. I only want to say that if R141,000 is involved … [Interjections,] … no word appears about the administration of this fund in the Department’s report. No report is given to Parliament as to how it is administered. I am free to ask questions like any other hon. member. The hon. the Minister gave me a long list of bursaries and loans, but otherwise no account is given either to the public or to us if we do not ask questions. We consider it bad in principle to introduce and apply legislation where the allocation of public money is involved and there are no regulations, which have been legally vetted, laying down the procedure and governing the validity of the meetings and the number required for a quorum at the meetings. The original Act says the quorum must be decided by regulation. This means ipso facto that it must be decided in terms of the legislation and then obviously there must be regulations. That is why the hon. the Minister came here and asked us to validate all their past meetings.

My final point is that we want the hon. the Minister, when he comes to these regulations, which we sincerely hope he is going to draft, to do what the second part of my amendments suggests, “in consultation with the committee concerned”. After all, the procedure at meetings, the quorum and all the activities are very much involved. Presumably he would be willing to accept this part of the amendment which means that he will consult with them before he drafts such regulations.

Mr. Chairman, in my reply to the Second-Reading debate I mentioned that there was no question here of anything which had gone wrong and which had to be rectified and validated with retrospective effect. I explained that it was not a settled matter that those regulations should, in fact, have been promulgated. I said I was proposing the deletion of section 9 of the principal Act so as to put this matter beyond any doubt. In these circumstances and also in view of the fact that this committee is an advisory body and that these regulations in reality concern only the procedure at its meetings and, furthermore, in view of the fact that the implementation of these decision; is subject to the control and the judgment of the Controller and Auditor-General, I regret that I cannot accept this amendment moved by the hon. member for Wynberg. The object of amendment I myself moved, i.e. the deletion of section 9, is, in fact, to remove any doubt as regards the problem that has arisen. I think my proposal in this regard is more effective than the proposal of the hon. member for Wynberg, and that is why I cannot accept her amendment.

Mr. Chairman, let me make it quite clear that neither the bona fides of the hon. the Minister nor the bona fides of the members of the advisory committee are being called in question by this side of the House. What we are concerned to do here and to hammer it home, is the fact that it is a very bad principle in legislation and in law to have an hon. Minister admitting that he himself alone has the final say as to how this money can be allocated. For his own protection, surely, it would be wisest for him to promulgate these regulations so that everybody can see how he is administering the Act, if only for reasons of public confidence, although we do not challenge his bona fides or those of the members of the committee. It is a question of principle and we stand by it.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to add my appeal to that of the hon. member for Wynberg particularly in regard to her appeal to the hon. the Minister to accept the second portion of the amendment which states “shall after consultation with the committee”. The hon. the Minister has made it quite clear in his speech that he regards the members of this committee, which he has appointed as experienced, wise, trustworthy and enlightened people. I believe that it can only be to the hon. the Minister’s advantage if he takes advantage of the specialized knowledge before regulations are in fact promulgated. There are many examples in other pieces of legislation where this principle is accepted and I believe that in the long run it can only make for the smoother working of this committee. If the hon. the Minister, and I am not disparaging his department, was to make regulations in consultation with his own department, and I am sure he will consult his department before promulgating these regulations, I submit most sincerely that the department itself may not have the practical experience of the difficulties which may arise out of regulations which have not received the blessing of the committee itself. After all, they are responsible for carrying out all the terms of this Act, and I believe it will be a vote of confidence by the hon. the Minister in this Committee if he were to say in this Bill that he will make regulations after consultation with the committee. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to accept that portion of the amendment in this light.

Mr. Chairman, we passed clause 4

1. (b) a few minutes ago, and in doing so we deleted the obligation to make regulations in respect of a quorum. If the hon. member for Wynberg checks this, she will see that this is the legal position in which we find ourselves at present. The obligation to make regulations in respect of a quorum and such procedures has been repealed with the deletion of clause 4 (b). I therefore cannot accept the amendment, as it does not make sense.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The marketing of the various agricultural products takes place according to a variety of techniques, each of which is subject to its particular developments and changes. The Marketing Act must serve as an empowering measure for all these techniques and must consequently be adapted from time to time to the latest developments. This Bill is primarily aimed at supplying a number of deficiencies in the Marketing Act.

In the first instance the Act limits the grounds on which products can be classified for the purpose of the various marketing regulations to certain defined circumstances stated in the Act. As the various marketing systems become more and more sophisticated, it is found that the defined circumstances of classification are no longer adequate. That, at any rate, is the position in regard to products for which a scheme is in force. However, no restrictions are being laid on the classification of products for which a scheme is not in force, and this disparate situation between controlled and uncontrolled products often gives rise to uncertainty in the interpretation of the statutory provisions. In order to ensure therefore that the authorized grounds of classification of controlled as well as uncontrolled products are at all times adequate, and to eliminate the above-mentioned legal problems, it is being proposed to authorize the classification of products according to any characteristic or feature thereof, or according to any conceivable circumstance in regard to that product.

According to the Act the Marketing Council is required to consult the Advisory Consumers’ Committee in regard to certain amendments to schemes. Because the Consumers’ Committee only meets a few times per year and some amendments to schemes are of such a nature that the Consumers’ Committee as representatives of consumer interests have hardly any interest in them, it is felt that compulsory consultation does not serve any good purpose. Dealing with amendments to schemes could possibly be facilitated if only those amendments in which the Committee had a direct interest were submitted for its views. The Bill consequently requires the Marketing Council to consult the Consumers’ Committee only when the Minister deems this necessary.

The Bill makes further provisions for the circumstances under which members of control boards are required to vacate their office as board members. It is also being proposed that the Minister be authorized to suspend board members for a specified period. This proposed measure has always been a deficiency in the Marketing Act which is now being supplied.

The Deciduous Fruit Board controls pools for the sale of deciduous fruit. Once all the fruit in a specific pool has been sold, the proceeds are divided among the producers participating in the relevant pool and the accounts in question are closed. However, it sometimes happens that moneys accrue to a specific pool long after the accounts of the pool have been closed and in such a case the Board is obliged to re-open the pool and to divide the moneys among the original participants in that pool. In cases where a number of years have elapsed since the pool accounts were closed, it can be understood that the Board experiences many problems in dividing the moneys. Some of the producers, for example, may have moved in the meantime. It is consequently being proposed that if moneys accrue to a pool more than three years after its accounts have been closed, such moneys can be dealt with in a manner determined by the Minister.

The conditions under which producers or persons dealing in the course of trade with a product are registered, usually comprise an important link in the general marketing control of this product. It is necessary that conditions of registration be adapted from time to time to the latest developments in the control system. In order to effect these periodic adjustments, most control boards are at present employing a system of granting registration for a limited period only. Upon expiry of the period the registration lapses and the registered person must then make renewed application for registration. The registration is then renewed by the board in question, subject to the adapted conditions. As can be deduced, the existing system is very clumsy and presents many problems for control boards, particularly those such as the Milk Board which has to cope with numerous registrations of producers. In order therefore to simplify the procedure and to promote labour saving, it is being proposed that a control board be empowered, at intervals specified in the scheme, to amend, cancel or supplement conditions of re-registration as it thinks fit.

When prices for a product are fixed it is sometimes also necessary to fix the rates for the conveyance of that product to prevent by so doing the fixed regulation of prices from being undermined. In addition, in an industry such as the dairy industry, the fixing of rates for conveyance fulfil a further important function. It ensures that the delivery of milk and cream for industrial purposes takes place on a rationalized basis and that duplication in respect of its conveyance is restricted to a minimum. Up to now the rates for conveyance have always been maintained as a deduction from what is added to the fixed prices, as if it formed a part of the prices. However, there is a measure of doubt as to whether rates for conveyance determined in this way are en forceable, but whatever the position, I regard the fixing of rates for conveyance as important enough to be dealt with in the Act as a separate subject. Consequently the Bill divorces the rates for conveyance aspect from the power to fix prices and at the same time makes provision for the application of rates for conveyance to co-operatives which convey the products of their members and pool the costs of conveyance among the members, provided the scheme so stipulates. The latter proposal is being effected with a view to the long-standing point at issue in the dairy industry, i.e. whether or not a co-operative should be bound by the regulation of prices of the Dairy Board. Hon. members will possibly be aware that this point at issue has been obscured to such an extent by apparently conflicting court decisions that legislation is necessary to make the legal position clear. As far as rates of conveyance are concerned, it is now being made clear therefore that such regulations will only apply to co-operative societies if the scheme stipulates it. Hon. members are aware that one of the most important objectives of an agricultural co-operative is to supply its members requirements and render services related to their farming activities. The amounts due in respect of such requirements and services are of course recovered by the co-operative from the proceeds of the products of its members. The interests of such agricultural co-operatives in regard to the amounts due are protected by specific provision in the Co-operative Societies Act—on the one hand in that the members are obliged to dispose of their products through the agency of their co-operatives, and on the other in that no other person than the co-operative may obtain such products except through the agency of the co-operative or on the authority of a permit issued by the co-operative. When a control board which is applying a one-channel scheme appoints agents to purchase on its behalf that controlled product from producers, the board, for the protection of the producers, imposes the condition that agents must compensate producers in cash for the proceeds of that product. This condition is a protective measure for the board itself, since the board, as principal can be held liable in case of default of payment by its agents.

Doubts have now begun to arise as to whether agricultural co-operatives can, in view of this condition and the fact that they pay for the proceeds of their members’ products in their capacity as agent of the board, continue with the existing practice of recovering debts and whether they can recover in this way any other deductions which they would otherwise have been able to make as ordinary cooperatives in the normal course of events. In order to eliminate any possible doubts, it is as agent of a control board, has to compen-now being proposed that a co-operative which, sate its members on behalf of that board for a delivered quantity of a product, is by means of a statutory presumption being placed in the same position it would have been in if it had not, as agent of that control board, paid the purchase price of the product. In other words, it pays its members as if the proceeds were due by the board itself to its members. In addition it is also being proposed that in respect of such payments the control board be exempted from any claims by members of co-operatives who are agents of control boards. It must just be made clear that the control board will still have to meet its obligations to the co-operative agent in terms of the agency contract. The above will entail that co-operative agents, just as in the case of ordinary co-operatives, will undoubtedly be able to recover members’ debts by setting off those debts, and will be able to make any other deductions for which provision is made in its regulations, or which its members have authorized it to make.

The Dairy Board often finds it necessary to adjust its levy rates during a year by increasing or decreasing them. Because the levy is payable per unit of manufactured butter or cheese, it happens that a specific factory then pays, during a specific year, a higher or lower average levy per unit of butter or cheese for that year than another factory. At the end of its financial year the Dairy Board rectifies this desperate position by equalizing the levy among the various manufacturers. It is now being envisaged, however, to include specific authorization for this in the Act.

It sometimes happens that at a particular juncture no overseas markets can be found for some or other variety of deciduous fruit, and in such a case of course it serves no purpose to incur expenses in exporting it. It is consequently being proposed to include a provision in the Marketing Act in terms of which the Deciduous Fruit Board can prohibit the export for sale of any class of deciduous fruit during a specified period. Such a prohibition will of course not prevent the sale of the prohibited fruit in the Republic.

At present the Act grants the power to prohibit the sale of a product unless it is marked according to grade or unless it is packed in a prescribed manner. The marketing of products according to their quality has become refined to such an extent however that the present powers in the Act are no longer adequate. Many products are to-day being sold according to other defined classifications apart from grade, for example in size groups, weight groups, counted groups, and so on. The Bill now makes provision for this as well.

On a previous occasion certain powers were granted the Minister to make marketing regulations in respect of products for which a scheme was not in force—the so-called uncontrolled products. Additional powers are now being requested in respect of uncontrolled products. In the first place it is being envisaged to authorize the Minister to appoint an advisory committee when he has imposed a levy on an uncontrolled product. The object of such a committee, which will comprise representatives of the industry concerned, will be to supply the Minister with advice on that product.

In the second place, provision is now being made for the determination of prices of uncontrolled products. From time to time representations are received from some industry or other in respect of the introduction of regulation of prices for an agricultural product. The amendment is necessary in order to be able to give sympathetic consideration to representations of this nature and, if practicable, to give effect to them. At the same time provision is being made for selling South African products abroad at prices determined by the Minister. Some overseas countries sometimes impose certain trade requirements in regard to the importing of products and desire that the exporting country provide certain guarantees in respect of. inter alia, the price at which it is imported into the importing country. In the case of controlled agricultural products such requirements can in practice be complied with through the agency of the control board in question. With uncontrolled products other measures will have to be taken, and the proposed amendment will facilitate action in this regard.

Thirdly, it is being proposed to empower the Minister to prohibit, by notice in the Gazette, the sale of an uncontrolled agricultural product except to or through the agency of persons mentioned in the notice. The notice can further require that the aforementioned persons should control a pool for the sale of quantities of that product in a manner specified in the notice, or that the proceeds of the products be paid to the Secretary of A agricultural Economics and Marketing. The Secretary must then pool all proceeds and divide them among the producers concerned.

Some products, such as coriander, are not produced in such quantities that this justifies the establishment of a separate marketing scheme. The producers of a product have to cope, however, with the same problems as producers who are producing more important products and who can in fact afford a comprehensive marketing scheme. The proposed amendment is therefore calculated to introduce one-channel marketing in respect of a product without a full-fledged marketing scheme being established.

In conclusion the Bill makes provision for the delegation, by the Minister, of the powers granted to him by the Act. to any officer of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. Certain powers are however specifically excluded from delegation. The principle of delegation of ministerial powers is not a new one. It is a practical measure which is to be found in a variety of statutes. In modern practice it is not possible for the Minister to give attention to every aspect or subsidiary aspect of the matters over which ministerial control extends. As far as the Marketing Act is concerned, the question of delegation has now become an urgent necessity. I want to emphasize however that the fact that an officer is exercising a power, will not prevent the Minister from revising that decision. In addition, such an officer is of course bound to exercise his own discretion, within the framework of the Minister’s policy.

Since the Marketing Act was consolidated two years ago, a number of amendments have now become essential. Since this Bill is introducing so many amendments which cannot be described as amendments of a contentious nature, but which can nevertheless be discussed to good purpose in the Committee Stage, I want to inform the hon. the Deputy Minister that we on this side are going to support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Clause 4 of the Bill provides that the hon. the Minister may, under certain circumstances, remove a member of a control board from office. In addition to that the State President also has the power to remove a member of a control board from office at any time. The hon. the Deputy Minister did not really sketch for us the background and mention the reasons why it was necessary for an hon. member to be removed from office in a control board from time to time, but we presume that circumstances occur which from time to time make it necessary for the Minister to have that power. We would welcome it if the hon. the Deputy Minister would tell us why it is necessary to make provision for this power. If he does not want to do so at this stage, he can do so in the Committee Stage.

Sir, a clause which we on this side find difficult to justify under these circumstances is clause 11. Our information is that more or less all companies and cheese and butter factories supported this arrangement after discussions with them had taken place. The information I received only this morning from a well-known cheese factory in the Free State is that all of them understand this provision in clause 11, but they are, as far as is practicable, trying to keep their conveyance rates identical and that they are not, as far as conveyance rates are concerned, trying to benefit a member who delivers his product to a cooperative. They therefore want to know what the necessity for this amendment is. If they all agree as far as this point is concerned, then we should like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister why this amendment is being effected, for it is apparently an arrangement which they all have that some members will not be benefitting in respect of rates for conveyance.

Clause 19. which is welcomed by this side of the House, deals with the fixing of the price of products other than controlled products. Last year, in 1969, the hon. the Minister effected quite a number of changes in the Marketing Act. Provision was then made for the introduction of schemes for uncontrolled products. It has now become apparent that it is essential that the Minister should in fact be able to determine the price of some of these products. I think this is a step forward. It is a good step, particularly in the case of less well-known products, from which many people nevertheless make a tremendous amount of money. The number of producers is small. If it is necessary to establish a pool scheme or something of that nature, then it must of course be done, but I think that what will be most welcome is the fact that the hon. the Minister should be able to determine the price of the product and that it should be more or less the same for all areas. He must also have the power to be able to determine various prices in various areas. In terms of the proposed new section 84F the hon. the Minister can now introduce one-channel marketing for uncontrolled products. We therefore welcome the Bill.

The last point which the hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned in his speech was the question of the delegation of powers. I am pleased that the hon. the Deputy Minister said that he will still remain responsible for the delegation of powers himself and that no extraordinary powers will be delegated to officials. One can understand that it would be impossible for the hon. the Minister to do everything himself. Consequently there must be regulations to be able to give certain powers to certain officials, but I think the hon. the Deputy Minister must bear in mind that we should like to see this being done with the greatest care and that no powers of a drastic nature should be delegated.

I am pleased the hon. member for Newton Park and the Opposition support this Bill. It has been found in practice that certain amendments must be effected to benefit the producer and the entire industry.

I come now to the hon. member’s questions. As far as clause 4 is concerned, he asked when a man could be suspended as a member of a control board or relieved of his office. The hon. member is aware of the fact that we have recently experienced problems with a certain board, and in that case it would be very convenient if the Minister had the power to be able to suspend a member. If a member of a control board should become of unsound mind, then there is no statutory provision in terms of which he can be relieved of his office. He is appointed member for a certain time and he can serve as member until that period has expired. If such cases should arise, the Minister must have this power.

It is provided that a member shall vacate his office if he becomes of unsound mind. I was actually referring to subsections (2) and (3).

What we have in mind here is the case where a man has been dishonest or where he has perhaps participated in smuggling activities. In such a case steps can be taken against him. The hon. member also referred to companies. The companies are in fact satisfied, but the hon. member is aware of court cases which we had between co-operatives and companies. A co-operative has the right to transport the products of its members or to purchase the cream of a producer member and then say to him: “I shall pay you extra; I shall pay the transportation costs,” while companies are not in that position. We wanted to put them on an equal footing so that there will be equal competition.

I shall in the Committee Stage reply at length to each of these points. The hon. member was quite right in saying that the companies are satisfied; there is now a mutual agreement among them, but one of the companies which is satisfied now, may perhaps break the rule next year; we will then be able to say to it that the Act provides that the Control Board has the power to say that the product must be delivered to the factory at this or that price.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It has become necessary to amend and supplement certain provisions of the Housing Act, 1966, to bring it into line with present circumstances. and the Bill is therefore being submitted to you. I shall explain to you the various amendments and additions step by step:

Clause 1:

Section 20 of the Act provides that if a person to whom a housing loan has been granted, fails to pay the amount owing in respect of such a loan on the due date, in other words, when a person fails to meet his obligations, the commission may, after due notice has been given, enter upon and take possession of the relevant property by an officer authorized in writing by the commission. This provision is obsolete and dates back from the time when the commission has not yet been functioning as a body within a Government department. The commission is at present a body within the Department of Community Development and for that reason it is necessary for an adjustment to be made so that, as is proposed in clause 1, such authority in writing can be given by the Secretary for Community Development to one or more of his officials.

Clause 2:

In terms of section 22 the commission may assist a building society to grant a building loan to somebody. The loan granted by the building society amounts to not more than 90 per cent of the cost of the land and the cost of erecting the dwelling. The assistance rendered by the commission amounts to one-third of the loan granted by the building society which is paid over to the building society when the loan is approved. The interest payable on the amount paid over by the commission, is calculated at the current rate at which the commission obtains money from the Treasury, namely 7¼ per cent.

In terms of section 24 (3) the building societies are authorized to increase the rate of interest on that part of the building loan which has not yet been repaid. According to the present wording of the section, it is also possible however for the building societies to increase the rate of interest on one-third of the portion of the loan advanced by the commission.

While it would be incompatible for building societies arbitrarily to derive an advantage from loan moneys contributed out of the Housing Fund, provision is being made in clause 2 that the rate of interest on that portion of the loan advanced by the commission may be increased only with the consent of the commission.

I shall deal with clauses 3, 4 and 9 collectively since all three of them deal with the same matter, namely the expropriation of land by the commission and local authority.

The commission and a local authority may, with the approval of the Minister, purchase, expropriate or otherwise acquire any land in order to erect a dwelling thereon or carry out a scheme (sections 31 and 66 refer). In terms of the second proviso to these sections, however, the Minister may not approve the expropriation of land unless he is satisfied that the commission or the local authority are unable to purchase such land on reasonable terms and that no other suitable land is available to the commission or the local authority and also that the said bodies are unable to purchase other suitable land on reasonable terms.

I can inform you that when a housing scheme is envisaged by the commission or a local authority to-day, the land suitable for such a housing scheme is chosen with a view to location, provision of services, and so forth. For example, the group area for the population group for which the housing is to be provided, the linking up with existing schemes in order to form a balanced community, are all determining factors in the choice of suitable land. After the commission or a local authority has chosen such land, it can be reasonably expected that no other suitable land is available and also that these bodies are unable to buy other suitable land for the proposed scheme.

The subsequent negotiations for the purchase of the land constitute a protracted process particularly where, as is often the case, the relevant land consists of separate small plots belonging to separate owners. It has also been found that the prices of the properties are inclined to increase steadily during the negotiations. And so it happens that when the purchase of the land is finalized, the owner wants a higher purchase price for his land and that all the negotiations have to be conducted all over again.

The commission and the local authority should, in the interests of housing, be placed in a position to acquire, when necessary, land without any protracted delays which result in an inevitable increase in price. These bodies therefore have to be placed in a position to be able to expropriate immediately, if necessary, and to negotiate afterwards about a realistic market price as at the date of expropriation.

I want to point out, however, that the approval of the Minister has to be obtained for expropriation so that expropriations cannot take place arbitrarily.

As regards compensation for expropriated properties, the formula laid down in section 38 and which briefly amounts to compensation not exceeding the municipal valuation plus 30 per cent, or the purchase price paid for the property by the owner plus 6 per cent per year from the date of purchase to the date of expropriation, is judged by present standards, quite unrealistic at present. This formula has been embodied in the law since the time when it was regarded that such drastic expropriation without adequate compensation was justified.

The Community Development Act provides that the compensation for properties expropriated under that Act should not exceed the market value of the properties at the date of expropriation (section 41). This ensures that a realistic price be paid to the owner, and it is obvious that the provision as regards the compensation for properties expropriated under the Housing Act is treated on the same basis.

Clauses 3 and 9 therefore provide for the deletion of the said provisos so that the commission and a local authority may, with the approval of the Minister, expropriate properties for housing purposes, and clause 4 provides that the compensation paid for such expropriated properties, should be the market value.

As regards clause 5, section 44 provides that if the tenant of a dwelling constructed by the Commission fails to pay the rental, the Commission may take steps to recover the rental and, after due notice has been given, may enter upon and take possession of the dwelling.

In terms of section 42 (5) the maintenance, sale or letting of dwellings registered in the name of the Commission are carried out by the Secretary of the Department. As in the case of section 20, to which reference is being made in clause 1, a fully-fledged department is now dealing with this matter and for that reason the amendment embodied in this clause is being proposed so that the Secretary may be given the necessary powers to be able to protect the interests of the Commission.

It is also necessary for me to deal with clauses 6 and 8 collectively.

A local authority may, according to the instructions contained in section 52, borrow money to give effect to any of the powers granted to it in Chapter VIII of the Act. The same section provides that money may be borrowed—

1. (a) from the National Housing Fund, in which case the provisions of the Housing Act will apply; or
2. (b) from any other source with the approval of the Administrator.

It therefore follows that a local authority may also exercise the powers contained in Chapter VIII in respect of money borrowed from any other source. However, the local authority has to submit such a scheme to the National Housing Commission for a recommendation to be made to the Administrator, and the local authority may then exercise the relevant powers in respect of such an approved scheme.

Up to now it has been accepted in good faith that a scheme which is financed out of a source other than the National Building Fund but which is submitted to the Commission, is subject to the generally applicable conditions prescribed by the Commission as regards the income limits people have to comply with, the standards and cost limits as regards buildings, the size of plots, and so forth. Likewise, that the aims of the Housing Act are achieved with the sale or letting of such dwellings.

There is reason to doubt whether this approach will be able to stand the test if questioned, and consequently the amendment of sections 52 and 61 is now being proposed in order to put it beyond any doubt that the Commission may impose its conditions in cases where the local authority provides housing with funds obtained from a source other than the National Building Fund, although the scheme is submitted to the National Housing Commission for its approval.

The purpose of the proposed amendment therefore is merely that there should be no doubt in future, that the objectives of the Housing Act, namely the provision of housing for the lower-income groups according to the standards of the Commission, be realized in schemes submitted to the Commission even when such schemes are financed from a source other than the National Housing Fund. Once again it is necessary for me to deal with two clauses simultaneously, namely clauses 7 and 11. Some of these dwellings are sold by local authorities, utility companies or other bodies after they have been let for a certain period. An amount in respect of interest on and redemption of the loan is recovered by the local authority, utility company or other body from the date on which such a dwelling is let. If the dwelling however is sold subsequently, the period of redemption of 30 years applies from the date of sale, that is the loan is redeemed after 30 years as from the date of sale. At the time of the sale of the dwelling the local authority, utility company or other body shows a profit because the selling price exceeds the amount a local authority owes the Housing Fund on the dwelling. The periods of such letting may vary from a few months to several years. Section 59 in the case of a utility company or other body and section 75A in the case of a local authority provide that when a loan has been redeemed in full, the excess of income over expenditure in respect of the scheme, should be utilized in such manner as the Commission may determine. The amendment of these sections which is now contained in clauses 7 and 11. merely states it clearly that any surplus which may arise as a result of the sale of dwellings after they have been let for a certain period, should also be utilized in a manner determined by the Commission.

Clause 10:

In terms of section 75 (1) local authorities have to utilize for housing purposes any profits derived from the sale of land acquired by means of an advance out of the Fund. This provision should also be applicable to utility companies or similar bodies because, like local authorities, they obtain their advances through local authorities out of the Housing Fund. It was decided recently by the National Housing Commission however that profits derived from the sale of land on which no dwellings have been constructed, have to be surrendered to the Fund to be re-issued in the normal way by means of advances and loans. I am in full agreement with this. The proposed amendment to section 75 (1) therefore provides that the profit derived on land sold by a local authority, utility company or other body should be surrendered to the Fund.

As will be noticed, section 75 (2) provides that the provisions of subsection (1) shall not apply in the case of any land in respect of which an approved scheme is being or has been carried out until the scheme as a whole has been carried out. It sometimes happens however that plots, for example, business plots, in such a scheme are sold in the course of the scheme being carried out. Owing to the necessity of the re-issuing of such profits to take active steps to provide housing, the profits derived from such sales have to be surrendered to the Fund as soon as possible, and consequently the amendment to section 75 (2) is being proposed.

Clause 12:

At the moment the Commission, a local authority, utility company or other body may, with the approval of the Minister, sell land on which no dwelling has been constructed. However, there is no provision in terms of which a local authority, and so forth, may be compelled to sell land, with the result that such land may, in fact, remain unproductive for an indefinite time. In order to cope with such a position, the amendment of section 80 is being proposed.

Clause 13:

As you probably know, nobody may demolish or use for any other purposes except dwelling purposes (a) any dwelling, as defined in the Act, without the approval of the Minister, and (b) any building other than a dwelling without the approval of the local authority. In the latter case an appeal may be lodged with the Administrator. Normally applications of this nature do not present any problems. Problems are, however, experienced in certain parts of urban areas which enjoy the active interest of developers. In these areas one often finds obsolete and small blocks of flats as I have already mentioned, for example, in the millionaire’s mile in Durban, Sea Point and at other places, which no longer fit in with the extensive development which is taking place there but which nevertheless provide permanent accommodation to residents. In many cases those residents are people falling in the lower-income groups as well as pensioners. Sound development should not be stifled for an unnecessarily long period but the housing needs of these residents should be taken into consideration when consideration is given to an application to demolish for purposes of redevelopment. A bridge has therefore to be created to enable them to settle elsewhere with or without the assistance of the Department or the local authority.

It is felt that this problem can be coped with only if the demolition permit, when justified, is issued subject to a condition, for example, that the residents be given ample time to vacate the building. During such a period those who can afford to do so can obtain accommodation elsewhere and the local authority, in conjunction with my Department, can provide accommodation for the families in the lower-income groups who qualify for national housing. However, it is evident that the existing legislation does not allow for such conditions and the amendment of section 85, as embodied in the clause, is consequently deemed necessary.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has been good enough to deal in some detail with this measure before us clause by clause. At the outset I want to say that we on this side of the House will support the Second Reading of this Bill. We believe that there are a number of factors that will have to be considered in greater detail during the Committee Stage.

I now want to make reference to certain principles which occur in this legislation and which have reference to the discussions which may follow at a later stage. First of all I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this measure was submitted to the United Municipal Executive for comment, because I have found on inquiry that this legislation has not been submitted to the treasurer of at least one large municipality. It seems unfortunate that legislation dealing with the relationship between the State and municipalities is not submitted to the United Municipal Executive. I say that because of certain of the provisions which deal with the change of procedure as regards such profits as may arise on the completion of housing schemes. I do not believe that there will be any difficulties with major municipalities and I also believe that these new procedure as far as profits are concerned are wise because it will detract from any desire on the part of a less conscientious municipality to profit out of housing schemes which are financed by the National Housing Commission. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will see to it that where he needs this co-operation, and he usually needs co-operation between his Department and municipalities, he will utilize these channels of consultation which are available to him.

In particular we welcome the provisions in this Bill which will, to some extent, stabilize the rate of interest payable on bonds which are subsidized by the State. I believe the requirement of giving three months’ notice will have a stabilizing effect. With all respect to the hon. the Minister it will possibly take another three months for him to come to an agreement with the building societies about an increased rate of interest, which will be all to the benefit of the borrower who will be given so much more grace at a lower rate of interest. I hope that in this case we will have occasion to compliment the hon. the Minister on his tardiness in agreeing to increased rates of interest on bonds and that it will be to the benefit of borrowers in these specific cases where they are helped.

I am full of compliments this afternoon, because I also want to compliment the hon. the Minister in that there is a glimmer of common sense evident in his at long last facing up to the problem of amending the basis of compensation on expropriation.

I am getting myself into a dangerous position. Yesterday the Sunday Times praised me and now you are praising me.

I have gone no further than to suggest that there is a glimmer of common sense. If the hon. the Minister is satisfied that that is praise, then he is easily satisfied. But, Sir, there has been a very unsatisfactory position in our legislation for a long time as regards the question of expropriation for housing requirements, and the basis of assessment for compensation. I know that the hon. the Minister has at last done something that he has been asked by us to do for so long about the matter of compensation on the basis of market value. I believe also that this will enable him, with a clear conscience, now that market value is the basis for compensation, to price loose some of the undeveloped plots of land, which apparently, according to the report of the Niemand Commission, are being held for speculative purposes. It will enable the Minister, with a clear mind to approach these people, to say: “We want this land now for housing purposes: we will buy it at the present day market value”. I think it will facilitate the commission’s handling of the acquisition of these plots for the development of housing.

The Minister has referred to the Sea Point front and the Millionaires Mile in Durban in regard to demolition permits. I welcome the proposal which is contained in this clause, namely that demolition permits can be made subject to conditions, provided those conditions are of the nature to which the hon. the Minister has referred. I believe that applying conditions to demolition permits would meet another problem which has arisen very severely and seriously in my constituency. I believe the same is happening in a number of other constituencies. There are up to 12 residential hotels which have been providing inexpensive accommodation for a certain class of person for a number of years now but which have in a very short time been demolished to make way for flats. The result is that there are a large number of persons having to seek accommodation. They are boarders and have no protection under the Rents Act. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would be able to tell me whether, in terms of these powers he is taking, he will then be able to stagger such demolitions to ensure that there is not a wholesale removal of inexpensive accommodation and a conversion of it into another and a more expensive type in a particular locality, in other words, whether he could deal with the practical difficulty as and when it arises. I believe we will have difficulties. I doubt whether he is legally able to impose conditions under this clause to specify, for instance, that the owner of a residential hotel or a boarding house which is being demolished must provide alternate accommodation.

I have no say over that.

I believe so, but he can at least phase out these demolitions and stagger them, so that we do not have a large number of demolitions within a very short period of time.

We have doubts about some of the matters which are contained in this Bill, but I hope the hon. the Minister will have the opportunity before wet get to the Committee Stage, if he cannot do so when he replies to the Second-Reading debate, to deal with some of these questions. As I have indicated, we generally welcome the new approach in regard to compensation on expropriation of property both by the commission and by local authorities. But this power is now to be exercised without prior negotiations to try to fix a price by a private treaty, and replaces the rateable value plus a third, which exists in the Act as it is at the present time.

Now I wonder whether the hon. the Minister and the local authorities should toe released entirely from the second provisos in sections 31 and 66 of the principal Act. At the present moment, if the hon. the Minister desires to expropriate, he must be satisfied, according to that proviso, on three aspects. He must be satisfied, first of all, that the commission has not been able to come to an agreement with the owner of the property to be expropriated. He must secondly be satisfied that there is no other suitable property available in the locality concerned and thirdly, that if there is other property, it cannot be acquired at a reasonable price. It seems to me correct that the hon. the Minister wishes, for the sake of speeding up expropriation, to be relieved of the first requirement, namely to enter into interminable negotiations with an owner. I cannot, however, see any reason why the other two provisos should not remain. I am speaking of the proviso that he must be satisfied that there is no alternative ground available in the area at a reasonable price. I believe that it would be a safeguard if that proviso were to be retained. It would avoid arbitrary action by the commission or by a local authority. For instance, when there are two pieces of ground available, otherwise equal in suitability, a municipality may say: “We want plot A from an unwilling seller, and we are not prepared to purchase B”. I believe that if the other two aspects of the proviso were retained in the Act, it would be better and would not hinder the Commission in its functioning. Subject to what the hon. the Minister has to say in this regard, it may be that we shall move an amendment in that direction in the Committee Stage.

In determining the market value, the first aspect is clear, but there is a second aspect to which I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give further consideration. That has to do with the limitation of the amount to be paid for goodwill. The new clause before us stipulates that the amount payable in respect of loss of goodwill, shall not exceed the nett profit for the preceding 12 months. That is unrealistic. I believe that it is contrary to all the accepted principles applied by economists and accountants in the valuation of goodwill. I think it would be advisable for the hon. the Minister, now that he is amending this section in toto, to reconsider the limitation being placed on goodwill.

Why do you say that it is unrealistic?

If one is buying shares, in a private company or a business and one asks an accountant to value the business, he will value the various assets. When it comes to determining the value of the goodwill of that business, the valueer works on a basis of the average profits over the last two or two and a half years. In terms of this clause, the hon. the Minister is limiting the goodwill to a maximum of the nett profit during the preceding 12 months. There are several other aspects which the hon. the Minister can take into account. The preceding 12 months may have been months of uncertainty. It may well be that there were threats of expropriation. It may well be that other buildings have been expropriated in the neighbourhood and that the business had declined during the preceding 12 months. In regard to this question of goodwill, it seems to me that one should assess it as an average over a period of time. One should certainly not limit it to the preceding 12 months.

I have an open mind about it.

That is why I wanted to mention this matter at this stage. We can discuss the matter further and possibly improve that aspect of the Bill.

I have mentioned already that we can see the value of the provisions in the Bill enabling the Minister to attach conditions to demolition permits. Here again it seems to me that the clause before us is possibly too wide. The hon. the Minister has indicated to us what he means by “conditions”. He means conditions in regard to finding alternative accommodation and conditions in regard to time, but according to the wording used in the Bill the conditions are not circumscribed or limited in any way as to the matters they may cover or in regard to any time limits which may be imposed. Here again in the interests of tidy legislation, it would be better to examine this provision to see to what extent the conditions can be circumscribed, or what conditions can be applied. The hon. the Minister will think that I am putting forward a far-fetched suggestion, but I should like to point out that he will be able to levy a fee or do anything of that sort if the Bill is passed as it is now. It is not his intention to levy a demolition fee or a supervision fee or an inspection fee, or any charge to be paid to the Housing Commission, but if the clause is passed in its present form, he will have that power. We should have an opportunity, when this measure is discussed in the Committee Stage, to consider circumscribing the nature of the conditions which may be imposed. These are matters which, as I said at the commencement of my speech, I wanted to raise at this stage so that the hon. the Minister could give them his attention before we reach the Committee Stage. Subject to what we shall have to say at that stage, and as far as the principle of the Bill is concerned, we support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point has put a few questions to the hon. the Minister as regards consultation with, inter alia, the United Municipal Executive in respect of certain of the clauses which affect them very closely. The hon. the Minister will probably reply to these questions, but it should be pointed out that some of the provisions we have here, will be of great advantage to local authorities and the Housing Commission. I believe they will welcome those provisions although there has been no consultation beforehand. The first matter I want to refer to, is the question of the powers of expropriation. Let us call these the facilitated powers of expropriation which are now being given to a local authority or to the Housing Commission. The hon. the Minister indicated that where such an authority had needed land for expansion in the past, it had made sure that it was the best land it could acquire. The authority concerned satisfied itself that no other land was available and that it was not possible for the land to be acquired on any other conditions. We are glad that these powers of expropriation are being granted, because a great deal of time has been wasted in the past through protracted negotiations when more than one owner was involved. In this process the prices of land have increased. After all, we have a method here to try and curb the steady increase in the prices of land. A commission, which has already submitted its report, has been appointed to investigate this very matter. One need not fear that a local authority will do an owner an injustice. After all, the basis of compensation is being laid down in the Bill. This basis amounts to the market value of a property, while the previous determination no longer applies, i.e. the municipal valuation plus 30 per cent plus the value of the buildings, or the purchase price plus 6 per cent per annum. The basis for compensation we now have is more clearly defined. Although wide powers of expropriation are being granted now, the basis for compensation is more clearly defined, too. I believe that every owner that is faced with the choice of expropriation, will feel happier about this new basis. While I am on this matter of compensation, I want to say that I agree with the hon. member for Green Point that we should probably reconsider the question of goodwill. I do not want to discuss the aspect of compensation now. However, there is something else which I find to be a problem. Reference is being made in the relevant clause to a profession or business which is practised or carried on. Does it mean any profession and any business? There are certain business undertakings or professions to which no traditional goodwill is attached. I am able to mention to you. Sir. a peculiar example. This is to be found particularly in our older urban areas where a process of urban renewal is being carried out. One finds, for example, that a certain person owns a particular plot of ground on which he has built his house and that there is an adjoining plot of ground on which a number of garages have been built. These garages are being let. This forms part of his livelihood. Is a business such as this person has, also regarded as a business to which goodwill is attached? I believe that although this is not a traditional kind of goodwill, cases such as these should be taken into consideration as well, because what we are doing here, is to deprive a person of part of his income. It is quite clear that we should take into consideration cases such as these in respect of which the local authority has never had any objections as regards the practising and carrying on of such profession or business.

I should like to suggest something to the hon. the Minister. I want to refer to the loans which are granted by the Commission and the building societies jointly. There are the increased rates of interest on that part of the loan advanced by the Housing Commission. One can almost say that the building societies have obtained money illegally, without using this word in an unfavourable connotation, money they were actually not entitled to receive. I want to accept that it will be very difficult to ascertain how much money they have obtained for their coffers in this way. I want to accept that this is not a very large amount of money because this scheme was of a limited scope only. My request to the hon. the Minister is the following: Since we are not in a position to ascertain how much this amount is and since we know that this amount is relatively small, would the hon. the Minister not approach our major building societies with the request that they should prove their goodwill towards him and the entire scheme of joint loans and that each of them should make a small donation to an old age home of their choice? Otherwise they could leave the matter in the hands of the Minister and let him say to whom the money they want to donate in this way should be given.

We are glad the hon. the Opposition supports this legislation. It will be of great advantage to us to facilitate procedures in those very cases where we experience problems as regards the making available of land for building purposes or as regards the prices of such land.

Mr. Speaker, I propose to be very brief because the attitude of this side of the House has been fairly fully stated by the hon. member for Green Point. We on this side of the House welcome the change which is taking place in regard to the compensation to be paid on expropriation. The method proposed by the amendment to section 38 of the Principal Act gives a very much fairer value to the owner of land which has been expropriated.

As the hon. member for Green Point pointed out, we are concerned with the whole question of the valuation of goodwill. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister indicated during the speech of the hon. member for Green Point that this is a matter to which he will give sympathetic consideration in the Committee Stage. I do believe that as it is worded at the moment the clause is unfair to an owner and in fact does not provide the usual method in which the valuation of goodwill is settled. That is all I wish to say on the question of goodwill.

When business was suspended I was dealing with clause 4 which makes provision for a new section 38. As the hon. member for Green Point pointed out, we on this side of the House are pleased that the Government is introducing a new basis of compensation for expropriation which is undoubtedly fairer than the existing basis. The hon. Minister indicated during the course of the speech of the hon. member for Green Point that during the committee stage we could discuss and the Minister would sympathetically consider, the question of changes to the proposed basis of valuation of goodwill, which we consider is not only unfair but is not in accordance with the general principles for the valuation of goodwill. In view of this, I do not propose to take this aspect of the matter any further.

But while I am still on clause 4, I would also like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to another aspect of the proposed subsection (1) of section 38. It is proposed that the compensation payable will include any completed improvements made on the property at the time of expropriation. Sir, we see no reason why this should be limited to completed improvements only. It may well be that at the time of expropriation improvements are in progress but have not yet been completed, and it would be unfair to the owner if in such cases no compensation was payable in respect of the expenditure incurred by the owner on those improvements which are still in progress. We will therefore move an amendment to delete the word “completed” and I hope that the hon. the Minister will see fit to accept it. It is a matter which I think should have the support of both sides of the House.

While still on clause 4, I would draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to clause 4 (2) which provides for the introduction of a new section to the Act, but at the same time, as the Bill is printed, it does not state where this new section is to be fitted into the Act. I think this is an oversight and is a matter which we could discuss in the committee stage, but I draw it to the hon. the Minister’s attention at this stage because obviously he will have to fit it into the Act somewhere. It is probably intended to be a new section in the Act, but the Bill does not say where it will be fitted in.

Finally, Sir, I want to refer very briefly to the proposed amendments to section 85 (clause 12 of the Bill). The hon. the Minister made it clear in his second reading speech—or at least that is how I interpreted his introductory remarks dealing with clause 13—that it was not the intention of his Department to stifle necessary development by refusing demolition permits. The hon. the Minister made it clear that in certain areas where land values had risen considerably it is often necessary to demolish an old building in order that development may take place. As I understood the hon. the Minister, he pointed out that as the section reads at present, it is not possible to impose conditions on a demolition permit and such conditions are often necessary because there may be tenants in these old buildings who require alternative accommodation. Alternatively, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Green Point, if too many residential *buildings are demolished at the same time, the result may be that there are large numbers of people looking for alternative accommodation at the same time. Therefore it is desireable that in such cases there should be a phasing out. It is a good thing that in such cases it should be possible to tell a developer that whilst he may not demolish immediately he will have that right in, say. two years’ time or may-be three years’ time so that he can plan his development, assemble his finance, and so on. Provided therefore that the proposed amendment is intended for this purpose, it is one which we on this side of the House not only support but which we approve. However, the wording of the proposed amendment while not being far-reaching is of wide effect, and perhaps in the committee stage it may be. possible to introduce amendments which will limit it by stating clearly that this is the purpose of the proposed amendment. As indicated by the hon. the Minister, this is the purpose of the amendment and that being the case, the proposed amendment enjoys the support of this side of the House.

Sir, we support the proposed amendments introduced by clauses 4 and 13 and we have no objection to the other amendments proposed in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank hon. members on the other side for supporting the Second Reading of this Bill. I shall try as far as possible to meet the objections which they may have to certain clauses. The hon. member for Green Point asked me whether this was referred to the United Municipal Executive. It was not referred to them and I will tell him why I did not refer it to them. I arranged with the United Municipal Executive quite a while ago that I would refer to them for comment any proposed legislation that interfered with the present powers of the local authorities. I think the hon. member for Green Point will agree that as far as this Bill is concerned, we are actually giving the local authorities more and not less power. We are making it easier for them and not more difficult, and that is why I did not refer it to the Municipal Executive. I gave them the undertaking that I would refer anything dealing with local authorities to them for their comments. I did not do it in this case, because I did not think it was necessary. Perhaps it would have been wiser for me to refer it to them, but I am quite satisfied and happy that the Municipal Executive will accept this Bill, because it makes the position of local authorities far easier. Then I may say that as far as the financial implications are concerned this Bill does not deal with any of the finances of the local authorities. It only deals with the money paid out to the local authorities by the Housing Commission and with moneys coming back to the Housing Commission. So we are not dealing with any moneys of the local authorities, but only with the money of the Housing Commission which falls under my department.

As far as demolitions are concerned, I agree with the hon. member for Green Point that I am taking rather wide powers here. I can lay down any conditions on which certain buildings can be demolished or cannot be demolished. According to the wording of the amendments introduced here, the position is that I can lay down just about any conditions, but what is my position to-day? To-day the position is that I can only say you can demolish or you cannot demolish. As the law stands to-day, I must do an injustice whichever way I decide. If that building is on a very expensive piece of ground and I want to do justice to the man owning the building, I can say: Very well, you can demolish. But then there may be 20 or 30 families who may be on the street and who will not have accommodation. Otherwise I can say he cannot demolish, which means that those people can stay there, but this man cannot build on what is a very expensive piece of ground to give him a good return on his property and on the value of that property. So while I agree with the hon. member that this gives me very wide powers, I do not know how we can get out of it. Perhaps the hon. member may wish to move an amendment. After all, all I wish to do under this clause is on the one hand to protect the tenants and on the other hand not to protect the tenants at the cost of the investor, the landlord. That is all I want. If the hon. member wants to move an amendment which will give me the same power to do that without the danger of me having too much power, although being the sensible man I am I will never abuse it! [Interjections.] If the hon. member can move a fitting amendment, I will certainly give it my closest attention.

The hon. member for Green Point dealt with this question of the expropriation of land and said that he wanted to retain this provision that I must be satisfied that there is no other land available. I do not know whether that is possible. If, for example, the local authority of Cape Town should decide on a township, they will have made all the investigations and they will say: Here we can build a housing scheme, but we must expropriate certain land. It only means that if I am not satisfied with that, I must conduct a completely new investigation into the whole matter. That is what I want to prevent because the longer the investigations go on, the higher the price of the land rises. Therefore I think that when the local authority or the Housing Commission decides on a piece of land on which to build a township, they have gone into all the possible difficulties, conditions, etc., and I do not think we should keep it back.

As far as goodwill is concerned, my department informs me that it is laid down in the law the moment that the goodwill is equal to the previous twelve months’ profit of the organization concerned.

But you are substituting a new clause.

Yes, but it is still the same. But I agree entirely with the hon. member. I do not think that is the correct way of dealing with the matter when one tries to place a price on the good will of a company. After all, during the previous twelve months they could have had an exceptionally good year, and if you take that as your basis you may overpay the man completely, or they may have had a very bad year which means that you underpay the man substantially. So what I suggest is this. I will discuss the matter with my department and I will seriously consider moving an amendment in the Committee Stage that we take the average of the previous three years. That will then be the amount of the goodwill paid. I am quite willing to accept an amendment to that effect.

*The hon. member for Germiston wanted to know what was a profession and what was a business and when goodwill became payable. He asked what was meant by a profession or a business. Well, I am not a lawyer and I do not know, but I would say it is anything from which one can make money. He mentioned the case of a person who had a house with a plot adjoining it. He may use the plot to build garages to let to other people and he makes money out of it. The hon. member wanted to know whether this would be regarded as goodwill if the property were to be expropriated. I do not know, but I think it would; I think it would, but I shall find out from the law advisers, and if that is not the case we may be able to effect a proper amendment in the Committee Stage.

I think I have dealt with all the points, except the one raised by both the hon. member for Musgrave and the hon. member for Green Point. This concerns the demolition of a number of boarding houses, and so forth, something which, I understand, is happening in the constituency of the hon. member for Green Point. I have no say in this matter, of course. The demolition of hotels and boarding houses does not fall under my Department, but under the local authority. The only powers I want in order to determine the conditions, is the power to protect either the tenant or the landlord. As far as the rest is concerned, the hon. member should try and find redress somewhere else. Sir, I think this covers all the points that have been raised.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Rapidly developing and obsolescent circumstances in the operational field of the Community Development Board necessitate the adjustment, as it becomes necessary, of the Act in terms of which the body is constituted. The Bill which is before you now, consequently deals with such adjustments and amendments, and I shall, for the information of this House, deal with every clause separately.

Clause 1:

This clause, as well as clauses 2 (a), 6 and 7, actually require no explanation. The present Community Development Act, 1966, still refers to sections in the Group Areas Act of 1957. As you know, the latter Act and subsequent amendments were consolidated in the Group Areas Act, 1966, and it is therefore necessary for the Community Development Act to be adjusted so as to refer to the corresponding sections in the Group Areas Act of 1966.

Clause 2 (b):

Section 15 (2) (c) of the existing Act provides that the Community Development Board may, with the approval of the Minister and in consultation with the Minister of Finance, make ex gratia payments, refunds, donations, etc. In terms of subsection (4), however, no such payment, refund, donation, etc., may exceed R1,000, except with the approval of the Senate and of the House of Assembly. In terms of a recent resolution of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, however, it now is the practice that only payments, refunds, donations, etc., exceeding R5,000 are subject to specific Parliamentary authority. With a view to uniformity it is therefore deemed advisable for the amount of R1,000 prescribed in the subsection concerned to be increased to R5,000. As you will recall, approval was obtained last year for the insertion of section 15 (2) (c) (ii) into the Act, and that authorized the Board to pay compensation to local authorities in respect of fruitless expenditure incurred by local authorities in connection with the development of a group area proclaimed for any race group but which for any reason is thereafter deproclaimed. At that time I made it very clear that the specific object of this provision was to avoid Parliament having to be approached each time for its approval of amounts exceeding the ex gratia payments allowed by the Act. Now, however, it appears that, in terms of the wording of subsection (4), there is doubt as to whether such compensation in respect of fruitless expenditure may, in fact, be made without the approval of Parliament. So as to remove all possible misunderstanding and doubt in this respect, the further amendment of subsection (4) is now being proposed.

Clause 3:

Section 18A of the Act prescribes remedies against persons who have borrowed money out of the Community Development Fund and who fail to comply with their conditions. The Board may, inter alia, after having given 42 days’ notice, enter upon and take possession of the property by any officer of the department authorized in writing by the Board. However, it has been found impracticable for the Board to authorize an officer in writing to enter upon and take possession of the property. and it is therefore deemed desirable that the Secretary for Community Development should carry out the authorization in writing. I may just point out that the Secretary is already authorized in terms of section 18 (2) to fulfil such a function in respect of tenants who do not meet their obligations.

Clause 4:

The present Act prescribes steps which the Board may take against tenants of property belonging to the Board if they do not meet their obligations. But no steps are prescribed against buyers of property belonging to the Board who do not meet their obligations prior to transfer. A person may buy a property with a deposit of R200 and pay off the balance of the purchase price in monthly instalments. He may take transfer of the property and the outstanding balance of the purchase price may be registered by way of a mortgage bond, only after at least 10 per cent of the purchase price has been redeemed. Already after the contract of purchase and sale has been signed, however, such a person may fail to pay the monthly amount due. In such a case the Board has no specific powers for protecting itself from any loss it suffers in this way. I may point out that the National Housing Commission has such powers in terms of section 43 of the Housing Act, 1966. In terms of that section the unpaid portion of the purchase price is regarded as a loan, and the Commission may take the same steps against a buyer who fails to meet his obligations as it may take against borrowers. It is deemed necessary for powers similar to those of the National Housing Commission to be granted to the Community Development Board as well, in view of the fact that the Board, too, is faced with buyers who fail to pay, etc., in such cases.

Clause 5:

The Community Development Board is engaged in comprehensive urban renewal projects in various large centres in the country. Large urban areas are being planned anew, which leads to existing roads disappearing or being re-routed, as well as to the construction of new roads. It is the experience that in such areas many of the existing street names are not acceptable to be used again in the replanned area. Therefore the Board will be obliged to give new names to new streets or to re-name existing streets. I just want to give the assurance here that no street will be called Blaar Coetzee Street. If there are hon. members who feel that streets should be named after them, I shall await applications and see whether we can use such names.

The Housing Act. 1966, contains a provision to the effect that the National Housing Commission may assign a name to any street in a scheme executed by it, or may change the name of a street in such a scheme, after consultation with the Administrator. It is therefore deemed necessary for the Community Development Act to be brought into line with the Housing Act so that the Board may also have the power to assign or change the necessary street names in its development projects.

Clause 8:

As I have Just said, the Community Development Board is engaged in various extensive urban renewal projects. However, before the Board may have a new plan registered for the area it has replanned, it first has to be the registered owner of the properties in that area. In many cases the registration of the properties which the Board has acquired is delayed, however, by virtue of the fact that executors in estates that have entered into contracts of purchase and sale fail by their absence or otherwise to effect transfer to the Board. In such cases it may therefore take a very long time before registration in the name of the Board can be effected, which, in turn, delays important projects and has the effect that properties in which large sums of money have been invested cannot be used. It is therefore essential for provision to be made in the Act, as is being proposed in clause 8 (a), that such steps may be taken so as to obtain registration in the name of the Board as soon as possible.

As far as clause 8 (b) is concerned, I may inform this House that section 38 (2) provides that an appreciation or a depreciation contribution is payable when affected property is purchased or expropriated by the Board. In addition, however, the Board may also acquire property in a “frozen area” by means of its preferent right (section 15 (5) (a)). It appears, however, that section 38 (2) does not provide for the payment of contributions when the Board acquires affected property by means of its preferent right. As the Act contains the principle for the payment of contributions in respect of affected property in the normal course of events, it is logical that contributions should also be payable when the Board acquires property by means of its preferent right, and the amendment concerned is merely placing this principle beyond any doubt.

Clauses 9 and 10:

I have indicated how the Board is being handicapped in urban renewals by persons who enter into contracts of purchase and sale with the Board, but subsequently disappear. However, there are other cases where the Board is even more handicapped, i.e. in cases where the Board has expropriated property and subsequently finds that—

1. (a) the property belongs to an estate which is not represented,
2. (b) the owner, or sometimes owners, of the expropriated property cannot be traced anywhere.

Section 40 (4) (a) of the Act lays down that the owner of the expropriated property has to claim compensation. Owners who cannot be contacted, can obviously not comply with this provision, and consequently the aspect of compensation cannot enjoy the necessary attention. In terms of section 39 (5) the ownership of the expropriated property does, in fact, pass to the Board upon the service of the notice, but until such time as the compensation determined for the property is subsequently paid or guaranteed, the Board cannot effect transfer to its name. The problem is such that if a way cannot be found for determining the compensation, transfer can never be effected to the name of the Board in some cases.

Provision already exists in the Act that when the place of residence of a person is not known, the compensation has to be paid to the Master, and after such payment the Board is not liable in respect of that amount (section 42 (2)). Therefore the money is kept in safe custody for the missing owner. A provision also exists that if the owner of an expropriated property and the Board cannot agree as to the compensation payable, the compensation may be determined by arbitration, and that determination may not exceed the market value of the property at the date of expropriation. But this can only be done when the owner can be contacted and has submitted a claim for compensation for the expropriated property in terms of section 40 (4) (a).

The amendments contained in the clauses are therefore deemed essential so that the compensation for expropriated property may be determined and paid to the master of the Supreme Court also in cases where the owner cannot be traced or an estate is not properly represented. This appears to be the only way in which the Board can effect transfer of the property to its name which will enable it to alienate and transfer the property to new owners very soon.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation contains various provisions which the hon. the Minister has detailed. We regard it as an attempt at “opknapping”, and the measure will receive our support. The hon. the Minister has explained the details of this legislation, but I have to tell him that there is a certain amount of information that will be required to justify certain aspects of the Bill before us when we discuss it in more detail in the Committee Stage.

One matter which raises its head again is the question of the proclamation, deproclamation and reproclamation of group areas, which give rise to the amendment in clause 2 of the Bill. There is now an increase in the amount which can be paid ex gratia without coming to this House and to the Other Place from R1,000 to R5,000 to recompense a local authority for wasted expenditure. I know that this hon. Minister’s department does not deal with the proclamation, deproclamation and reproclamation of group areas, but I should like the hon. the Minister to obtain and have available for us information as to what these activities are costing his department and the Community Development Board. I find from the information I have been able to obtain, which was restricted until April of last year, that, for instance, in the Cape there were 21 deproclamations, 13 reproclamations and seven areas left merely as controlled areas. In Natal there were four deproclamations and four reproclamations. In the Transvaal there were as many as 16 deproclamations, 11 reproclamations and four areas left as controlled areas. This has obviously given rise to the necessity for making payments in excess of the R1,000 which is provided under the present Act. I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to tell us what amount has been involved to date in this wasted expenditure, owing to this change of mind and of proclamations from time to time, and whether his department, which has to cover the wasted cost, has any say in regard to the question of proclamations.

The hon. the Minister has explained the necessity for extending the powers as regards the change of name to include not only the townships themselves, but also to include streets. It seems to me that this is legislating for trifles. The hon. the Minister has suggested that he will not have a street called after himself. I suggest we can use several names to remind us of him if we did not use his own name. But it does seem to me that this is a matter essentially for local authorities. We do not know why it is that the hon. the Minister should have to have his department concerned with matters of this sort. We can have some further explanations from him when it comes to debating this matter in the Committee Stage. One can understand that it is desirable at times to change names to prevent confusion; but, as I say, this certainly should not be a matter which concerns a department of State and could well be left to local authorities to handle as they have done in the past.

Another matter which arises is the question of determining compensation when an owner is in default. The hon. the Minister proposes, in terms of this Bill, that if an owner is in default, the compensation shall be determined by a judge or retired magistrate, who will have the power to call in certain sworn appraisements and then arrive at a market value. This will take the place of the normal procedure, when the matter is taken to an arbitration court. The Minister was, however, not quite clear as to whether an owner who has been notified of this assessed figure of compensation will have the opportunity of proceeding to arbitration if he so desire. The assessed figure will have been determined by the single arbiter, the retired judge or the retired magistrate. There is a discrepancy between the provision of this Bill and the provisions of the Community Development Act and the Housing Act as regards the determination of market value and compensation. This Bill does not include a provision for the payment of goodwill. As far as I am aware this Bill does not provide for the payment of goodwill in expropriation proceedings. Here again I hope that the hon. the Minister will give us an indication as to whether he is prepared to consider dealing with the procedure laid down here to speed up the determination of goodwill. Although the Housing Act. which is under his control, deals with expropriation for housing purposes, expropriations in terms of the Bill before us are for the purpose of clearing up slums, to proclaim group areas and for the acquisition of land for public purposes. It seems inconsistent that the basis for the determination of market value and compensation under the Community Development Act should be different from the basis on which it is determined under the Housing Act.

These are, however, matters of detail. I have indicated that we shall support this measure at the Second Reading, The further details can be discussed during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker the hon. member for Green Point has dealt very fully with our views on this Bill, but I should like some further information from the hon. the Minister in regard to clause 5. This clause deals with the change of names. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what the purpose of this clause is. In Johannesburg we have had certain problems in this regard. A certain organization has wanted to change the names of certain streets. The application for the changes was considered by the City Council and then refused. That is how the situation stands at present. Is it the intention that this clause will override city councils or other local authorities who decide that they do not want the name of a street or a suburb changed? I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us what the intention of this clause is and how it is going to be used.

Mr. Speaker, in reply to the last question by the hon. member for Parktown, I should like to point out that this provision deals only with the question of changing certain names. Let us take the position of District Six, for example, or an area which used to be an Indian area. The names in such an area would probably be Indian names. If such an area were to become a white area, the names would no longer fit in with what we have in mind. It is possible that streets would be completely changed, and there is nothing in the Act at present which gives the Development Board the power to give names to such streets. That is all that this provision implies. When a completely new development takes place, the Development Board will have the power to name streets. I am not very interested when it comes to the names of streets, and so on. I must say that I travelled on the De Villiers Graaff freeway between Pretoria and Vereeniging. As far as I am concerned, that is the most pleasant part of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I know of. It is a very good freeway and travels very well. The hon. member can be very proud to have his name linked with that freeway.

How about a Cassius Coetzee way?

Cassius Coetzee? Well, I am “the bestest”, of course!

The hon. member for Green Point referred to the question of the proclamation and deproclamation of group areas. I can just tell the hon. member that I do not deal with that particular aspect. It falls under the authority of the hon. the Minister of Planning. He agrees with me that the proclamation and deproclamation of group areas should be limited to only very essential cases. As a matter of fact, I must tell you quite frankly, I hate this whole idea of proclaiming certain group areas and then deproclaiming it again later. I think it is ridiculous. These things, however, do happen. It is inevitable. We are human beings and we make mistakes.

Even you?

I cannot hear you.

I said “even you”?

Even me making mistakes? Yes, even me. These mistakes are made. In the past it has been the law that every amount over R1,000 must be dealt with by this Parliament. Last year this was changed in order that payments may be made up to R5,000. The amendment to the Act was however framed in such a way that there was no certainty. The legal advisers asked us to change it as it has been amended now. We can now go up to R5,000 without reference to the House of Assembly and the Other Place. I, however, have to table all the items that are expended in this way. There will always therefore be an opportunity for them to be discussed in this House. I wish to thank the hon. members on the other side for supporting the Second Reading of this Bill. Any difference that there may still be, we can thrash out during the Committee Stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill before the House contains minor amendments which are necessary to two of the Acts administered by the Financial Institutions Office, i.e. the Insurance Act and the Unit Trusts Control Act. The Insurance Act requires an insurer to hold assets in the Republic in order to cover his net liabilities in the Republic. The kinds of assets to be held in this way are defined in part I and part II of the Third Schedule to the Act. The Act furthermore provides that the insurer must hold assets of the kind defined in part I, mainly investments in the public sector, with an aggregate value of not less than 30 per cent of his net liabilities in the Republic. The Registrar of Insurance is authorized to extend the loans, bonds and bills which constitute assets in terms of part I. It is now proposed to expand the list of assets in terms of part I so as to include loans to certain neighbouring states. Such loans, however, are domiciled outside the Republic. In order to comply with the requirement that an asset must be held in the Republic, an amendment of section 21 is required which will give such assets domestic status. Insurance companies will then, as is already the case with banks, building societies and pension funds, regard such investments as part of the amount which they are statutorily required to invest in the public sector. What has given rise to this is a request by the Botswana Government for this elevated status to be granted to its loans. With a view to the desirability of having closer ties with our neighbouring states the Government supported the request and undertook to introduce the enabling legislation at a later stage.

I now come to the proposed amendment of the United Trusts Control Act. The major portion of the assets of unit trust schemes in stock exchange securities consists of stocks quoted on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. Investments in these schemes therefore to a large extent follow the ups and downs of the said Stock Exchange. The sharp decline in the prices of quoted stocks over the past 12 months consequently caused the prices of units to decline considerably. The fluctuations in the prices of units influenced a large number of investors to sell units back to the management companies. The result of this was that early this year some schemes had already used all the cash at their disposal in order to finance repurchases. As a result the position was reached where the management companies would of necessity have had to sell shares out of their unit portfolios in order to obtain cash for further repurchases of units. The selling of large quantities of Stock Exchange securities on a declining market by various management companies competing with one another would have caused stock exchange prices, and therefore unit values as well, to continue spiralling downwards. Just the fear that such unit trusts would have to sell shares at unfavourable prices was already having an adverse effect on the confidence of investors in the share market.

In these circumstances the Government decided to allow schemes first to realize the Government and other approved securities which they had to hold in terms of the provisions of the Act, in order to prevent the selling of shares from the unit portfolios as far as possible. The Government also undertook to repurchase the Government securities of unit trust schemes where circumstances required it, while the management companies would then, from their own resources, have to increase their investments in units of their unit trusts proportionately until they held the prescribed maximum of 10 per cent of the value of the unit portfolios. In order to strengthen the confidence of investors, this arrangement was announced in a Press statement on 18th March, 1970, and it has been in operation since the beginning of April, 1970.

Practice has clearly shown that circumstances can arise where unit trusts must, in the public interest, be temporarily exempted from the requirement of holding approved securities. The proposed amendment will empower the Minister to grant such exemptions, and in order to validate the administrative action taken during the emergency earlier this year, it is proposed that the amendment be approved with retrospective effect.

Sir, we support this Bill. As the hon. the Deputy Minister says, it only has two clauses. We have no objection to the Third Schedule in terms of the Insurance Act being extended to territories other than the Republic, subject to the consent of the Registrar. But we would add a word of caution: We hope that the Registrar will use a great deal of care in giving his permission and secondly that there will be no pressure from the Government—I do not mean legal pressure—on insurance companies or building societies to invest in these bonds. We all want to help our neighbours as best we can, but these are the underlying securities for a great number of investors in South Africa who have complete faith in the stability of the organizations in which they are investing. Although we agree that the power which is being given in terms of this clause is correct, we hope that it will be carefully used.

The second clause, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has told us, implements an undertaking which the hon. the Minister of Finance gave some while ago after we had had a rather disastrous decline in stock exchange prices which very considerably affected the unit companies. I do not know whether I understood the hon. the Deputy Minister correctly, but I understand that no companies have applied to the Minister for permission to reduce their 15 per cent investment in Government stocks on the approved list, and one wonders how necessary this particular clause is. The hon. the Deputy Minister has said that circumstances may arise where this will be necessary. This may well be so. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister will tell us whether the right to ask the Government for this relaxation has been used up till now, because I think it would create more confidence if the public knew that although this provision is now on the statute Book, it has not been used or has only been used to a very minor extent. If the hon. the Deputy Minister has that information I think the House would like to have it. Apart from that, Sir, we support the Bill.

As far as the hon. member for Parktown’s remarks on the first clause are concerned, I think I can give him the assurance—it is logical that this will be the case—that those powers will be exercised with the necessary discretion. I do not have the precise information for which he asked in respect of the second clause, but I am under the impression that when the concession was made, the need was a real one, but the statutory authority did not exist. Unfortunately I cannot say whether actual representations were made by the schemes concerned. I am inclined to accept that this was in fact the case. But there, too. the position arose that steps were taken which now have to be covered properly by legislation.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill before the House contains minor amendments which are urgently required to facilitate the implementation of the provisions of the Act. The proposed amendments do not, however, interfere with the basic objectives of the Act.

One of the foundation stones of the Act is a definition of finance charges. This concept at present includes any valuable consideration which is paid in respect of any money-lending transaction or credit transaction. In respect of accounts from which withdrawals are made by means of cheques, banking institutions have a service charge for the services which such a banking institution renders to a client by keeping account of all deposits paid into such an account and of all withdrawals made from it. The said service charge is known as a ledger fee and is charged by banking institutions irrespective of whether a cheque account shows a debit or a credit balance. As such fees are therefore not charged as finance charges, the amendment proposes to exclude. them. The implementation of the Act is considerably facilitated where finance charges can be determined with the aid of the tables, published in terms of the Act. Experience has shown that the tables could be used to a greater extent if a few small amendments are effected to the existing provisions of the Act. Firstly, the tables can be used only in respect of transactions where payment of the capital debt and finance charges takes place by way of regular payments. The definition of such payments excludes a transaction where any one instalment differs by more than 10 per cent from any other instalment in a series of equal instalments. Although it is deemed necessary to retain the limit of 10 per cent where one instalment is larger than other instalments in a series, it is deemed necessary, because of practical problems, to suspend the limit in the case where an instalment (usually the last one) is smaller than any other instalment.

In the second place, an increase, i.e. from 18 per cent to 18.25 per cent, is proposed in the maximum rate of finance charges per year which may be levied in respect of smaller money-lending transactions and in respect of credit transactions. The purpose of this increase is to make possible the predominant use of an additive rate of 10 per cent per year for the calculation of finance changes. According to the published tables the additive rate is 9.9 per cent for obtaining a maximum finance charges rate of 18 per cent per year in respect of monthly instalments which extend over a period of 13 months to 30 months, that is to say, the period predominantly used in commerce. The use of a percentage containing a fraction for calculating finance charges correctly, leaves the door open for faulty calculations and such a percentage is difficult to handle, in view of the particular circumstances found in commerce. The proposed increase should therefore facilitate the implementation of the Act considerably, while it will result in a negligible additional charge to finance charges.

The last amendment, which is proposed for the purpose of promoting the use of the published tables, will make it possible for a moneylender and a credit grantor to levy finance charges at a lower rate than the annual finance charge rate disclosed in the instrument of debt. This is a concession which will facilitate the implementation of the Act considerably, and which does not interfere with the basic objective of the Act. In fact, it will benefit borrowers and credit receivers.

The Act at present provides that a borrower and a credit receiver are entitled to a reduction of an instalment where finance charges constitute part of it and where such instalment is paid before the date on which it becomes due. It is now proposed to make it clear that a borrower and a credit receiver will only be entitled to a reduction where finance charges were actually levied for the period by which the payment of an instalment was advanced.

Apart from the matters already referred to, the Bill also envisages the consistent application of certain concessions already contained in the Act, and to exempt a moneylender from the obligation to supply a banking institution with a copy of an instrument of debt, where such a banking institution concludes a money-lending transaction as a borrower. The reason for this concession is that a banking institution from the nature of its business takes funds from the general public and that the prescribed procedure is therefore redundant.

The amendments envisaged by this Bill stem from representations made by building societies, banks and representative bodies of commerce and should facilitate the implementation of the Act considerably.

We welcome this Bill. It is a matter which commerce and industry have been concerned about for some little while. All the Bill in effect does is to correct some anomalies which have become apparent since the original Act was passed in 1968. I think the fact that so few amendments are required to the original Bill shows great credit to the Select Committee which dealt with the Bill. These are small matters which have arisen in practice and are now being corrected. We therefore support the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Hon. members are aware that the Egg Control Scheme, which is a surplus disposal scheme, was instituted under the Marketing Act with the chief purpose of stabilizing the egg industry. This is being done by guaranteeing producers a fixed minimum price in respect of eggs being sold to packers of the Egg Board, in some cases by producers directly to the Board. All surplus eggs, for which packers cannot find a local market, are taken over by the Egg Board at predetermined prices. For the major portion of these surplus purchases the Egg Board must find a market overseas.

Over the past decade egg production in the Republic has increased sharply. Egg exports at present amount to about 15 per cent of the total production. Between July, 1960, and June, 1970, the Egg Board purchased an annual average of about 520,000 cases of eggs in the Republic. For the 1969-’70 season the purchases amount to 668,000 cases. Surplus production took on large proportions, particularly in the Western Cape, and over the last decade the annual average purchases in this area amounted to about 300,000 cases, by comparison with 439,000 cases in the 1969-70 season.

Coupled with the increasing quantity of eggs for which the Board had to find a market, overseas marketing possibilities gradually weakened. The loss on eggs that are exported amounts at present to about R3.50 per case. The overall loss, during the Board’s past two financial yeas, was about R2.2 million a year.

The losses on eggs that are exported are defrayed from the revenue from levies which the Egg Board imposes on eggs sold in the main consumer centres. The levies at present amount to as much as 3 cents a dozen, and the total amount which the Board collects in this way is about R2.5 million—of which R2.2 million goes to the export losses and about R300,000 to the Board’s administration costs.

In an endeavour to promote a better relationship between production and consumption, the Egg Board lowered its floor price, adjusting it to a level that can be regarded as relatively low—at present about 16½ per cent per dozen large eggs. Although local consumption is increasing rapidly, it is nevertheless being surpassed by the increase in production.

The Egg Board’s statistics indicate that egg production, coupled with the rapid technological development in the industry, is to an extent inclined to become concentrated in larger production units. According to data obtained by the Egg Board in June, 1969, from producers who are keeping more than 200 laying hens, there were only 149 producers out of a total of 1,430 in the Republic with more than 10,000 laying hens. This group owns more than 65 per cent of the laying hens owned by those 1,430 producers. In recent times, not only have existing units considerably increased the extent of their production, but others, who envisage producing on a considerably large scale, have also entered the industry, the South African Poultry Association and the Egg Board have also repeatedly made representations that steps be taken to combat the considerable expansion of production.

In the light of the circumstances in the industry, injudicious additional expansion of production could cause the Egg Board considerable financial problems, and this could quite possibly also bring about a collapse of the domestic price structure. At prevailing prices, levies and losses on export, the Egg Board is unable to handle much greater surpasses.

Although I am convinced that price, as the main regulating factor of production and marketing, must be retained, and I therefore cannot agree to its being disregarded, I have nevertheless come to the conclusion that it has become essential to take steps to restrict producers who intend to increase their numbers by thousands. At this stage there is no possibility of absorbing so many additional eggs at once.

With the proposed legislation the intention is therefore to exercise control over the expansion in production, and not to restrict the expansion of production and the tendency in the industry towards concentration. The chief aim of the Bill is therefore to grant authorization for the making of regulations prohibiting excessive expansion by individual producers when a state of over production prevails in the egg industry. The regulations will only be operative for as long as that state continues, and will be lifted as soon as the supply of surplus eggs to the Egg Control Board is within reasonable limits.

The regulations will prohibit the keeping by any person of more than a prescribed number of laying hens for egg production, except by way of a permit issued by a prescribed officer of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. In the permit the maximum number of laying hens, which the permit holder may keep, will be specified.

I have already indicated that it is the intention to restrict only excessive expansion. I think that extensions, by a single producer, or more than 10,000 laying hens a year can be regarded as excessive under the circumstances. The proposed control will therefore apply only in respect of production units of 10,000 or more laying hens. A person newly entering the industry will initially be able to start with a maximum of 10,000 laying hens, while existing producers will not be allowed to extend their flocks annually by more than 10,000.

From the nature of the case existing interests will, of course, have to be protected. In this connection the Bill provides that a producer, who on 28th February, 1970, kept a number of laying hens for egg production, shall be entitled to a permit for at least the number of laying hens kept by him on the said date. The issuing of permits will take place according to the discretion of an officer of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. However, that officer will not be able to make any decision in connection with a permit without consulting a committee which the Egg Control Board will constitute for this purpose. Anyone who is dissatisfied with a decision of the proper officer shall, in terms of the regulations, be granted the right to appeal to the Minister against the decision. It is proposed that the Minister shall then be granted the power to reconsider the decision and to make any recommendation he may deem fit. I should like to emphasize that the proposed control measures will not be applied so as to obstruct the productions of eggs for the chick or broiler chicken industries. The number of laying hens, which chick and broiler chicken producers will be able to keep in terms of a permit, will therefore not be restricted.

In conclusion I want to point out that the producer organizations concerned, as well as the Egg Control Board, support the principle of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister introduced this Bill very briefly. I want to tell him at once that we on this side of the House have no objection to the idea that there will indeed be control over the production of chicken eggs in South Africa, but in this legislation before the House we are not only dealing with the control over the production of eggs, but also with the hon. the Minister’s powers, as defined in clause 2. We are here not only to protect the producer and the consumer, but also to examine the powers of the hon. the Minister and the rights of this body. Therefore I want to tell the Minister straight away what our proposal is. I move as an amendment—

That is nonsense. You have hatched all those eggs.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member has more knowledge of addled eggs, but we on this side of the House, as I have said, are also concerned about the Bill as presented to us. We are not only concerned about the matter which the hon. the Minister put forward. We on this side of the House intensified, and the production of eggs is no longer an activity exclusive to the farmer; it has almost completely become a type of farm industry. Consequently local production has decreased considerably, while the production of chicken eggs on the outskirts of our cities has increased tremendously. I think that in the interests of the discussion it is also necessary to look at the question of how eggs are marketed in South Africa. The scheme is only applicable when one comes to people who deal with eggs in the course of trade, or who are concerned with their production. Minimum prices are usually guaranteed to producers and to packers who want to supply the Egg Control Board directly, and surplus eggs are usually sold to the Board. Producers and packers may also, on the local market, sell directly to the consumer, or to whomever they wish. A particular problem facing egg producers is the price gap between flush and scarce seasons. This has mainly disappeared in recent times as a result of improved methods. The battery system is now in use everywhere. I think that most hon. members who have driven about here in Cape Town, or in any other urban area, know what I am referring to. The urban and peri-urban egg producer usually sells his eggs at a much higher price than the minimum price laid down by the Egg Control Board, because he is able to sell directly to the consumer and to the retailer. The hon. the Minister was quite right when he indicated that there is a tremendous increase in the production of eggs around our controlled areas. Let us. for example, look at page 68 of the report of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. There it is stated that in the uncontrolled areas, from 1966 to 1968-’69, there was an increase in production of from 2,200,000 cases of 30 dozen eggs each in 1966 to 2,600,000 cases of 30 dozen eggs each in 1968-’69. In the course of only two years production has therefore increased tremendously. There was also a problem, i.e. that between the months of July and March there are many more eggs produced than consumed. Then we usually find that during this period the Egg Control Board has to buy up a tremendous amount of eggs, particularly from the packers, but also from producers. It is also interesting to know that the packers usually have to arrange their own finances with the producers. Only when they have surpluses can they sell them to the Egg Control Board. The Egg Control Board in turn only exports the surpluses, which are usually 15 per cent to 17 per cent of the annual production. At times the surplus can be as high as 60 per cent of the weekly production. Fortunately for the egg producer there is also an increase in the export of eggs. So it appears from the figures of the past two years. In 1968, 209,000 cases of 30 dozen eggs each were exported. In the past year, 1969, about 254,000 cases of 30 dozen each were exported. In other words, this represents an increase of almost 50,000 cases in the past year or so. But we understand the Egg Control Board’s problems, as well as those of the egg producer. However, to promote exports is usually very difficult, because the countries to which we are exporting are themselves encouraging their own egg production. Some of the foremost countries to which we have usually been exporting in the past year or so, have been in the East. But, as the hon. the Minister sketched the picture, the Egg Control Board does, in fact, suffer tremendous losses. Because it suffers losses, and because there is over production, some or other form of control is, in fact, necessary to-day. In 1968-’69, for example, we suffered export losses, in respect of egg production, totalling more than R2 million. We on this side of the House therefore realize the problem facing the egg producers of South Africa. We also realize the hon. the Minister’s problem very well.

But you do not want to help solve it.

Of course we are prepared to help solve it. The hon. Chief Whip has no need whatsoever to make that remark. But how would we like to solve this problem? I do, in fact, believe that the hon. the Minister held discussions with egg producers and with the Egg Control Board. But I am also convinced that there are many egg producers who do not like the powers which the hon. the Minister is appropriating for himself in clause 2. for example, I want to deal with some of these provisions.

The hon. Minister said that in clause 2 (1) (c) he wants to make provision for a committee to assist him in the issuing of permits. If the hon. the Minister is prepared to allow such a committee, why did he not in the first place nominate such a committee? My information and that of many members on this side, is that the egg producers of South Africa would not be at all reluctant about the appointment of such a committee, which deals in the first place with the permits, and which consists of persons representative of the producers, the packers and the consumers. They are prepared to help the hon. the Minister in controlling egg production in South Africa. But under clause 2 the hon. the Minister says that he is taking all the authority upon himself. He is now going to make regulations in order to exercise full control over any person, in spite of the good observations he made in his Second-Reading speech, i.e. that only persons having more than 10,000 laying hens will have to apply in the future, etc. But here is an industry which is worth a great deal to South Africa and to the producers. But just as valuable as it is to the producer, so important is it also to the consumer in South Africa. If it is really the hon. the Minister’s wish to co-operate with these people, we say that he must in the first place create such a body which will be able to supply him with the information and carry out his task. Then it would at least be democratic.

But the Egg Control Board …

I know that the hon. member is now going to tell me that the Egg Control Board is also requesting it. But how is the Egg Control Board itself constituted? When it comes to the egg control scheme in South Africa, who are the persons serving on the Control Board?

The producers.

Precisely. Sir, the producers. We have no objection to the producers forming the majority on such a committee. The point I want to make is that it will be a matter for discussion and negotiation by a Select Committee. The hon. the Minister is in no hurry. He has the time. Within the next few weeks such a Select Committee could be appointed. The interested bodies could then ask us for the opportunity to give evidence before us. We on this side of the House say very clearly that we are prepared to allow a form of control over egg production in South Africa. It is not necessary for me to repeat this. All we would like to see is that the hon. the Minister’s powers in this connection be restricted to a minimum, and that the egg producers of South Africa themselves are chiefly exercising control in this respect.

Do you now want to kill the smallholder.

No, that is not the aim of this side of the House. I do not know how the hon. member can advance that argument. The United Party’s motion specifically amounts to our wanting to protect the interests of all bodies concerned in this industry. Let us just look at the powers that are being granted to the Minister in terms of clause 2 (1) (g). He may make regulations which “suspend, either generally or specially and to such extent as may be prescribed, the operation of any provision of any law or the common law …” I have seldom if ever seen an hon. Minister appropriating such powers for himself. Why can it not be left to the industry itself—let us call it, for the sake of argument, an egg production control committee—to exercise certain powers defined by a Select Committee when this appears necessary to them? The hon. the Minister will then still be able to do precisely what he wants to. He will still always be able to control the production. He will still be able to protect the producer and the consumer. I am afraid that we cannot support this legislation at all. The hon. the Deputy Minister must not think that he is the only man who is in touch with the producers. We on this side are equally in touch with them. We are making this suggestion specifically because we are in touch with them.

And the Poultry Association?

Let me tell the Deputy Minister at once that individual members of the Poultry Association were also consulted.

The suggestion was unanimous.

It is an easy matter to say that the suggestion was unanimous, but if the hon. the Minister says so, let us see by way of a Select Committee whether these people are still as anxious to accept this type of legislation. In this connection I want to urge the hon. the Deputy Minister. He has the time. There is no hurry. For the sake of good Parliamentary democracy, about which I think the Deputy Minister is as concerned as we are, I believe that he would be acting wisely if he accepted the United Party’s motion to suspend the proceedings on this Bill at this stage and to refer it to a Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newton Park’s behaviour was typical of what one can expect from a United Party Opposition. It was quite clear from the hon. member’s whole argument that he did not know on exactly which chair to sit. He leaned ever so slightly towards the consumer, and then again towards the large capitalistic groups. I have some idea, although I have no proof, that that particular group perhaps had a small friendly meeting with the hon. member for Newton Park. Hence the fact that the hon. member is now moving that the Second Reading of the Bill be set aside and the subject of the Bill be referred to a Select Committee for investigation.

It is very clear that they are specifically creating an opportunity for one group whose evidence we do not have, i.e. that group that wants to create a monopoly with respect to egg production. We have the evidence, as clearly stated by the hon. the Deputy Minister, that this Bill is the result of representations made by the South African Poultry Association. There is surely no body in South Africa that has the interests of egg producers, etc., at heart other than specifically this Poultry Association. This Poultry Association has already asked the hon. the Minister, not once, but repeatedly, that legislation be introduced to institute control. The Egg Board also made similar representations to the hon. the Minister. These matters have also been discussed by the Agricultural Unions, which made requests along those lines. The Opposition only wants to gather evidence from one specific group. It is also this specific group that they subsequently want to protect with the so-called committee. They actually want to give the protection at the expense of the members—mostly the small producers—of the South African Poultry Association. That is why the hon. member for Newton Park shifted his weight from one chair to another, and eventually landed between them with the feeble old excuse that they wanted the matter referred to a Select Committee. It is just because they want evidence from that one side in order to discuss the matter here.

We have the facts before us according to which we can deal with the merits of this Bill. Before I come to that I want to say something about what the hon. member for Newton Park had to say. He has misgivings about the hon. the Minister’s powers. But no excessive powers are being taken here. On the contrary, a committee or board is being constituted here in terms of clause 2 (1) (c), to which the hon. member referred. That board will function in accordance with specific regulations. These regulations will be published. If there is an appeal, the hon. the Minister will, in considering it, have to act and make decisions in accordance with those regulations that will be made after this legislation has been passed. Can the hon. member not understand that? The hon. the Minister will not act contrary to the interests of the industry. In considering any appeal the hon. the Minister will most certainly not act before he has first consulted the group concerned and regarded the matter from both sides. Even that argument of the hon. member does not hold any water at all. It is a petty, ineffective argument that he put forward.

It is very clear to me that the reference to this committee of inquiry is, in fact, based on their disinclination to accede to the representations made by the small egg-producers. The majority of our country’s small egg-producers are established in the country districts, round about our urban and township areas. Those are the people whom the Egg Control Board carried with their levy. The levy is so great that it is now already 3 cents a dozen, as against a total income for large eggs of 16½ per cent a dozen. This indicates that there is only a meagre profit.

Now there is yet another problem. Under the present set-up the Egg Control Board is compelled to export 15 per cent of the domestic production, and notwithstanding the fact that they do so the price on the foreign market is low, while the domestic market price for the consumer is considerably high. This is an anomaly. It is something that must be put right. I do not want to claim here this evening that the present retail price of eggs to the consumer is economical. According to my own judgment I claim that it is excessively high by comparison with the price which the producer obtains. Those hon. members are making pleas for these large companies that are well-endowed with capital, because allegations are most probably being made to the effect that if this product is mass produced it will be made available to the South African consumer, as one now already hears, at a price of 8 or 9 cents a dozen. But we surely know that they will only make eggs available to the consumer public at that price for a short while. They will only do so until such time as they have the monopoly in their hands. Then those prices will increase to such an extent that they will be more uneconomical than they are to-day.

The hon. member has already referred to the presence of over-production. One can see very clearly that these statements are not in the least aimed at benefiting the industry. This is only a political game that is being played. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will not reprimand me if I stray from the point a little. I want to refer to what happened recently. I want to say that even when this product was handled a little roughly at meetings and a speaker was struck, the National Party was charged with this. Those people who made the accusation could never even prove … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member cannot treat eggs so roughly.

This is sufficient proof to me that the hon. Opposition does not have the right contact with the producers at all. I have referred to the present levy already being 3 cents a dozen. Notwithstanding that high levy the Egg Board has throughout the years, as the previous speaker also indicated, suffered an annual loss of more than R2 million. As a result of this shortage in the Levy Fund, either the levy must be increased or the price must be decreased. This is not in the interests of the South African egg producer, hence these representations and this legislation before the House to-day. I just want to emphasize that I can reach no other conclusion but that the Opposition is dancing to the tunes played for them by large companies that are well-endowed with capital. These export losses are depressing. We are compelled, not only as a result of the representations made to us, but also in the interests of those producers, to extend price and production control. I am certain that this legislation could be interpreted as eventually being in the interests of the present producers, hence the fact that in this legislation we have the provision that if someone is already in possession of 10,000 hens the legislation is not applicable to him. But when he wants to acquire additional quantities for production purposes, this legislation will place restrictions upon him. [Interjection.]

Sir, I cannot hear what the hon. member for Newton Park is muttering there. In the strongest terms at my disposal I want to ask the House not to accept that amendment, because the Opposition is only playing for time to see whether they cannot get anything more. This legislation is the result of representations. The Minister is obtaining certain powers; clause 2 provides for what kind of regulations may be made, and I have not the slightest doubt that the egg producers of South Africa, as well as the consumers, will at a later stage thank this Government for this measure.

Sir …

You are now like an old broody hen.

Let me say at once to satisfy the curiosity of the hon. the Minister of Community Development and others that I do not very often rise on farmers’ matters, and I have certainly never had to rise (or sit) on eggs in this House before. I rise not as an expert on eggs, but I rise to support the amendment moved by my hon. friend, the member for Newton Park, as a Parliamentarian and as someone who knows very little about eggs …

Then you should remain silent.

That hon. member should also remain silent. Indeed, Sir, after the last election I am surprised to hear from this Government that there might in fact be some surplus of eggs!

The Saps threw the eggs; I saw them myself.

The hon. member for Harrismith has, I think, completely missed the point. He says that it is typical of the United Party to propose the amendment which it has proposed and that is that this Bill should go to a Select Committee before the Second Reading. The hon. member for Harrismith demonstrated just how necessary that was. He says that the hon. member for Newton Park talked about the powers of the hon. the Minister but that these were very necessary for the purpose of control. What he does not appreciate is that this Bill does not just give power to the hon. the Minister in respect of some defined principle. The principle of this Bill is a complete abandonment of any powers that Parliament ever had so that the Minister can deal with the situation, but at this stage he does not know how he is going to deal with it.

But, Sir, the hon. gentleman went further. He said that we were trying to give protection to the big boys; that we were capitalists defending the big producers and that this was a plea for the big companies. But if the hon. gentleman looks at clause 2 (4) he will see that it says—

As I understand the position, there are some big companies which had as many as 500,000 laying hens on that day, Sir, that is really “big time” and certainly 200,000, as I understand the position, would not be an exaggeration. But the hon. the Minister in his speech went even further and said—

Surely, Sir, you are fairly “big time” when you can increase the number of your laying hens by 10,000 a year.

Surely what we are concerned with here is the control of the production of eggs. As my hon. friend has said, we appreciate and accept that there must be some control of this; the question is how you can control it. If I may say so, I have never seen a Bill which gives powers such as this one does. What is the principle of this Bill? It is not just, as it says in the long title, to provide for the restriction of the production of eggs. It is a Bill which in effect says that so far as the control of the production of eggs is concerned, this Parliament abandons all its powers and duties and empowers the Minister to make laws for the restriction of the production of eggs—not for the encouragement or the control of the production of eggs, but for its restriction. Sir, what clause 2 says in effect is this: “We feel that there should be control; we feel that there should be restrictions but we do not know what on earth to do about it; so we want to give the Minister all the power that Parliament would have without any of the discussion, without any of the debate, without any of the interested parties taking part in the making of that decision, which will be made in a dark room somewhere in Pretoria and not in the light of day here in Parliament or in any other place or even before a board.” This is what the clause does.

Sir, you either believe in Parliament as a Government or you do not, and clause 2 of this Bill is tantamount to the absolute and complete abandonment of this principle. This may seem unimportant because it has to do with eggs but, Sir, when you adopt that principle once, you step on to the slippery side from which there is no return. Sir, it is not a question of what the egg producers want, as the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Harrismith were at pains to point out; that has nothing to do with it. We all agree that some control is necessary. What is under discussion here is what we on both sides of the House want in respect of parliamentary government in South Africa. Even this Government has been at pains in the past— no doubt due to the prodding from this side of the House, but on occasion they have done it of their own accord—to see to it that whenever a statute provides that a Minister or the Executive may amend an Act of Parliament or suspend the common law, provision was also made for a subsequent review by this Parliament.

What about the control of the growing of sugar cane and vines? Parliament has no say.

This is axactly what we want to happen. Look at the sugar industry and the sort of scheme that the Act provides for where all the interested persons get together; an agreement is reached in terms of the Act; the Minister gives it his approval and then they organize themselves within that industry. The same thing happens in the wattle industry and that is exactly what we want to see happening in relation to this Egg Bill; we want the same system.

It is controlled by the industry and all persons concerned. And that is what we want in respect of this Bill, in respect of egg production as well. If hon. members would look at this they would realize that it does not just have to do with eggs. Look at page 5, clause (1) (g), which says that the Minister has the right to make regulations for restrictions and may also suspend, either generally or specially, and to such extent as may be prescribed, the operation or any provision of any law, including an Act of this Parliament, or the common law, in so far as it may in the opinion of the Minister be inconsistent with or hamper the enforcement of the regulations or prohibit any act the performance of which is reasonably necessary for or incidental to the effective application of the regulations or the achievement of the objects of this Act. Sir, where have you ever seen something like that before? Then it goes further.

It is only concerned with this measure.

Yes, but this Parliament is concerned with every single aspect of life and it is certainly concerned with the suspension of its Acts, the Acts it makes. The common law may also be suspended in this respect, and people’s rights are affected. All sorts of people’s rights are affected, not only the producers but also the consumers and the marketers. Then let us go further down and look at (j), which say that the regulations may provide that any person who contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of any regulations made by the Minister or commits any act which in the opinion of the Minister may defeat the achievement of the objects of this Act, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding R5,000 or imprisonment for a year or both. That is the penalty if he has done something which “in the opinion of the Minister” is a contravention. Sir, really there is a limit to all things, and surely there ought to be a limit also to the executive mind of this Government.

Let me demonstrate how even this Government has felt about such things in the past. In 1961 there was the Preservation of Coloured Areas Act. The hon. the Minister of Defence will remember it because he dealt with it as the responsible Minister and he felt it necessary in that Act to provide that the Governor-General may by proclamation in the Gazette and upon a date fixed therein repeal in whole or in part any law, including an Act of Parliament, or provision thereof which applies to an incorporated area and which in the opinion of the Governor-General is in conflict with the provisions of this Act. It was felt necessary to do so, but the hon. the Minister of his own accord felt that this was so far-reaching a power that Parliament should have taken from it, should hand over to the Minister in effect the power to repeal an Act of Parliament, that he felt it necessary to provide the usual formula that the Minister shall cause a copy of that proclamation to be laid on the Table of both Houses 14 days after its promulgation for a positive resolution of this House. In other words, it was provided that it would cease to have the effect of law if within 30 days of having been laid on this Table it had not been approved by Parliament, in that case, and by resolution. In other words, provision was made that if you give that power to amend and alter Acts of Parliament without Parliament’s consent, you must give Parliament a veto, but not just a veto in the sense of a negative resolution, the sort of thing we find in the Animal Parasites Act, which was amended here this afternoon, where it is laid on the Table and it can be repealed by a resolution; that it be laid here and that no rules of this House can delay it, and if it is not approved of it shall lapse. That is what the Minister did in that case, and quite rightly.

Then in 1961 we had the Commonwealth Relations Act where the Minister charged with the administration of any law in terms of which any proclamation is issued under section 1 shall lay copies of such proclamation on the Tables of both Houses, again provided that the Governor-General may suspend any law including an Act of Parliament, but it shall be laid on the Tables of both Houses and cease to have the force of law if 30 days after it has been laid on the Table it has not been approved of by Parliament, by a resolution of both Houses. That was quite right. No self-respecting Parliament would renounce such a power without such provisions. Then again, even under the Group Areas Act of 1966 we have the same provisions.

Order! The hon. member has mentioned sufficient examples and must now come back to the Bill.

Then may I just mention that under the Group Areas Act of 1966 there was a similar provisions. Then we have the most interesting one of all, which relates to (j), which says that the Minister can provide for penalties of R5.000 or one year’s imprisonment or both if in his opinion someone commits an offence. And yet we found that in 1966 in the Civil Defence Act, which received the approval of both sides of this House, it was provided that regulations could be made to achieve the objects envisaged. We can appreciate what this dealt with. This dealt with an emergency situation and regulations could be made and offences could be created, and the offences created could not carry a penalty of more than a R200 fine or six months’ imprisonment or both, and it was felt at that time, and quite rightly, that that should be subject also to a positive resolution; in other words, no such regulation could come into force unless it was positively approved of by this Parliament. But now in the Year of Our Lord 1970, we find a fine of R5,000 or imprisonment for one year or both imposed as a penalty, without a Parliamentary resolution.

We are dealing with millionaires now.

That is a very interesting observation, that we are dealing with millionaires now. But it does not matter, We are dealing with people and with Parliament and with the laws of his country, whether those people are millionaires or not. But it is very interesting that the Deputy Minister says that this Bill is to deal with millionaires.

It must be a rich man who has more than 10,000 fowls.

If you are going to deal with millionaires or with people who have 10,000 or 20,000 fowls, surely the Minister knows what he wants to do, and surely it is not beyond the wit of this hon. Minister or the Government—or is it?—to devise a law which says exactly what it wants to achieve, which says what the principles are and sets them out and then deals with them on their merits, so that we can debate it and agree or disagree on it. But that is not what is in this Bill. When the Minister says we are dealing with millionaires, he makes me even more frightened than I was before.

Are you a millionaire, Mike?

No, I am not a millionaire. If I were sitting over there I might be, but I am not.

Order! What does the hon. member mean by that?

I just mean that I might have more opportunity.

The hon. member should not do any egg-dancing as far as this is concerned.

Sir, I would have some part of me so well in some other dairy product that I would not need to do an egg-dance, if I was over there. The Minister will remember that last year we had the South-West Africa Affairs Bill where we had the same sort of problem, and we reached a compromise. In terms of the Bill the State President could do certain things in regard to South-West Africa without reference to Parliament. We objected and in the end the hon. the Minister in charge came to a compromise with us that this position would only last for a few years. One hopes that the hon. the Deputy Minister here will do the sensible thing. This session will still last some time. The hon. the Leader of the House can tell us how long it will last. Is it something like six weeks?

There is no harm in guessing.

Seeing we are all agreed on the principle which motivated this Bill, namely that some control is necessary, surely a select committee as suggested by my hon. friend can deal with this matter?

Within three weeks.

The hon. member for Newton Park will be the leader of our delegation on that committee and he says within three weeks. He has made a very reasonable suggestion and I think it is very necessary to do so. In a select committee one can get through so much more work much more quickly.

Make it four weeks.

We have this offer of four weeks. When one looks at some of the provisions of this Bill one sees that it is really very necessary to have a select committee. Clause 2 (5) for example, reads as follows:

How does one declare regulations to be operative for an indefinite period? This is the sort of thing one finds in the Bill. In clause 2 (7) it is provided that any proclamation must be laid upon the Table of the House within six weeks after the date of publication thereof. In terms of the Interpretation Act a proclamation must be laid upon the Table within two weeks, but this one has to be laid upon the Table after six weeks. It is quite unbelievable …

Two weeks is not practicable.

Two weeks is what the law says and two weeks is what happens. Why should it not be practicable? After all, the proclamation has to be published in the Gazette. It is then impracticable for the hon. the Deputy Minister to lay it on the Table of this House within two weeks?

I am satisfied. We can alter it.

Thank you, I will keep you to that. In clause 7 one finds the extraordinary situation that “the State or its employees, the Minister, the board or its employees, an inspector or any other person exercising any power under this Act, shall not be liable in respect of anything done in good faith under the provisions of this Act” even if he is quite wrong and even if he has done somebody an injury. The only qualification is that he must do it in good faith, because he did not know what the law was, or. through complete stupidity or he did not know what his power was or what the regulations were.

I think that anyone who reads this Bill and thinks about it, will support the amendment moved by my hon. friend. In the interests of Parliament this is an amendment worthy of the support of everyone here. If it does not get it, it will merely be evidence of the further arrogance that this Government has adopted, not only towards Parliament, but towards the people whose rights are affected by it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat made wide detours but did not come near the problem of the egg producer. One could rightly say that he did an egg-dance without treading on the eggs. The hon. member struck up a hymn of praise about the parliamentary form of government, and about how this should be kept in order. He had even sharper criticism than the member preceding him, for the powers the hon. the Minister was now taking upon himself. Sir, is it at all possible for a Minister not to be invested with powers if he must exercise control over that product at the request of an industry? How can he then act in any way, to benefit that industry, without authority? We are dealing here with a Bill that was drawn up on the basis of representations from the industry itself. Now hon. members on the Opposition side say that they are also in touch with the producers, and that they also have their ears open. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that this legislation had the approval of the two recognized organizations in the poultry field, i.e. the South African Poultry Association and the Egg Control Board, but I gain the impression that hon. members on the opposite side of the House have been listening to a small group of people concerned in this industry. I gain the impression that they have been listening to that small group, a group which does not have the courage to speak openly to the Minister via the channels of their industry. If we want order in an industry such as this, that order must begin with the industry itself. I think that the hon. members who have been listening to that small group of people must go to them and say: “Recognize your organized channels and work through them.” Do not pretend to want something else by asking for a Select Committee. Sir, their point is that they want a Select Committee so that this small group of people will get the opportunity of telling their story to the world, and of creating the impression that they can supply the products to the consumers much more cheaply.

Surely the hon. member does not want to hide this if it is the truth?

Sir, we are dealing here with an industry that has for many years been an established one in various parts of our country, particularly here in the Western Cape. The over-all majority of the eggs within the boundaries of my constituency are produced in the Western Cape. When one looks at the figures one notices that the Western Cape produces almost half of the country’s eggs. One can therefore form an idea of the proportions the industry has assumed here in recent years. I should like to explain to hon. members why this is so. In the wine and fruit industries a farmer is limited to a small unit of land. As in other sectors of agriculture, it is also necessary in the wine and fruit industries for the animal factor to be introduced. I do not think that I have to explain this to hon. members. The wine or fruit farmer cannot keep a herd of livestock on a small piece of land. He cannot keep cattle or sheep in large numbers. He is therefore committed to the poultry industry, because he can easily control poultry on his small piece of land. For him that poultry serves the same function that livestock would serve in other circumstances, i.e. to take care of the manuring of his land.

That is why the poultry industry is woven into the Boland districts. Farmers have incurred large capital expenditure for the construction of modern battery systems. If action is not taken, as envisaged by this legislation, to exercise proper control over egg production, the stage will be reached when this particular group of farmers I have now described, as well as other farmers scattered throughout the country, will be driven to rack and ruin, with large capital losses being suffered in respect of the modern systems they have had constructed. This will result in production being concentrated in the hands of a few very large undertakings, which are in fact not farmers, but industrial undertakings. They will be undertakings that began to take an interest in eggs as a by-product because they are well-endowed with money and can tackle such production much more easily than an ordinary farmer can. I believe that the farmer must remain on the land and that nothing must be done to make it more difficult for him to exist. If there is one specific section of farming where this principle is true, it is the egg industry. We have now come up against a test as far as this is concerned. If action is not taken, as the Minister envisages with this legislation, these people will disappear from their land.

The hon. member who spoke before me had a great argument about the powers the Minister is now obtaining, which are actually taking the authority out of the hands of Parliament. But the hon. the Minister’s Vote comes under discussion here every year, and if in the implementation of this legislation a malpractice were perhaps to develop, hon. members have the right and the opportunity to criticize it, because that, after all, is how our democracy works. Hon. members have this right and this opportunity, and the hon. member for Newton Park will never fail to make use of it. My standpoint is that we dare not delay any longer in placing this industry on a sound footing, merely as a result of the egg-dance that was carried out here this evening in an attempt to get this matter referred to a Select Committee. I think that this is in the interests of a large number of our country’s farmers. It is also in the interests of the country’s consumers. Since the hon. member for Newton Park referred to the contemplated committee. I want to tell him that there are also representatives of the consumers on the Egg Control Board. Those representatives agreed that this legislation is necessary. Their views will also be included on this committee. Why must the hon. member see spectres now? I want to agree with my colleague here next to me who said that this evening the hon. member did not quite know on which chair to sit: he must either support the consumer, or a few large undertakings that had entered this field, or the existing industry. If we must put first things first then we have to agree that this is a necessary piece of legislation to which I should like to give my support.

Mr. Speaker, apart from the hon. Deputy Minister we have heard from two speakers on that side of the House. Apart from making my heart sore, I have come to the conclusion that these two hon. members for all the time they spend in this House, do not listen. I want to ask them both who in this House has pleaded for this legislation which is before the House to-day? The hon. the Minister is not here at the moment but the hon. Deputy Minister can inform the House that I am the one who pleaded for this legislation. None of the hon. members on the other side pleaded for it. Today they stand up and say that they are here to protect the interests of the farmers but where were they before? Did they help last year and the year before with my plea to the hon. the Minister to introduce this very legislation? No, Sir, there was no support from them then. But now they see a chance to play politics and to say to us that all we have at heart are the interests of a few large producers who want to establish a monopoly in this industry. If they had only listened before they would have heard the case I put to the hon. Deputy Minister which he accepted and which, I want to say, is the forerunner of this legislation we have here today. The forerunner of this legislation was the case I made out to obviate the establishment of such a monopoly, a monopoly which has developed in the Western Cape and which that hon. member for Stellenbosch now wants to support and retain. This is the type of monopoly which we can see developing in Natal and against which I am fighting. That is why we accept the principle of the Bill but my hon. friend from Durban (North) has told the House why we cannot accept the provisions of this Bill. We accept the principle. There must be control. We want a form of control but let us have a form of control as we have in the sugar industry or the wattle industry where the producers themselves control the industry. This is all we ask of the hon. the Deputy Minister. We accept the principle of the Bill. Let us have a Select Committee for the very reason that these two hon. members have mentioned. Let us hear from all sectors. I want to say here and now that I have heard from all sectors in this regard. I have had representations from the big boys with 300,000 and 400,0 birds who say that this legislation is aimed at them and who have asked us to protect their interests. I also have letters from small producers and small producer organizations who say, "For heaven’s sake, you must see that the hon. Minister does not put this through because this legislation is going to be used against us and the big hoys will be protected.”

I should like to see those letters.

I will show the hon. the Minister the letters. These people say that the big boys are going to be protected. I have had letters from consumers as well who want to know whether the Opposition is going to support this Government in regard to its legislation to protect …

I want to see the letters of the small producers.

The hon. the Deputy Minister knows that we can talk about this later. My time is limited and I have much to say on this matter. I have had representations from consumers who have asked me, “Are you as a member of the Opposition prepared to support that Government in the protection of inefficient producers of eggs, thereby keeping prices up?” This is the confusion which exists to-day in the minds of all producers and all consumers. That is why this side of the House, in its wisdom, has suggested to the hon. Deputy Minister that we will accept the principle that there should be some control over the production of eggs but that the matter should be referred to a Select Committee so that we can hear from all these different bodies and people. Let us give them every opportunity to make their representations. We have heard about the South Africa Poultry Association. Is the hon. Deputy Minister satisfied that this body really speaks with the voice of the majority of producers in this industry in South Africa?

Yes, definitely.

I am glad to hear that assurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister because the case has been put to me and colleagues of mine on this side of the House that the South African Poultry Association does not necessarily reflect the views of the majority of the poultry producers in this country. I am not going to decide on this matter. This is merely another reason why we should have a Select Committee to find out the true facts. Let us find out what the poultry producers want and let us also hear what the consumers want. Has the hon. the Deputy Minister consulted any consumer organizations? Has he consulted any trader organizations? Or has he only consulted the South Africa Poultry Association and the Egg Board? I want to say that even the Egg Board has been impugned. Even in this House I dare not repeat the things that have been said to me about the Egg Board.

Do consumers not have representation on the Egg Board?

Yes, consumers are represented on the Egg Board. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether it is his intention that the committee to which he has referred will be the Egg Board. Will he use the Egg Board for that committee?

Perhaps.

Will he use S.A.P.A.?

They will be represented on the committee.

This is the whole point. As the hon. member for Durban (North) has pointed out, the hon. the Deputy Minister is asking for a blank cheque. He does not tell us what he is going to do. He does not tell us how he is going to control production. He does not even tell us whether he is going to control production. What he says to the House in this Bill is this: “I am asking you to give me the powers that if perhaps I think I should control the production of eggs, I can carry on and do so”. That is what he is asking. As the hon. member for Durban (North) pointed out, the principle of this Bill is to give the hon. the Minister the power to make regulations if he considers it necessary. The principle is not that there should be control over the production of eggs. We are prepared to accept this principle and that is why we suggest that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Stellenbosch. He boasted that 50 per cent of the eggs produced in South Africa were produced in his constituency.

I did not say that. I was referring to the Western Cape.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. The hon. member said that 50 per cent of the eggs produced in South Africa were produced in the Western Cape. If one looks at page 69 of the Report of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing for the year 1968-’69, one finds the purchases made by the Board. These purchases by the board are virtually the surpluses in this country. The figures contained in the report reflect that during the past financial year the board purchased in the Western Cape 408,000 cases of 30 dozen eggs each out of a total of 633,000 cases purchased in the whole of the Republic. Now, Sir, that hon. member boasts about this. But what did the export of the surplus production at a loss cost the country?

The exports from the Western Province?

Yes, from the Western Province. They exported from the Western Province because the Western Province was over-produced. That is why a case can be made for the control of production of eggs. The loss in the Western Province alone in 1968-’69, calculated at the average loss that the board suffered of R3.66 per case, works out at R689,000. That was the loss as the result of over-production of eggs in the Western Province. The seven largest producers in the Western Province—and I hope the hon. member for Stellenbosch will listen to this—had between them 702,732 hens. The surplus production by those producer’s hens amounted to each one of them being subsidized by consumers throughout the Republic to the extent of R35,000 each in one year.

You are talking nonsense.

That is the surplus Production which that hon. member himself admitted was a by-product. They are not produced by egg farmers for the sake of producing eggs. They were produced by wine, table grape and fruit farmers. These eggs were a by-product. They do not need to have those eggs. They do not worry about producing those eggs at an economic rate. The hon. member admitted that himself.

You are talking nonsense.

They want the manure. The eggs are the by-product. The situation has developed because of the policy in establishing and maintaining a floor price and of buying in all the eggs irrespective of whether South Africa is over-produced or whether we are using all our consumption.

That is the position here in the Western Cape where you have not had an active organization of organized egg producers. Let us compare this situation with the situation in Natal where you have an organization called the Natal Commercial Poultry Producers Association. It is a voluntary organization of people who got together and faced up to the problems, not only of Natal, but of the Republic as a whole. It is an organization of poultry farmers, from those who have 200 to those who have over 25.000 hens but who have worked together. Six years ago they voluntarily limited their increase to 5 per cent per annum. That was approximately by the natural increase in consumption in Natal. Compared with the 408,000 cases of surplus eggs about which the hon. member for Stellenbosch boasts, Natal had only 18,000 cases surplus which were bought in by the board. It is a drop in the ocean, a mere 18,000 out of a total of 633,000 which were bought in by the board. Those are the producers which I am trying to protect to-day. And the hon. the Minister knows it. Those are the producers who have been responsible for, and who have shown a responsible attitude towards the industry and have looked after the industry. They now find themselves gate-crashed by vested interests that are coming in.

Why do you want a Select Committee? You are so convinced.

Let us consider this matter.

What do you want to consider there?

The hon. the Minister is not convinced that I am right. I thought that I convinced him last year that I was right. It is the powers that I am concerned about, the powers of what is going to be done, what is going to be accomplished and how it is going to be accomplished.