Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister in one of his speeches gave us certain limited details about the operation of the aid centres under the existing legislation. He referred to the fact that approximately 36 000 people had already been referred to these aid centres. If my figures were taken down correctly, approximately 2 910 had been discharged thereafter, 3 671 cases had been withdrawn, while in about 27 800 cases they had been sentenced. He described this as a success factor of 25 per cent. We would be very glad if the hon. the Minister would elaborate how he sees the system working now, more particularly whether he expects that it will be necessary to detain or hold over the people that are being referred to those centres while their cases are being considered. We have been fortunate enough to have seen the memorandum which he has produced. We are very grateful for that. In that memorandum the hon. the Minister refers to certain procedures which one can see will mean that people will have to be kept while their cases are being investigated. We would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would tell us in greater detail how he sees the system working now.

Mr. Chairman, before replying to the hon. member, I move as an amendment—

As I indicated in my Second Reading speech, the ideal is for a 24-hour service to be established as soon as possible for the aid centres. Accordingly I hope that the passing of this Bill by the House of Assembly will expedite the achievement of that ideal. Perhaps it would be best for me to read to the hon. member from a report by the manager of the aid centre which was established at the beginning of this year in Carr Street in Johannesburg. The verbatim report of the manager of the aid centre for the period 3rd to 6th January, 1972, reads as follows (translation)—

May I say at once that hon. members will understand that this is one of the most important reasons why we were obliged to locate the aid centres as near as possible to an ordinary Bantu Commissioner’s court for the proper functioning of these aid centres, otherwise you find yourself with transport problems which can become very difficult if you have many cases at an aid centre or at a Commissioner’s court, as is in fact the case in regard to these technical offences; then you do not only have the transport problem, but the costs in connection with that transport as well. The report reads (translation)—

At this stage I just want to tell hon. members—I think it will interest them—that the new aid centre at Carr Street in Johannesburg was opened on 3rd January, 1972. At that time there were 51 detainees. Twelve cases were withdrawn on the recommendation of the aid centre, i.e. 23,53 per cent; 39 cases were referred to the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s court for trial. On 13th January the total number of detainees was 114; no fewer than 71 cases were withdrawn by the aid centre; in other words, the success factor at that stage was 62,28 per cent. On 18th January, 1972, the total number of detainees was 156; 105 cases were withdrawn and the success factor, in other words, the percentage of cases that were withdrawn, was 67,31 per cent. In this way the number increased to 216 on 24th January, 1972; 110 of these cases were withdrawn, and on 26th January, 1972, there were 283 detainees; 131 of these cases were withdrawn, which represented 56,2 per cent. At the end of the month, on 28th January, the number of cases withdrawn was once again 61,62 per cent. It is also interesting to note that for the first three days the position at the Carr Street aid centre in Johannesburg was as follows: On 3rd January, the total number of detainees was 51; 14 cases were withdrawn on the recommendation of the centre; no one was cautioned and discharged on that day; 37 criminal cases were referred to the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s court for further trial. On 4th January the total number of detainees was 151; 55 cases were withdrawn; there were 96 criminal cases. On 5th January there were 163 detainees; 21 cases were withdrawn; 36 detainees were cautioned and discharged and 106 were referred to the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s court. On 6th January there were 145 detainees; 18 cases were withdrawn; 36 detainees were cautioned and discharged and 91 were referred to the Commissioner’s court. It seems, therefore, that an exceptional measure of success is being achieved with this procedure which I described to the hon. member.

I just want to put two more small points in this connection. The first is that it is very gratifying to see what a large number of technical offenders among the Bantu report of their own accord at all these aid centres which have now been established, without the intervention of any person or body. Secondly, I want to point out to hon. members that at all these aid centres, and at the Carr Street aid centre in particular, the percentage of cases dealt with every day is very high, for the simple reason that the system according to which information in respect of reference books can be obtained from the central reference bureau in Pretoria has been perfected to such a degree that it functions very efficiently. I have personally visited it more than once. Information in respect of reference books of an almost incredible number of Bantu can be obtained from the central reference bureau in Pretoria in a very short time, which has made it possible to deal with such a large number of cases every day. But that is for the present. I want to emphasize that the system is only at its initial stage; that it will continue to expand and that we hope it will develop in a very positive way. We shall endeavour in that process to have a 24-hour service in regard to this matter functioning as soon as it is practicable, all factors considered. That is the reply to the question put to me by the hon. member.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister where these people are accommodated while their cases are pending, because I understand that there is no accommodation at the aid centres.

As I have indicated, the idea is not to keep these people overnight if it is at all possible. But in those cases where the case cannot be completed within the course of that particular day, those Bantu are housed in the Bantu hostels in that area.

Are there special hostels for them?

No, not special hostels. As I have already explained, it must be understood that these aid centres are not intended as places for the detention of these people. If a case which comes to the aid centres cannot be disposed of during that day, then the necessary arrangements can be made for the Bantu concerned to be housed for the night—because in those cases it will only be for one night—in a Bantu hostel in the vicinity.

*I emphasize again that the idea is to dispose of these cases during the day as far as possible. If there are any indications that the technical offender is really a problem case, then overnight facilities can be arranged at the police office—at the nearest police office in the case of Johannesburg, or at Benoni, etc. These are the arrangements which have been made in this respect, but actually I would rather not have added this last information because I do not want to create the impression for one moment that there need be any cases in the last category. If it is an ordinary technical offence the necessary arrangements can be made for the person to be housed in a hostel for that night.

Sir, I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister one or two questions. Can he tell me what happens to a man who refuses to take the work offered to him at an aid centre; what happens to him then? Does he get arrested on the spot, or can he take his chance and walk out of the aid centre and then perhaps be arrested or not arrested, as luck would have it? That is one important question I would like to ask him. The other question is whether any discretion whatever is given to the officials at the aid centre to allow people to remain in their present employment, without sending them back to the homelands, where they have to come in again as contract workers when they are already in employment, albeit illegally, in terms of this sort of technical arrangement. This is a very important question, Sir, because I know that in Johannesburg there are thousands of Africans who are working who are actually, technically speaking, illegally there, but they are in employment and they are doing a valuable job producing for the country and earning money for their families. If those people are arrested at the present stage, they either pay a fine, in which case they go free again, or they go to gaol. But what is going to happen to those people now at an aid centre? Presumably they will not be allowed to pay fines at an aid centre. Is there any way in which an aid centre official, knowing that the man or woman is actually in employment, and is accommodated and knowing that the employer could give such a man or woman a good record, could ratify the situation and use his discretion, where the Chief Bantu Commissioner could use his discretion to allow that person to remain in employment, or are these people going to be sent back to the homelands and made to apply for permission to come in again as contract workers?

I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister could also tell us what happens in the case of the persons who are cautioned and whose cases are withdrawn. This deals with the first part of the provisions of the clause, i.e. the right which is granted for cases to be withdrawn. As I see it, the persons are still in the position afterwards that they do not have sufficient references; in other words, he still does not have a permit to work and the aid which he receives merely consists of not being prosecuted. With reference to the figures given to us by the Deputy Minister during the Second Reading, we had the case in which 27 000 were in fact sentenced. To what extent were they assisted afterwards? I am talking about the 27 000 out of the 36 000. Were they given further assistance in obtaining employment or being repatriated to the areas they came from? Then there is the case, in particular, of the persons who were cautioned or whose cases were withdrawn. What happens to them after that? Are they not the persons who merely escape the sentence, but are in fact repatriated directly afterwards so that they can apply for permits again? Thirdly, I just want to point out that according to the figures given by the Deputy Minister during the Second Reading there are approximately 2 000 who do not fall into either of these categories. Is one now to accept that they are the persons who were neither placed in employment nor sentenced, while the cases were not withdrawn either, but who were either transferred to another place or repatriated, as it is put in the clause, to their last place of residence as soon as possible, as a result of the fact that you do not have a place of detention?

May I start with the hon. member for Durban Central? He is quite right in respect of his third question. Those people are dealt with in the way suggested by the hon. member. In respect of his second question it is obvious that some of the technical offenders are placed in employment while others naturally cannot be if there is no employment, and those people are then helped to find employment in another district or in the homeland. I have said before in reply to the hon. member for Houghton that the intention here is not at all to send people off to farms, for example, against their will. But if there is really no work in an area, no stone must be left unturned to accommodate those Bantu at the best and most suitable place where there is in fact work for them. I shall point out to the hon. member for Houghton in a moment that there is one thing we must understand very well; I referred to it in my reply to the Third Reading debate the other day, and the hon. members must please understand it, and this is that it is not only a question of work which is involved here. Two things are involved, namely work and housing. These are the two things which are very important, and they must always be most carefully considered by the aid centre, and I hope the hon. members on the other side are with me in this regard because if we thoroughly understand this basic fact on both sides of the House many things will disappear like mist before the morning sun and many unnecessary things which are flung across the floor of the House will disappear with them. In White South Africa you cannot take work as your only criterion as far as a Bantu is concerned. You cannot do it for a White and you do it for no other race; so why should you do it in respect of a Bantu? Two things are absolutely essential. If employment is provided there must be housing as well, otherwise you will have chaos on your hands. So that is the reply to the second question put by the hon. member for Durban Central.

The first question put by the hon. member, which is really closely bound up with the third one, which I dealt with very quickly, was about the 27 000 Bantu who were dealt with in the way he indicated. It is precisely in respect of them that the aid centre has a most important function, namely to give those people temporary documents to enable them at least to make the necessary arrangements there to find their way in the area in which they are. I hope I have now explained the three questions put by the hon. member.

The 27 000 were in fact sentenced first, but what happened to them afterwards?

Yes, but let me put it to hon. members this way: It is precisely that category of Bantu which provides one of the reasons for the existence of the aid centres. If that category of Bantu cannot be helped at the aid centres at all they will only be picked up again a day or a week later. We have statistics available to us which point to the fact that this category of Bantu constitutes a very high percentage of the number of technical offenders who are continually appearing before the courts. The aim of the aid centres is precisely to channel those people away so that they need not land in court or in gaol. Therefore I emphasize that the first requirement in respect of these 27 000 people is that they be provided with temporary documents; secondly, that they are indeed cases for the aid centres in order to ensure that they are properly accommodated in a legal way so that the number who would have appeared in court tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, next week and the week after if the aid centres had not been there will not appear in court again. Is that clear now?

The hon. member for Houghton asked me what would happen if a Bantu should refuse to accept work offered to him. That is what I meant when I said earlier on that an official at the head of an aid centre would have to possess very great wisdom. Such an official must be a person who is intent on maintaining good relations and rendering assistance. If a Bantu arrives at the aid centre as a result of a technical offence and he refuses to accept the work offered to him the first and obvious step would be to take drastic action against that Bantu. That would be the normal and correct way of acting, in terms of the law as well. If the official at the head of the aid centre really wants to render assistance he will be very patient with such a Bantu and he will find out why he does not want to accept the work. His problem will be to solve the Bantu’s problem. This, in my opinion, is the ideal of the aid centre. I think the hon. member will readily agree with me that if the official has been very patient and has done everything in his power and a Bantu is still recalcitrant and refuses to accept work, then the hon. member must have no illusions about it, because then there is not the least doubt about it that the ordinary laws on influx control will come into force in the proper way and that Bantu will accordingly have to appear in court. Then that Bantu will be dealt with. In such a case I should not be prepared to condone the conduct of such a Bantu at all. I hope the hon. member would not be prepared to condone it in such a case. If we were to condone that we would be going very far and that is not the intention here at all.

They may offer him very unsuitable work.

No, as I have said, if it is in the first instance unsuitable work, the wise officer there would find out whether the Bantu refused only because the work was unsuitable. He would then go out of his way to call in the Bantu concerned, discuss it with him and ask him why he refused.

I hope he has time.

That is what the aid centre is there for. While I am on this issue, may I just remind that hon. member that, while we are without question, and hon. members must realize it, very sincere about the implementation of these aid centres, the influx control measures still stand. The aid centre must not be looked upon as a centre of condonation. I hope the hon. member agrees with me in that respect.

With regard to the hon. member’s second question. I have already replied to it in part. In the case mentioned by the hon. member, such a Bantu would be referred to a labour bureau. Through this bureau, the Bantu would be channelled into proper employment, if such employment is available.

He will not have to go home first?

No. If there is a vacancy, if there is a need for a Bantu in a specific, prescribed area and if the Bantu’s reference book can be put in order by the aid centre, why should such a Bantu be referred out? That will not be the case, and that is why I have said that I have already replied to the hon. member in part, except that even if there is a vacancy, even if that Bantu is employed illegally in that vacancy and even if that Bantu’s reference book can be put in order by the aid centre and by the Commissioner’s court, if there is no suitable housing for such a Bantu, it becomes impossible for the aid centre to assist that Bantu because there must be housing. That Bantu must be housed, otherwise he might have a job but he will be upon the street. I hope the hon. member is satisfied with that reply, and I think with that I have replied to all the questions which have been put to me.

Mr. Chairman, in regard to the point that the hon. the Deputy Minister was dealing with, I would like to know whether the following is correct. If a male Bantu was in a job in Cape Town and had housing here, but he in fact did not get the necessary permission to be here, in other words he had come down in, let us say, ignorance; if he is picked up and taken to an aid centre, the intention is that he will in fact be handled by the aid centre in the first instance and then he will be sent to the labour bureau. Then he would be allowed to have his papers put in order for that job, and in that place of residence. That is the first point I would like to make.

May I reply to that first?

Yes.

That could happen, provided that the labour bureau is in a position to rectify that Bantu reference book while that Bantu is in that prescribed area of the Western Cape at the Cape Peninsula. The hon. member must understand, as I have already explained, that the influx control measures still stand. The labour bureau, as well as the aid centre, will have to operate within that framework, because otherwise the hon. member will understand that a funnel will be opened up whereby Bantu can just come from the Bantu homelands through the aid centre and be drawn into these areas. That is certainly not the intention at all, and that will not be done via the aid centres. The officers of the aid centre will of course look very closely at these cases so as not to allow the aid centre being used in such a way that a Bantu from, let us say, the Transkei area can come to the Peninsula illegally, knowing that there is an aid centre and that he will be placed in a job via the aid centre and via the labour bureau. We shall have to look at that sort of situation very carefully, because the intention is not to open up a channel whereby Bantu can be drawn into prescribed areas in that way. I hope that is clear.

Then there is the last point I would like to make in this connection, and I am very glad that the hon. member for Pinelands has put this question. I am not going to dwell on it now, but I hope that there will be an opportunity in some other debate when we can discuss this more fully, because I have something to say about it. I am specifically referring to the question of the Cape Peninsula and the Western Cape, where the Government has a very definite policy, namely that the Bantu in this area be replaced by Coloureds. The reason why I refer to this in this context is that it must be understood that with specific reference to the Cape Peninsula and to the Western Cape, this policy is being implemented. For that reason it is much more difficult for a Bantu to find his way in employment in the Western Cape than in other parts of the country because of the implementation of this policy. Therefore, the aid centres in the Western Cape, and in the Cape Peninsula specifically, must be viewed against the background of the implementation of this policy and will therefore differ from an aid centre in Johannesburg or in Pretoria or in Benoni or in the other areas where you have no Coloureds and where this policy of replacement of Bantu by Coloureds is not being implemented.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill now empowers the hon. the Minister to appoint the chairman of the Land Tenure Board himself. The chairman of the Agricultural Credit Board will not automatically become chairman of the Land Tenure Board as well. There must definitely be very sound reasons why the hon. gentleman wants to make this change. During the Second Reading of this Bill we said that we agreed with him for several reasons. The main reason is that we should like to see that the chairman of the Land Tenure Board is a person who is fully acquainted with the purchase of land, particularly for State purposes because in recent times certain things have happened which, to my mind, have quite rightly roused the suspicions of many people in this country.

I want to refer to the report of the commission of inquiry into the so-called Agliotti case. It has been stated quite clearly in the report of this commission that the advice the hon. the Minister received in that respect was not sound. If it was the chairman of the Agricultural Credit Board who advised the Minister in the past, it is correct that the hon. the Minister should now have somebody of his own choice who is properly informed. As I have said, evidence was submitted to that commission which I think came as a great shock in this respect not only to this House but also to South Africa. It was quite clear to us that the chairman of the Board was not even prepared …

Order! What has this to do with the Bill?

I want to refer to the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister will now be able to appoint a person of his own choice as chairman of the Land Tenure Bord.

But this has nothing to do with that matter.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, there must certainly be very sound reasons for doing so if the hon. gentleman is no longer in a position automatically to accept the chairman of the Agricultural Credit Board as the chairman of the Land Tenure Board. I think one of the major reasons is that the hon. gentleman has not been given the proper advice in the past.

I cannot allow the hon. member to go into that matter.

I am pleased with your ruling, Sir, and I am not prepared to go into this matter any further. I nevertheless want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that we agree with him that he should have this choice for the simple reason that we do not want things of this nature to happen again. We should also like to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that hon. members on this side of the House will from time to time keep a close watch on the actions of this person whom he chooses now to become the chairman of the Land Tenure Board precisely because we hope and we ask that things like that do not happen again. To my mind this Land Tenure Board is certainly one of the most important statutory bodies this Parliament has been able to establish. An enormous responsibility will therefore rest upon the hon. the Deputy Minister to see to it that this person who becomes the chairman of this Board will be a very responsible person. Over and above that he must also be a person who will be prepared to take his fellow-members on the Land Tenure Board into his confidence in the proper way because there is evidence that members of the Land Tenure Board have in the past not been kept informed the way they should have been. The hon. the Deputy Minister must also see to it that he is at all times being kept fully informed by the person he is going to appoint of all land transactions which may take place. In section 3 of the Land Tenure Act, which is being amended by this Bill, it is stated quite clearly that it is the duty of the Land Tenure Board to advise the hon. the Minister in regard to land transactions. The chairman of this Board is the most important person on that Board, and we do not want to hear of any cases where files have not even been made available to and scrutinized by the other members of the Land Tenure Board. We therefore want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we hope that the choice he is going to make in future will be a good one and that we want to congratulate him in anticipation on the person he is going to appoint because it will be a person who is going to assist him in all respects in this important function so that nothing will happen in future that will rouse the suspicions of either South Africa or this House.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newton Park has quite rightly emphasized the importance of the position not only of this board, but especially of the chairman of this board. I think we were all made more aware of the person’s importance whose office is here being changed, when the events of the Agliotti scandal drew him to our attention. That is why it is very important to have a look, at this stage, at the changes that are being made in the appointment, the manner of appointment and in the tenure of office of the officials who will have to advise the Minister in respect of land transactions. Let us be quite clear and say that that is the only function of the Land Tenure Board, namely to advise the Minister.

One deals here with a very important office in this regard. One deals here with a change in the law as regards the chairman of this board, a change which has been hailed outside this House by Die Burger, which is in fact one of the mouthpieces of this Government, as one of the measures which was intended to deal with the Agliotti scandal. Let me say that the amendment in this Bill will help a little in a small way to deal with a minor aspect of a tiny part of a major calamity, which is the Agliotti scandal. It does appear that this amendment is hailed by the Government Press as being the remedy which is going to cure the ills which caused the Agliotti scandal. They could only have got the information from the hon. the Minister’s department. This measure does not go far enough; but it would appear at this stage that this is all the Government is prepared to do.

In this regard certain questions were asked on Friday of the hon. the Minister of Police by the hon. member for Simonstown about the investigation into the Agliotti matter.

What has this to do with the Bill?

It has everything to do with this Bill. The hon. the Leader of the House asks what this has to do with the Bill. Why is this change being made?

There are very good reasons.

Those reasons were adumbrated by the newspaper of the party of the hon. Leader of the House, namely Die Burger, and others, as being a Bill to change …

What has that to do with the Bill?

Order! This House is not concerned with what Die Burger or any other newspapers say.

Well, if you say so, Sir.

It is so.

Well, if you say so, Sir, then I accept it. But nevertheless, this Bill is introduced for a reason, and the reason is in fact that the chairman of the Land Tenure Board has not in the past done what he should have done. In fact, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture was not aware of the Agliotti scandal. He was not aware of the deal until he just by chance had a casual conversation with Mr. Henning …

Order! That has nothing to do with this Bill.

But, Mr. Speaker…

No, the hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Yes, Sir, I shall come back to the Bill.

I am very pleased about it.

Mike, you are too clever by half!

You said that to me before, and …

It is strange how one runs out of chalk, not so?

There were many deficiencies; but what I want to say right at the beginning, is that we welcome the changes that are being made in this Bill. We feel they are necessary. Our experience in the past has been that it is necessary that the chairman of this board should be subject to some more surveillance than he has been subjected to in the past. I merely mentioned the Agliotti affair as an example of what can happen under the old order of things. But I do want to mention that it could happen in the new order of things, because all he has to do is advise. But the hon. the Deputy Minister has forgotten that it can happen in any event, even under the new deal in terms of this Bill. Has he thought about it? Has he appreciated that the real cause of the Agliotti affair was that the Minister gave carte blanche and delegated his powers absolutely under a power of attorney to the Secretary and deputy secretary of the department. He washed his hands of everything that happened.

Order! Yes, but the hon. member must come back to the Bill now.

This is a welcome change; it is a nice little scratch on the surface. But I want to ask the hon. the Minister when he replies to tell us why it was, if it was not because of Agliotti and this monstrous affair, that he introduced this at all. In the second place, I should like to know whether he does not agree with me that it does not go far enough and that he should in fact do something more about his responsibility and not just about the advice that he gets from officials and all the things that might have happened. This is what the public is concerned with. That is what we are here to deal with. The public is concerned that something be done to remedy that. This apparently is what the Government is prepared to do but it is not enough. Will the hon. the Minister tell this House that he is going to do something about the delegation of the powers of the Minister of Agriculture to expropriate land in the public interest? Is he going to do something about that? Is this all that he is going to do? If he is not going to do something more, this small change which, although welcomed, really means nothing whatsoever. If the hon. the Minister won’t indicate that the Government is prepared to do something more, then the public is entitled to assume that this is all that the Government is prepared to do. All it is prepared to do is to have some more surveillance over the officer of the State who is to advise the Minister about land transactions but is not prepared to ensure that the Agliotti case can never happen again. And, Mr. Speaker, the Agliotti incident, which I mentioned …

I think we have heard sufficient about Agliotti. The hon. member must come back to the Bill or resume his seat.

Yes, Sir, I will.

But the hon. member is not keeping faith. Every time he says he will but he does not.

I will not mention Agliotti again, Sir. That was a seven and a half million rand affair. That I won’t mention again. What I want to say is that every day in the department land deals of such infinitesimal amounts as R100 000 take place and those are the things about which the public is concerned and those are the things over which there is apparently no control whatsoever by the Minister. Those are the things which this Bill does not deal with. I hope that the hon. the Minister will ensure that something will be done about those matters.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban North is certainly very gifted to be able to say very piously that he is glad about this and welcomes this amendment, but then goes on and refers, quite by chance of course, to the Agliotti affair. Every time he gets dragged into this discussion by the hair. During the Second Reading and in the course of the Committee Stage it was said that, on account of the changing land values in our country, it is impossible to have the chairman of an Agricultural Credit Board serving as the chairman of the Land Tenure Board as well. It has become a specialized job today to be able to judge the price of land in Namaqualand compared to a sugar farm in Natal or urban land. It is necessary for this person to have made a close study of matters of this nature. I can give the hon. member and the hon. member for Newton Park the assurance that the experience we had was not a pleasant one. This is, amongst other things, one of the reasons for this amendment. There will still have to be delegation. Hon. members ask what the powers of the Minister are and whether he does not delegate too much of his powers. Do hon. members think that we will allow what happened in the past to happen again? Do we want to go through this hell again? Is it necessary to rake up a matter while the very purpose of this legislation is to eliminate that type of phenomenon?

Is that the object?

That is, amongst other things, one of the objects. It is not appreciated how much land is purchased for the various departments today. I have come to the conclusion that it is time that we made a realistic valuation on account of the attitude adopted here—and we shall get quite a number of them in future—and allow the person from whom we expropriate to go to court. Let the court then decide. It is simply impossible to satisfy everybody. When the State makes purchases the seller expects that there has to be an enormous amount of money at stake. We will only allow realistic valuations to apply in future. Members of the Opposition have come to see us and said: “Your valuation of that person’s land is too low.” We are not going to adopt a sympathetic attitude in future at all. We are going to take the actual value at which a willing seller wants to sell to a willing buyer. And that will be the end of the matter.

In every case?

In every case. In the past there was some disruption we had to take into consideration. I do not see only this one transaction which the hon. member has mentioned ad nauseam. I am thinking of the hundreds of transactions which have to be concluded every month in which, for example, you have to compel a person to leave his farm because a dam has to be built there. People have spread gossip about what happens at some of these places where we have paid a person 20 per cent for inconvenience because we have uprooted him from an area in which he and his ancestors have lived all their lives. To this person we have to say that a specific area of 1 000 morgen will have to come under water and that we will have to buy him out and resettle him in another area or that he will have to find himself a place somewhere else to stay. Hon. members pretend that we adopt an unsympathetic attitude towards people like that. Just look at the criticism that is being levelled at us. People spread gossip about a thing like that, but I say again that I am grateful towards the Opposition when they say that they welcome this measure. I also want to thank the hon. member for Newton Park who expressed the hope that we will be successful in carrying out the task of this department.

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the speech of the hon. member for False Bay. I am sorry to see that he is not in the House at the moment. I warned him I would be coming back to this Bill. In the course of the hon. member’s speech he gave notice of an amendment he wanted to move in the Committee Stage. I do not want to quote the entire amendment. What it amounts to is that there is certain agricultural land which at present is under the control of local authorities and falls outside the compass of this legislation. I feel that this proposed amendment of the hon. member—I am glad to see that the hon. member is now in the House—cannot be accepted, in the first place, because this in actual fact means an extension of the Act. In his amendment the hon. member asks for more powers for the Minister to control other land. His speech specifically dealt with agricultural land in Paarl. I made a few enquiries about these farms and found out certain things.

From whom?

From several people farming there. While I was carrying out the investigation my thoughts centred on what had now actually happened to this policy of more farmers having to leave the land; what had happened to the principle embodied in the Act, i.e. that uneconomic units could no longer be retained. I can tell you that the farms in Paarl are at present economic units. One forgets, however, that those farms are doubly taxed. They pay divisional council as well as municipal rates. My information is that there are several farms where ten times as much is paid in tax as the ordinary farmer in the Paarl district pays. Then there are also other factors that count there. There is the labour factor in Paarl that makes it difficult for the farmers. Those farmers cannot keep the labour on the farms. Their labourers must go and live in the Coloured area, and that is acceptable if those people can work during the day. Another difficulty that crops up there is that there are water restrictions and they can only employ spray-irrigation at night. Coloureds are not allowed to walk around there at night without carrying their permits. Temporary permits were issued, but the farmers do not know when those permits are going to be withdrawn.

†Mr. Speaker, I feel that this is going to be very hard on those people, in view of the fact that some farms have already been subdivided and the people who have subdivided their farms have had the advantage of receiving a good price for their ground. Although those farms are economic today, can anybody give a guarantee that they will remain economic in time to come? What will then happen if, because of the double tax that they pay, they become uneconomic? But in the first place, I feel that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for George cannot be accepted because it widens the scope of this Bill, and it is widening the scope of the Bill simply because it asks for extra powers for the Minister. I would ask him very sincerely not to move this at this stage, because I believe that the Paarl Municipality and the Cape Provincial Council are quite capable of handling this matter themselves.

*Mr. Speaker, I shall leave that matter there. When the debate was adjourned the other evening, I was proving the difficulties in connection with the implementation of this amendment to the House and to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I gave warning that incorrect decisions could be made and I mentioned one instance in which this was, in fact, done. I gave warning that further restrictions on the availability of development land and on our urban areas and holiday resorts would further increase the already exaggerated prices of plots and that this would lead to further inflationary trends. I demonstrated that although we had different levels of government—local, provincial and central—this legislation works from the top to the bottom and not the other way around. Here I advocated the interests of the individual in the lower levels of government. Sir, I want to state very clearly that this side of the House agrees that there must be control over the subdivision of our land into uneconomic units. This is something that no one who has a love of his nation or his fatherland would like to see. At the same time no one wants to obstruct the natural development of our country. As we see it, thousands of morgen of agricultural land will have to be relinquished in the next 25 years for urban and factory development, etc. New cities will have to be built and agriculture will have to adapt to new and intensive methods. What is necessary is not a restricting Act such as the Bill we have before us today, but what is necessary is legislation that anticipates the future and makes provision for the proper planning of the whole surface area of the Republic of South Africa and South-West Africa, legislation that will give our young people faith in the future, that will spur them on and give them the necessary driving force to furnish the extra productivity that is so necessary for the hard road of the last quarter of this century. If this legislation is passed without the powers and the functions of the local authorities and the provinces being placed clearly in perspective, I feel terribly sorry for the Minister, because I feel and I believe that the local authorities and the provinces can be used to take that load off his shoulders. I feel it is very necessary that they play a stronger role in the control of our land. The Minister and his department must plan the future use of our soil, and not interfere with every subdivision that is made in the Republic of South Africa and South-West Africa. I feel their work embraces the broader aspects of territorial planning. As the Act now reads and is implemented, everything proceeds from the Minister and his department downwards through the provinces to the local bodies and then to the individual. As I picture it, a town or a divisional council or a province knows much more of what goes on in its area than any department, which undertakes the broader aspects of planning, can know. I hope the Minister will tell the House very clearly what the powers of the local government and the provincial government will be in terms of this legislation. If we continue with the previous implementation, we are going to have additional amendments before us and we are going to encounter further difficulties. As I have said, we feel that there must be control, but not in its present form.

The hon. member for Albany mentioned a few points that were also mentioned by previous speakers on the Opposition side, but most of the points were replied to by hon. members on this side of the House. I just want to point out a few of them. The first is that it is never the Government’s intention to try to be popular with a certain group, because I think a good government must be able to tell a person that one cannot sub-divide a property, however unpopular this may be. A good government does not endeavour, as the hon. member puts it, to shift the work off on to this department, that local authority, that divisional authority or whatever the case may be. A good government is one that has the courage of its convictions and can tell a person that the cutting up of agricultural land is wrong, and hon. members have never yet been able to get it into their heads that we are speaking here of agricultural land. Since we are spending millions of rands on the one hand to consolidate agricultural land into economic units, do you want the province, on the other hand, to be able to cut up land to its heart’s content into 25 morgen plots? That is surely ridiculous. However unpopular I may prove to be as a result of this measure, I shall know that eventually the farmer will be satisfied because he asked, via his organization, various committees and all the churches in our country, that this sub-division process must be stopped because it is creating uneconomic units where people are dying of misery. Somebody must do the job and I am not one bit afraid of the results. But now hon. members come along with all kinds of arguments.

May I ask a question? The Deputy Minister talks about “onekonomies”. Will he indicate to the House what he in fact means by “onekonomies”?

I replied to that question last week, when I think the hon. member for Walmer was not present. [Interjections.] Yes, he was sent out. Our idea is that we want to have a man and his wife and three children living on more or less an economic unit, having a net income of R4 000. It may vary from R3 000 to R4 000, but then his house and water, etc., are all paid for.

*The time is past when we thought that a man engaged in agriculture must continually tighten his belt and live below the breadline.

Do you think R4 000 is enough?

The hon. member for Albany now asks why the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is doing this work, and why it should not be done by the Provinces or the municipalities? The people come to us and ask “What is the carrying capacity of this veld”? Do they want a municipality to decide about that? It is surely a technical department, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, which determines that in the Graaff-Reinet area the carrying capacity is 2½ morgen per sheep, and that is an economic unit. One can stretch the R4 000 a year, but in 10 or 15 years time R4 000 is perhaps no longer an economic unit. I am being honest, but we must have a norm after all. We must after all more or less have an idea where we want to go. It is no use letting a person sit on a piece of land where his net income is R500 and then still, by way of agricultural credit, be assisting with loans to place that person on a sound footing.

Mr. Chairman, to obtain information the hon. member for Newton Park asked a whole lot of questions. He asked why there are restrictions on the boundaries of municipalities. I think the hon. member for Mooi River also asked that question. How many farmers are there not today who are dissatisfied because a municipality extended its boundaries to its heart’s content. This happened the other day in Bronkhorstspruit. I myself have had the experience of a municipality wanting more tax and therefore extending its boundaries. The municipality sent a letter to a farmer, who lives adjacent to the town, in which they said that their boundaries now extend so far from the town. That specific farmer pays R714 in tax, while there is no sewerage and he obtains nothing from the municipality. He must pay that tax for the privilege of being situated adjacent to the town. Is that cricket? Now hon. members come along and say we are taking away certain rights from those people, but the farmer is asking for it! In this clause we are merely stating that if the municipality wants to extend its boundaries, it must obtain permission for that from the Minister of Agriculture. We are not taking anything away. The hon. member says—and this is announced with capital letters in the Press— that in future the farmer may no longer lease land. It is surely stated here expressly: a registered lease that applies for longer than 10 years and up to 99 years. We know that farmers evade the Act in this way. Without a contract a farmer can still lease land for a very long time. For a period of nine years and eleven months it is still just as it was in the past, i.e. that the hon. member or I can go and lease any neighbour’s land without any obstacles. Only when he registers that land can this not happen. Why does the hon. member then want to create the impression that the farmers may no longer lease land?

I agree with the amendment of the hon. member for False Bay as far as Paarl is concerned. We are not taking away any privileges. It aims at facilitating the functioning of this legislation. The hon. member will explain this in the Committe Stage and therefore it is not necessary for me to devote any more time to it at the moment.

I have here correspondence in connection with the matter which the hon. member for Mooi River mentioned. I do not want to argue with the hon. member about this matter. Hon. members say that we are slowing down the establishment of new residential areas. The hon. member for Mooi River said that everyone must live in multilevel buildings. We are surely not stupid. We know that within the next 32 years South Africa’s population will total 50 million. We must of necessity cut up areas and establish new townships. What is wrong with suggesting that we establish a steering committee? As far as that is concerned, the Province of Natal is an example. It is not necessary for me to quote the correspondence the hon. member had about Boston. In that correspondence the province itself said they could not allow plots to be established at will without sewerage, streets or order. Therefore we suggest establishing a steering committee. If there is a need for chalets or holiday farms in Mooi River, as the hon. member put it, the steering committee can determine that that specific area of Mooi River be withdrawn from agricultural use for all time and cut up for the magnate who wants a five morgen stand where he can go horseriding and fishing on week-ends. We can then do this in that ordered way. We do not want a tattered patchwork affair throughout the country, with everyone cutting pieces off at will. If possible we want no delay; we just want orderliness.

The hon. member for Newton Park asked for an amendment to the title of this Bill as far as agricultural land is concerned.

The use of agricultural land.

Yes, as far as the use of agricultural land is concerned. There is, inter alia, the pollution aspect. The hon. member for South Coast moved a motion here about pollution. I asked the hon. member whether he wanted us to allow a person to establish a feed lot for 1 000 cattle on the banks of the Vaal River, with the water and rubbish from those cattle running freely into the Vaal River. If that person says he will be able to make it an economic unit by way of sub-division and that it is his purpose to do so, must we not have a stipulation as regards the effluent of this piece of land? As the hon. member for South Coast proposed, there must be orderliness.

The Water Act controls this.

Yes, the Water Act may control it, but we could inform that person in good time when he wants to sub-divide under those conditions. Under the Divisional Council system there is control over the building of houses in the Cape Province. If I want to erect a Bantu house, a residence or a drinking trough, I must obtain approval and permission from the Divisional Council. In the Transvaal I can build to my heart’s content. I can build just as I want to, a skew or crooked structure, or right up against the highways used by travellers. There is no orderliness with respect to the erection of buildings. We are trying to correct this situation.

For the information of hon. members, I should just like to furnish the following figures and then conclude. The hon. members think this is a tremendous problem. Hon. members can understand that after the introduction of this legislation we were overrun by people who wanted to subdivide. We received 1 246 applications for subdivision. Many of these applications were doubtful ones. Of the total of applications, 628 were approved, 385 rejected and 137 petered out of their own accord. In the cases that petered out, the applicants knew they were taking chances. At the moment there are still 96 that have not been dealt with. We only received 35 applications for appeal. Nine of those appeals were upheld and 26 rejected. If hon. members could only have seen what cases we rejected on appeal. We told the people they must wait until we came along with the steering committee, which would more neatly draw up the areas where we could erect the various structures, i.e. as the hon. member for Mooi River requested.

As far as the other matters are concerned, it is not necessary for me to go into that, because the hon. member for Kroonstad, the hon. member for False Bay and several members on this side of the House have replied fully to the arguments of hon. members on the other side of the House, and I give them 10 marks out of 10 for that.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, P. C. Roux, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and R. M. Cadman.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Because marketing research is today regarded as an integral part of the economy, it is probably correct if funds are made available to the tobacco industry for that purpose. These funds will be made available to the Tobacco Board if the Minister of Agriculture approves this in consultation with the Minister of Finance. The employment of funds from the Tobacco Research Account will, as in the past, take place circumspectly, with a view to ensuring that the best value is obtained.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister. It is only a very small amendment that is envisaged here, but it nevertheless contains a very important principle. We have no objection to the fund for tobacco research also being used for marketing research. Therefore we support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Because meat exports from South-West Africa are playing an ever-increasing role and no measures exist, except for local regulations, in terms of which the slaughter of animals and the handling of meat and animal products can be regulated, the time has come to make the Animal Slaughter, Meat and Animal Products Hygiene Act of 1967 applicable in that area. The South-West African Agricultural Union was consulted and gave its wholehearted support to the proposed Bill.

Mr. Speaker, just as in the case with the previous legislation, this side of the House has no objection to the Bill. However, I want to ask the Deputy Minister a question or two about the application of this measure to South-West Africa. I saw in a report recently that a large consignment of meat exported from South-West Africa was rejected abroad. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if he has any knowledge of the matter, because it was apparently a very large consignment, and whether he can give us any reasons for the occurrence. I think it not only prejudiced the good name of South-West Africa’s meat exporters, but also that of the rest of the Republic. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will give us a reply to this. Through this Bill only one amendment is being made to the Act, and this side of the House concedes that the Animal Hygiene Act ought to apply to South-West Africa as well. We therefore have no objection to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the meat to which the hon. member refers is meat that was infected with a particular kind of germ which was fortunately local to that area alone and had no effect on the Republic’s meat. It is a fact that we must be very strict with the export of meat, and that is why the Hygiene Acts are so strict. I can assure the hon. member that the germ was local to that specific abattoir and has no affect on meat exported from the Republic.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether the ordinances, or whatever regulations were applicable in South-West Africa, were not sufficient to exercise control over such a phenomenon?

They were sufficient, but according to the information at my disposal one could apply the hygiene measures very strictly and the germ could still not be discovered. However, as soon as such a germ is discovered, means can be employed to combat it. According to the information in my possession, the meat prices overseas and the demand for South African meat did not suffer as a result of this. Neither will this case have any future effects, but we must just be on our guard.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Department of Agricultural Technical Services from time to time receive donations for payment into the Agricultural Research Account. Unfortunately the conditions connected with certain donations are such that the donation cannot be received unless the conditions are amended. The law advisers pointed out that as soon as the donation is received the conditions cannot be amended, and they have suggested that the Act should rather be amended accordingly in order to overcome the problem.

Mr. Speaker, because this amendment is altogether democratic in nature, so that when an amendment of the conditions is necessary the approval of the donor will be obtained, this side of the House has no objection to the acceptance of the Second Reading of this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In terms of Government policy the function of setting apart and reserving separate beaches for the various population groups is vested in the provincial and local authorities concerned. In order to enable those authorities to execute this function efficiently, a few amendments to the Sea-Shore Act, 1935, and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, 1953, are necessary. The necessary amendments have been embodied in the Bill at present before you.

The Reservation of Separate Amenities Act makes provision for setting apart or reserving any public premises or any portion of such premises for the exclusive use of persons belonging to a particular race or class. In terms of section 2 any person who is in charge of or has control of any public premises may so set apart or reserve such premises. Premises may include any portion of the sea-shore or the sea. In terms of this Act, the authority who determines by what group or race any particular premises are to be used may be the owner or lessee of the premises or a person who has control of such premises ex officio or otherwise.

The Sea-Shore Act in turn provides that the State President is the owner of the seashore and the sea within the territorial waters of the Republic. It authorizes the Minister of Agriculture to grant certain rights in respect of the sea-shore and the sea, subject to the provisions of the Act. In terms of this Act the Minister may also authorize a divisional council, municipality or other local authority to make regulations in regard to, inter alia, the use of the sea-shore and bathing in the sea situated within or adjoining its area of jurisdiction.

The two Acts concerned, as they stand, do not provide explicitly that a local authority which has been authorized to make regulations concerning the use of the seashore and bathing in the sea shall, in fact, be deemed competent to set apart particular parts of the sea-shore or the sea for particular races or classes of persons. This matter is being rectified in the amending Bill.

Firstly, it is being provided that the executive committee of the province concerned shall for the purposes of the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act be deemed to be the person who is in charge of or has control of the sea-shore and the sea. Secondly, it is being provided that an executive committee may by notice in the Official Gazette declare that a particular local authority has that control of a particular part of the sea-shore and sea situated within or adjoining its area of jurisdiction. On the strength of such a declaration the local authority concerned will have the power to set apart or to reserve separate beaches within the boundaries of the particular area.

The amendment to the Sea-Shore Act as such mainly concerns the power to make regulations concerning, inter alia, the use of the sea-shore and bathing in the sea and the implementation of such regulations. As things are, the Minister of Agriculture may make such regulations. He may also authorize a local authority to make such regulations in respect of a part of the sea-shore or the sea situated within or adjoining the area of jurisdiction of the local authority. However, the Act does not empower the Minister to authorize provincial authorities to make such regulations. Section 11 is being supplemented so as to empower the Minister to delegate his powers to make and to enforce such regulations also to the executive committee of the province concerned.

In addition the penal provision concerning the contravention of the sea-shore regulations is being supplemented. When the Act was passed in 1935 provision was made for a fine of only R50. This penalty is now being increased to a fine not exceeding R200 or a period of imprisonment not exceeding one year.

Mr. Speaker, this measure, as introduced by the hon. the Deputy Minister, brings to an end an unhappy series of events in regard to the implementation of the Separate Amenities Act. These events took place, not necessarily under his portfolio, where he is in charge of the control of the land; but one is reminded that this Bill is now bringing to an end the summary discharge or overlooking of the Heunis Commission, so far as the Cape is concerned, because, according to its report, the provincial authorities should have been enabled to do exactly what they are now empowered to do. Then followed the unfortunate Torlage Commission, which achieved nothing, and by which the Central Government attempted to demarcate separate areas for separate amenities. Now the Deputy Minister says that this Bill is being introduced because the power must be with the provinces where it belongs. We agree with him wholeheartedly, and we will support this measure, by which he is giving that power to the provinces unequivocally to deal with the provision of separate amenities.

But, Sir, this Bill goes further. I am rather disappointed that the hon. the Minister has not dealt with other matters. However, it may be that he is charged only with the control of the land and not with certain of the matters that are incidental thereto. This Bill deals with the sea as well as the sea-shore, the sea-shore being between the highwater and the lowwater mark. The sea and the sea-bed extends out to the border of what is known as our territorial waters, namely six nautical miles seawards, and is now covered and dealt with under this particular Bill. I believe that representations have been made to the hon. the Minister by the provinces concerned that certain powers under section 10 of the Sea-Shore Act should be—and they can now be under this Bill—delegated to the provinces. I refer to section 10 of the Act, in terms of which the powers which now can be delegated are not only those which deal with the use of that shore but also the “removal of any material from the seashore and the sea”, “the prevention or the regulation of the depositing or the discharging upon the sea-shore or in the sea of offal, rubbish or anything liable to be a nuisance or danger to health”, and “the control”, the very necessary control, “of the sea-shore”. Here one thinks of the vandalism resulting in the removal of bait, oysters and sea growth, matters over which the Departments of Nature Conservation of the provinces are very anxious to have control. I trust that the hon. the Deputy Minister, in dealing with the powers which are now to be given in terms of section 10, will assure us that he is not merely concerned with separate amenities, but also with other matters which could well be handled by the provinces. As I have said, I am disappointed that there was no mention of this particular aspect, which I know it is a matter of concern to the provinces.

The next point I want to come to is this: I think it is an empty hope of the Deputy Minister if he believes that the delegation of these powers to the provinces in regard to separate amenities will enable them to carry out all the measures that are necessary to provide those separate amenities. The hon. the Deputy Minister must bear in mind that adjacent to the sea-shore are vast areas—I understand this applies to the whole of the Natal coast and certainly a great deal of the West Coast of the Cape Province—of what is known as the Admiralty Reserve. This is an area which varies in depth from 100 ft. to 400 ft. between the highwater mark and the land in private ownership. You will remember, Sir, that the origin of this was in the days of the old sailing vessels. The flotsam and jetsam washed ashore as a result of shipwreck, for instance, would belong to the State, to the old Cape Colony Government or to the Government of Natal. For that reason ownership or control was retained by the State. It is no good, in terms of this Bill, giving the power to control the sea-shore, which extends up to the highwater mark, if that power is not also extended to control what is known as the Admiralty Reserve on these two coastlines. This is perhaps a matter which we can discuss further in the Committe Stage.

There is a third aspect of the provision of separate amenities, and that is the question of funds. Again, this is not within this Deputy Minister’s portfolio, nor his responsibility, but if these are to be effective, then funds will have to be made available through the Treasury to the provinces in order for them to do what the hon. the Deputy Minister expects them to do under this particular Bill. There is a further difficulty which arises and I point this out because this Bill is not in itself going to solve the problems which are faced in various parts of the country. This problem is in regard to the adjoining land other than Admiralty land, which has been defined as a group area and has no relation to the present use of the sea-shore and the land immediately abutting on the sea-shore. There are the vast areas provided for in the Bantu Trust and Land Act of 1936, and the hon. the Deputy Minister knows that that land does not fall under the control of the provinces at all. We are now giving some form of control of the sea-shore; the Act does apply to the sea-shore which is adjacent to Bantu Trust land. There again difficulties arise regarding the provision of adequate amenities. The Minister is handing over this task to the provinces, but provision is not being made for control where it is necessary.

Finally, Sir, I want to say a few words in regard to this penalty. It is unfortunate that this penalty should have been related solely to the purpose of this Bill, according to the hon. the Deputy Minister, namely to contraventions of separate amenities regulations. I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister has been correctly briefed in the presentation of this measure, because I believe that that penalty is justified only when it comes to the preservation of the sea life within the sea, and on the bottom of the sea, which will now be controlled by the provincial authorities under their delegated power. I think the idea of imposing penalties of this magnitude merely for a transgression of what might be a demarcation of separate amenities on the beach would be repulsive to the public. I trust therefore, that the hon. the Deputy Minister will realize, if he has in mind solely the utilization of this Bill to deal with separate amenities, that there can be no justification for the excessive increase in the proposed penalties.

Sir, so far as the principle of this measure is concerned, that is to say, that there will be a delegation of powers to the provincial authorities to control the seashore within the provinces, we will support this measure and vote for the Second Reading.

Sir, I am pleased to learn from the hon. member for Green Point that the Opposition is not going to oppose this measure. The hon. member said he was disappointed that certain aspects were not being covered by this Bill at the moment. He referred, inter alia, also to the cleaning of beaches, etc., but I do not believe the local authorities which exercise control over beaches at the moment, have any doubt as to whether or not the cleaning of beaches is within their duties and powers. The hon. member also referred to the possibility of making funds available in order to really implement the content of the measure. I agree with him that funds are very important, but the hon. member himself said that it did not come within the jurisdiction of the hon. the Deputy Minister, and we believe that the necessary attention will be given to that along other channels.

The essence of this Bill, as it stands, is simply the matter of rectifying powers already being exercised by local authorities, i.e. to make regulations for the control of certain parts of the sea-shore and their use; or of swimming and bathing in the sea by certain race groups. This is a power which is already being exercised by city councils, but since this power has not been entrusted to them explicitly in law, and since they have not been empowered to do so, the position is simply being rectified in this measure. I am pleased the Opposition has also seen its way clear to support this measure, one which probably is contentious too.

Sir, I am pleased this Bill is before this House today, because in my opinion it recognizes the fact that the standards of living of the non-Whites continue to rise and that he is being enabled to an increasing extent to visit our beaches and to participate in the recreation facilities there. Because of the higher standards of living the non-Whites will attain in future as a result of their increased salaries, and because of the improved means of transport at their disposal, either private or public means of transport, the non-Whites will become more and more able to go out and look for recreation over weekends, and one of the places they would like to visit for recreation, would be the beach. It is important that there should be no confusion in the minds of people as to what part of the beach they may visit and what part they may not visit; where they will give offence and where they will not give offence. I think the fact that local authorities are being empowered legally to draw the boundaries, will contribute much towards ensuring racial peace and harmony in our country.

Sir, we are pleased about the progress the non-Whites are making with regard to their standards of living. We are pleased about the increasing opportunities they have to visit these areas, but in the interests of everybody living in this country, we should also like to ensure that they will use the freedoms and opportunities in an orderly fashion. We should always bear in mind that we should not give offence to each other. We do not begrudge the non-Whites their part of the beach which they will have the right to visit and where they can relax. Therefore, Sir, I support this measure and, furthermore, I trust, since these powers are being given to local authorities as well as to provincial authorities which may be obliged to zone or designate beaches, that the Government will receive the wholehearted co-operation of the local authorities and the provincial authorities so as to implement this measure to the advantage of all.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot, I presume, discuss the principle involved in the Separate Amenities Act, and therefore I cannot go very far in my criticism of this amending Bill. But I must tell the hon. member who has just sat down that the sentiment that he has uttered that the pay-packets of Africans will eventually increase to such an extent that they will be able to enjoy week-ends by the sea is rather wishful thinking, not so much from the pay point of view, but from the point of view of the amenities which are being set aside for Africans to enjoy the sea-shores of South Africa. If what has been done in the Cape Province up to now by the Government is any indication of what is to happen in the future to those areas which have not yet been demarcated for the different racial groups, I do not hold out very much hope for many week-end resorts to which Africans will be able to go. As far as this is concerned, Sir, I think there is no point in opposing this Second Reading, because it is simply delegating authority from the Central Government to the provinces. What exactly this is going to mean in terms of practical application to the Coloured people in the Cape Province, for instance, one will have to wait to see.

We prefer the local authorities to decide.

Well, I am not sure of that. I agree that the local authorities are probably a little more conversant with the needs of the areas than the Central Government and therefore I, too, am not opposing the principle of taking the authority from the Central Government and handing it to the provinces. I am, of course, opposed to the whole basic principle of setting aside these amenities in the way in which it has been done in the past. If one surveys the whole scene in the Cape Peninsula, one finds that it is a disgraceful scene of discrimination because hardly any decent or accessible beaches, for instance, have been set aside for the Coloured people. On the whole of the Atlantic side there is, I understand, only one project, and that is near Mamre, despite the fact that there are thousands of Coloured people who would want to use the Atlantic Ocean for recreational facilities. As for the other side of the Peninsula, people who have been moved from Simonstown and elsewhere under the Group Areas Act have to travel for many miles and make expensive journeys before they can reach our sea-shores. Indeed, this is one of the burning sources of grievance amongst the Coloured people in the Cape. One has only to read the pronouncements made by members of the Coloured Representative Council about the dangerous and inaccessible beaches which have been allocated to the Coloured people in the Western Province to realize how exasperated they are at the obvious unfairness of the allocation of the sea-shore for bathing facilities. They complain that only the inaccessible or dangerous beaches have been allocated to them. Whether the province is going to be able to reallocate remains to be seen; it remains to be seen whether the province is going to take its courage into its hands and take down some of the notices that we see despoiling the beaches along False Bay and elsewhere—little notices that say that only bona fide domestic servants in this area are able to use what is always a small portion of a beach—but I am hopeful that the local authorities will at least be a little more sympathetic to the needs of the Coloured ratepayers than the central authority has been up to now. I want to make it quite clear that I am in no way agreeing with the principle embodied in the Main Act when I do not oppose the Second Reading of this amending Bill.

It is indeed a pity that on this occasion we again had to have the hon. member for Houghton’s nagging. If one were to ask her whether she agreed to us giving Muizenberg or Sea Point to those of her people she lodges such pleas for, I wonder whether she would say “yes”. I am glad to hear that hon. members opposite support this amendment. But it is also regrettable to read in their Press that in public they have already objected and tried to whip up feelings. The hon. member for Green Point said here a while ago that he supported this legislation, but in the Cape Argus he again launched an attack on even this amendment that is now being recommended. I shall quote what he said—

Oh, Sir, the man is surely talking nonsense and he knows it. After all, the Central Government is responsible for the policy and its implementation, and the Central Government is willing to accept the responsibility of passing this legislation with its amendments and implementing it. To now make this ridiculous accusation that the Government no longer sees its way clear to carrying this legislation through and implementing it successfully, I consider to be the talk of a child and not of an adult person such as the hon. member for Green Point. I say that I am glad to hear that the Opposition supports this legislation, but it also strikes me again that two hon. members on that side, and this is typical of their two-chair policy, again disagreed with each other recently in Simonstown as far as this legislation is concerned. The hon. member for Simonstown said he is in favour of the amendment, but at the same meeting the hon. member for Yeoville said he was not in favour of it.

You are talking nonsense. Where do you get that?

It is a pity. Then I should also like to say that the hon. member for South Coast is in favour of the legislation. He gave warning that if segregation was not implemented on our beaches, this could give rise to severe dispute, and five of his M.P.C.’s in Natal clashed with him about that. What does this legislation envisage? [Interjections.] The Opposition must not cry about it now. They get hurt if one talks the truth, and now they are crying again. What does this legislation envisage? Firstly the more efficient implementation of this Act, as laid down in 1953 and now amended, by local authorities that are now being declared authorized to set aside specific parts of the sea or sea-shore for certain groups. It is clear, after all, that many divisional councils, particularly in the Cape, have control over certain coastal areas. It is surely clear that the executive committees can and will delegate powers to the local authorities, always under the supervision of the provincial administration, of course, which in turn must carry out the policy of the Central Government. We are now giving them the power and the authority to make regulations. In all fields the executive committees do have the authority, in any case, to delegate powers to local authorities, and this also applies in respect of the allocation of separate beach facilities. In addition we can also say that this legislation also gives the State the power to compel the executive committees and the local authorities to make regulations, because it is important that the policy established by the Central Government shall be implemented on a countrywide scale. Because problems cropped up we have this amendment. The electorate which brought this Government into power, and has kept it in power for so many years, expects this policy to be implemented, because the voter would like to have his own beach area—I am speaking of the White voter— but he also wants to give the non-Whites their beach facilities. I have here before me a map that indicates where, inter alia, the beach areas for the Coloureds are on the Cape West coast. I counted them and there are already 15 beach areas reserved for the Coloureds. One of the reasons why the amendment is being introduced here is that the voter expects the policy for which he voted to be implemented. That is why the State is now assuming the power of also telling local authorities via the Administration that they would like this policy implemented.

The complex of existing legislation has essentially been transformed for the efficient exercising by the provincial councils of the function of the allocation and setting aside of separate beach facilities for the various population groups. That is why the Cape Provincial Administration is, as far as I know, in favour of this amendment which, for the purposes of the allocation of separate beach resorts, invests the Administrator with authority to determine what sea areas will be allocated for the Whites, the Coloureds, the Bantu and the Indians. Included in this is also the control over the sea-shore and the sea below the highwater mark. As matters stand at present, local authorities have no control or supervision over that part of the sea or the sea-shore. I think this legislation is very clear and the amendment speaks for itself. I want to say again that I am glad the hon. Opposition is going to vote for it, but it is a pity that they speak out against it so frequently.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Worcester began his speech, which he probably prepared some time ago, in a manner that reminded me of his predecessor and made me think he thought we were going to oppose this Bill, whereas in fact we support it. He started off by saying that this was going to give more power to the Central Government, and ended up by welcoming the delegation of powers to the provinces. It was rather a confused speech. One mistake the hon. member made was with regard to what he said concerning the hon. members for Yeoville and Simonstown. If he had read the reports correctly and had obtained the full text of what had been said, he would have seen that there was really no difference of opinion at all and that it had nothing to do with this Bill whatsoever. It had nothing to do with beach apartheid, but it concerned buses. So the hon. member should really go into matters more carefully.

I want to come to the hon. member for Houghton, who has suddenly left. I think she has left to have a cup of tea. She referred in rather a sneering manner to the facilities that are provided by local authorities. I want to tell the hon. member that our local authorities do make attempts to provide adequate facilities. I want to tell her that originally the Cape Town City Council, for instance, wished to obtain Woodstock Beach and Granger Bay for the Coloured people, but that their efforts were overruled for certain reasons. Granger Bay was, of course, taken over as a naval base, which made that impossible. I would also like to tell the hon. member that in my constituency, which has 150 miles of sea coast, we have provided very adequate beaches for our non-Whites because the local authorities have co-operated with the province and with the people in the area. I may mention one small area in Port Alfred where there were difficulties about beach amenities. With the assistance of the province, we in fact spent R22 500 in expropriating 11 morgen of sea-side where the ownership went down to the beach, to provide a lovely beach for the Coloureds and the Bantu. This beach is very popular with them and is used by non-Whites from a very wide area. I think that the hon. member should try to assist with the provision of these amenities, rather than speak scathingly of them.

I want to support the hon. member for Green Point’s plea to the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, namely that the powers he may delegate in terms of section 10 of the Act be extended. I do not want to go into this too much at the present time, because I am dealing at present with the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs about the destruction of marine life in certain areas in my constituency. The Cape Province has a very efficient nature conservation department. They can control all nature up to high-water mark, but there it stops. We have a number of people in South Africa today who have no respect whatsoever for ourl marine life and who are destroying it systematically from one end of the coast to the other. I believe that if the Minister would delegate the power to control the marine life in the inter-tidal zone and the sea-shore as such, it would go a long way towards preserving nature along our coast.

He can delegate it under section 10 (1) (c).

We would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to delegate the powers given by section 10 (1) (c) to the provinces. There is a perpetual conflict of opinion in this regard. Nobody knows who controls what. The result is that many people get away with absolute murder along our coasts. The angling clubs do their best to preserve our marine life and the department of nature conservation does its best. The limited number of fishery officers have vast areas to cover and do not only deal with the marine life in the inter-tidal zone and therefore it is impossible for them to carry out their task along our coast. I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider this as a very important factor and to deal with his colleague in the other department in order to find out whether the control of the sea-shore cannot also be delegated to the provinces to whom they belong, and to whom this is also an important factor for the future of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to the questions put by the hon. member for Green Point. The hon. member spoke of the removal of offal, etc. The regulations are only applicable in respect of bathing, the sea and the use of the seashore. Then, in pursuance of what the hon. member for Albany said later, the hon. member asked a question about amending the regulations. This request, i.e. the amending of regulations in terms of section 10 (1) (c), will have to be put by me to the Minister of Economic Affairs. I shall have to find out whether the …

The delegation of them.

I shall have to find out about the delegation of the powers to the provinces, if I understand the hon. member correctly. Then the hon. member for Green Point asked about the Admiralty Reserves. All the Admiralty Reserves are still State-owned land. They are not being transferred to the provinces. Admiralty lands still remain the property of the State, and there is no delegation.

Then the hon. member asked about 3antu land. He is quite correct, Bantu land is excluded from this amendment. As far as the hon. member’s question about the fine is concerned, I may just say that these regulations do not relate to marine life only, but they also relate to pollution and the removal of material. The maximum fine is R200 and one month’s imprisonment. This matter was discussed with the provinces and the local authorities. In the Committee Stage I shall go into certain of these aspects in more detail.

I am glad that the hon. member for Odendaalsrus and the hon. member for Worcester adopted that standpoint. It amazes me that the hon. member for Houghton asked questions and then left. Now I do not know to whom I am to reply, but in her absence I shall read a letter the Minister of Indian Affairs received from the Executive Committee of the Indian Council.

†The hon. member for Houghton said that it is a disgrace to see the area where the Coloureds must swim and she said that she was not very happy about the whole thing. I quote—

*This request was made by the Indian Council. I have not received a similar request from the Coloureds, but everyone welcomes this amendment. That is why I am glad that the Opposition, too, supports this amendment to the Act.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The 22 properties, which are all situated in the Division of George, and of which the description is given in the Schedule of the Bill, belong to numerous persons who do not have title deeds. This situation has arisen because of the fact that in most cases the registered owners died years ago and over the years the heirs have failed to take formal transfer of their rightful undivided share or shares or to pass deeds of partition transfer. In some cases the heir is already the fourth generation of the original owner.

The size of the individual properties varies from 1,7 ha to 1 272 ha and, as far as could be ascertained, more than 600 heirs are already involved in one case. In many cases estates are also involved in respect of the heirs. In addition, there has been an interchanging sale of shares, so that outsiders have obtained shares in some of the properties. The numerous estates, heirs and other successors and assigns who have over the years, become implicated in this matter, makes the division of transfer of the properties even more complicated.

Because of the uncertainty in respect of ownership, the land cannot be utilized to the best advantage of those who are entitled thereto. Because of their situation, certain portions are particularly suitable for recreation purposes or the establishment of townships. However, the uncertainty in respect of ownership, hampers such development. Large units which are held in undivided shares and which are suitable for farming, are rendered unusable because of unplanned occupation.

On several occasions heirs or other assignees have tried to conclude a division agreement by means of private negotiations. However, the number of interested parties involved, prevents any such private negotiation from succeeding. The small area of certain portions in respect of which a joining owner could take transfer by means of subdivision, and the requirements of the Deeds Registries Act that deeds should follow the order of their relative causes, would also result in the costs in regard to obtaining ownership, exceeding the value of the particular portion.

The situation is deteriorating progressively as a result of the increase in the number of persons entitled to shares in the land. At this stage fractional portions such as 1/704th share are already involved.

Since it is still possible at present to ascertain with reasonable certainty which persons have claim to particular pieces of land, the authorities have decided to introduce legislation in order to resolve the matter. Therefore the Bill before you makes provision for the establishment of a committee consisting of three members with the power to divide the properties in question and to transfer the portion or portions directly to the persons entitled thereto. Furthermore, in certain cases where it is not feasible or desirable to transfer a particular portion or portions, the committee is authorized to sell those portions and to distribute the proceeds, after the costs have been deducted, among the persons entitled thereto.

The first task of the Land Division Committee will be to ascertain who the persons are who are entitled to a share in particular properties and to what share in those properties each person is entitled. Where a portion of land which, because of its natural condition or for any other reason deemed sufficient by the committee, shall not be allocated to claimants and therefore has to be sold in order to pay the net proceeds to the person entitled thereto, the Minister shall determine the conditions of sale. In a few cases mortgages are involved, and in such cases the mortgage debt will be covered from the proceeds of the sale after which the balance will be paid to the person entitled thereto.

Because of the fact that there are cases where two or more persons have shares in two or more adjoining properties, provision is being made that such adjoining properties, where the committee deems it expedient for the purposes of the division and allocation, may be regarded as a single property and a single portion of the joint pieces of land may be allocated to each of the interested parties. The single piece of land will then represent such a person’s share in the two or more pieces of land.

All expenditure incurred by the committee in regard to the division, allocation and transfer of the land, will be paid by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, on a recoverable basis in fact, from funds appropriated by Parliament for the purpose. In other words, each claimant will have to pay his rightful share of the costs incurred to the said department, for payment into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Transfer will not take place before the costs have been paid. The division and transfer of the land in terms of the proposed measure, are exempted from transfer fees, stamp duties and office fees. Taking into account the private rights involved in this matter, the Bill has been treated as a hybrid measure. In other words, the intention to introduce the Bill was announced in advance by means of the Gazette and local newspapers. Interested parties whose names and addresses it was possible to obtain, were also informed of this intention by registered post. The Bill as such was open to perusal at the offices of the magistrate at George, the Divisional Council at George and with the Cape Provincial Secretary. No objections were received from any interested persons.

Mr. Speaker, this really is a very interesting piece of legislation, submitted here by the hon. the Deputy Minister. In fact, I think it is unique. It is seldom or never that this type of legislation appears. The hon. the Deputy Minister explained to us what has been done and said that interested parties, if they had any objection to the legislation, had an opportunity of expressing such objections at the right place and in the right way. This Bill provides for a special committee to be appointed in order to ensure that equitable division takes place and where the assets are sold, any person who may still have a form of ownership, will in fact receive his or her rightful share. Furthermore, it is interesting to find that if one combines this land, it is a considerable area in the vicinity of George being cultivated and inhabited in this way today by many people One wants to express the hope that when this Land Division Committee carries out its task, it will ensure that nobody will suffer any damage in this respect. Although it was a good idea to place the advertisement in the local newspaper and in the Gazette, one must realize that there are often many people who do not see this type of thing and who are totally unaware of the decisions taken. Therefore I say that this Land Division Committee will have a very heavy responsibility to ensure that nobody suffers damage in this regard. It is a pity legislation of this kind could not be referred to a Select Committee, because I think one would then have been able to give satisfaction to all parties in all respects. Of course, there is a particular procedure which must be followed, and because nobody has raised any serious objection, one can expect that there will be no serious misgivings about this legislation either. Therefore we on this side of the House support the passing of the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, by speaking now, I am in fact doing something unusual, because this Bill is something which affects one of my colleagues. However, this is a matter which affects my constituency very intimately, and because, from the first day, I was concerned with the plans to establish something which culminated in the form in which we have it before this hon. House today, I have really risen only to make three points. Firstly, I want to express my thanks for the goodwill with which the department concerned and my colleagues approached this problem. In the second place, I want to say I believe the steps being envisaged here, will lead to tremendous development in the area where these two farms are situated. It is the position that if the conditions prevailing at present, were to continue, they would stand in the way of development. I am aware that certain persons living on this land are full of energy and initiative and are searching for only the slightest opportunity to give expression to their excessive energy and plans, but who are frustrated and baulked by the re-restricted measures existing at present. Therefore I hope that, if this masure makes it possible to create new circumstances, there will be new progress and development in that part of the district as there has been in recent years in agriculture and in other spheres in that district.

In the third place, I merely want to say that one of these pieces of land is situated in the vicinity of the lakes between George and Knysna, which, seen from various points of view, amongst others from the point of view of tourism, is probably one of South Africa’s greatest assets. What we are actually doing here, is to render a further contribution to make it possible for that asset situated between George and Knysna to be developed further in the interests of the whole country, because it is something unique in South Africa. Let me add that in my opinion there are few parts of the world which have anything more beautiful than this. I want to thank my colleagues for the steps they have taken. Since I have been concerned with this matter from the beginning, together with the hon. member for False Bay, who also gave much assistance in formulating a plan according to which we could find a practical solution, I want to give this measure my full support.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newton Park said that we had perhaps not advertised this Bill sufficiently. In my Second Reading speech I told the hon. member that we had also sent registered letters to those owners whom we were able to trace. We did not receive a single objection from that source. If, however, within five days after the Second Reading, we receive any objection submitted by the Secretary to the House of Assembly, a Select Committee could still be appointed.

I am pleased that the hon. the Minister of Defence, whose constituency this is, participated in this discussion. When he took me there to see the situation, I thought it was an impossible task. Seen in the light of the assistance from the hon. member for False Bay, the Minister of Defence and other members of his department, I agree with the hon. member for Newton Park that it is a unique matter. There are a number of similar cases in our country. If this one succeeds and the owners are satisfied, we may extend it to other areas as well.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill contains mainly three types of amendments. In the first place, a number of minor amendments are proposed in order to overhaul the principal Act. Some of these have become necessary in order to bring the provisions of the principal Act into line with the position in practice. Others are intended to eliminate flaws and to bring the provisions concerned into line with other similar provisions in the principal Act. No new principles are involved.

Secondly, a number of amendments are proposed in regard to companies which act as commission agents or brokers. The registration of a company as a commission agent is done in the name of the company. In relevant cases the Act is also applicable to the employees of a commission agent and, since the definition of “employee” includes a director of the company, to the directors as well. However, this is not the case where an application for registration or renewal of registration as a commission agent may be refused by the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing by virtue of the provision in section 6 (i) (g) of the principal Act, namely where, and I quote—

For the sake of more effective control it is necessary that specific provision be made in respect of the position of the director of a company which has been registered as a commission agent.

The third group of amendments relate to the way in which unclaimed moneys due to principals in respect of perishable agricultural produce sold on their behalf, are to be disposed of.

At present section 93 of the Administration of Estates Act applies, which provides that all persons carrying on business in the Republic shall each year prepare and publish in the Government Gazette statements of moneys which are not their property and have remained unclaimed for a period of five years or more by the rightful owners. After a further three months, the moneys still remaining unclaimed are paid into the guardians’ fund concerned; in the case of Bantu, into the Bantu Trust Fund.

Because all unclaimed moneys continue to be a charge against the security which a commission agent is obliged to furnish, the accumulation of unclaimed moneys may materially prejudice the position of claimants against the security when the commission agent terminates his business owing to financial problems or his registration is withdrawn. Accordingly it is deemed advisable to make special provision in the principal Act to oblige commission agents to pay over such moneys after six months to the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing, who will then advertise the matter in the Government Gazette and pay all unclaimed amounts into the guardians’ fund.

In conclusion I should like to emphasize that not only has there been thorough consultation with all the interested parties such as organized agriculture, the Institute of Marketing Agents of South Africa, and the Institute of Market Masters, but that specific requests have also been received for certain flaws to be eliminated.

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members opposite will find, when legislation which is aimed at protecting the interests of the farmer is submitted to us, this side of this House is prepared to support them. This legislation is an example of where we are prepared to protect the interests of the farmer. The hon. the Minister explained to us that clause 3 in particular is designed to take action against a broker or commission agent who is not a company and who forms a company and then neglects to protect the financial interests of the farmer. The last amendment to which the Minister paid attention, i.e. in regard to the accumulation of money, is a definite step in this legislation to provide clearly how the farmer may obtain that money and what will happen to it if he does not claim it.

I am surprised, however, that the hon. the Deputy Minister did not explain clause 12 to us. Perhaps I did not hear properly. I refer particularly to paragraph (b), in terms of which regulations may now also be made in respect of places which normally are not under the control of a market master. We should like to know from the hon. the Minister what the object of this is. Is it the intention that regulations may now also be made for example for supermarkets where vegetables and perishable produce are sold? Is this why the Deputy Minister wants this power? We should just like to know the reasons for that. For the rest we have no objection to the legislation and shall support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this legislation because it affords us better control over our marketing system. We are aware that our marketing system is slowly but surely being replaced by direct sales of produce. But the existing marketing system still forms a very important part of the way in which the farmer’s produce reaches the consumer.

I take it that this statutory amendment is part of the recommendations of the Marketing Committee which was recently appointed to give advice in connection with municipal markets.

I am also interested in clause 12, the same clause in respect of which the hon. member for Newton Park put a question. I should like to know from the Minister what exactly is meant by the control of concerns other than the markets. I was merely wondering whether it included, for example, agencies of control boards which may market at other places under the supervision of the municipal markets.

We welcome this better control, especially over the unclaimed moneys, because it places the position beyond all doubt.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newton Park was correct in referring to supermarkets. The existing provisions of the Act are applicable to markets within a municipal area. But then we get the case—and I think with this I am at the same time—replying to the hon. member for Humansdorp where a man sends his product to a firm which does not have this system, or which is outside a controlled market area, a supermarket which works with a cash register. Provision is made for these specific cases, and they are not involved here. The organizations also pointed out that a great deal of the marketing is done through firms which do not have the same bookkeeping system as a municipal market.

In regard to the control boards which market through municipal markets, I want to say that municipal markets are subject to these regulations in terms of this Act. Therefore this measure is applicable to them. But if a control board such as the Potato Board sells directly to a supermarket, the amendment is designed to accommodate that as well.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Hon. members are aware that the Dairy Industry Act (No. 30 of 1961) was amended last year in order to make provision for the sale of yellow margarine in the Republic.

As a result of representations received from South-West Africa—inter alia, from the South-West Africa Dairy Board—the Government has decided to allow the sale of yellow margarine in this territory as well.

In order to implement this decision, it is necessary suitably to amend the Act concerned as well as the Dairy Industry Control Ordinance, 1962 (No. 29 of 1962) of the territory.

The present legal position is that the manufacture, importation or sale of yellow margarine is prohibited in the territory. Neither the Minister nor the South-West Africa Dairy Board has any authority to make exceptions to this prohibition.

With this Bill it is accordingly proposed to extend the legislation applicable to the Republic in respect of margarine, to South-West Africa. The powers which the South-West Africa Dairy Board had over white margarine, are also being withdrawn by this.

The purpose of this Act is therefore to accommodate the manufacture and importation of margarine in the territory in the present control system of the Republic.

Mr. Speaker, it would be strange if the manufacture of margarine were allowed in the Republic but not in South-West Africa. Therefore we shall not oppose the principle contained in this legislation. Furthermore, I was interested to hear that representations had been made by the South-West Africa Dairy Board and that this change was then effected. Strangely enough, when the change was effected here in the Republic, the Dairy Board was not really approached and it was not consulted about the manufacture of yellow margarine. The hon. the Deputy Minister will remember that the chairman, and especially Mr. Albert Basson, objected strongly because he had not been consulted and because they knew nothing of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s proposed plan. Now we have a welcome change in approach here. In this connection the Dairy Board has in fact been approached. But in regard to the manufacture of margarine there are very interesting developments these days. We have heard that the public of South Africa are entitled to obtain margarine because so many of them cannot afford butter. Just recently we have found that yellow margarine costs approximately the same as imported New Zealand butter. In other words, we find that the opportunity the housewife had of obtaining the cheaper product, has now been completely removed. We therefore expect that, when the hon. the Deputy Minister makes this Act applicable to South-West Africa, he will watch this new development very carefully. Sir, the attitude of this side of the House is very clear, namely that the original, natural product should be protected at all times, and the best way of protecting the natural product, namely butter, is of course to make its price competitive with that of margarine.

What is unnatural in margarine?

Sir, I am glad the hon. member has asked that question, because when one speaks of butter in the normal sense of the word, one most definitely does not mean artificial butter; one is referring to the product of the cow. In regard to yellow magrarine, the hon. member will remember that the reason why the hon. the Minister asked for the manufacture of yellow margarine was that the public were not buying white margarine because they wanted a product which looked more or less like butter.

Reply to the question.

I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to have due regard to the fact that the price of butter should be competitive with that of margarine.

Must it come down?

The attitude of this side of the House is very clear, i.e. that if the price of butter is to be made competitive with that of margarine, it will be necessary to subsidize the consumer price. If it is necessary to increase the subsidy beyond the R5,7 million being spent today, the hon. the Deputy Minister will find that hon. members on this side are prepared to support such a step. It is not our policy to benefit one sector at the expense of another. It is our policy to protect the dairy industry in South Africa. We have absolutely nothing against the oil-seed producers in South Africa. We think they fulfil as important a role in this country, but if there is something which goes against the grain of dairy farmers of South Africa, it is that a product appears on the market which is an attempt to imitate his product, while his own product cannot be placed in a competitive position. But because it would be wrong—and this is consistent with the attitude we adopted last year—to allow the production of yellow margarine in the Republic and not in South-West Africa, we on this side of the House support the Second Reading.

Sir, I think it must be marvellous sitting in the Opposition benches, because you are always right, no matter what attitude you adopt; someone has to bear the brunt. The hon. member who has just spoken, never wants to adopt a standpoint when I ask him whether we should increase the quotas for yellow margarine, but he always criticizes us. When I ask him whether we should import mutton at a low price, he remains absolutely silent; he does not reply, because if he says “yes”, he is caught. The hon. member asked why the Dairy Board had been consulted in this regard. The situation is completely different here. What would have been the use of consulting the Dairy Board last year? We knew they would say “no”; let us be honest. The Dairy Board has now come forward of its own free will and has said: “The manufacture of margarine is prohibited in a country which has a shortage of butter, which produced a surplus in the past, but South-West Africa is dependent on imported butter.”

May I ask a question? Will the hon. the Minister always agree with a control board if he kows beforehand that they are going to say “yes”?

It is no use making a political issue of this matter. The hon. member is aware that the announcement was made. I told the Dairy Board personally that if they were a decent Dairy Board, surely they would oppose these things. This is precisely what I say a good government is; if it sees there is a decision to be taken, it takes it. But the Dairy Board says “no” and of course it would say “no” in South Africa. However, both sides pressed for a cheap spread. The hon. member says we should look after the cream producer. Can he mention one cream producer to me who has received a cent less for his butter fat since yellow margarine has come onto the market? There is not one.

Correct, but for how long?

Why then does the hon. member continue pleading? Here he wants to protect the cream producers. He is terribly fond of them. He wants to protect the cream producers, but he is not committing himself completely. You are talking here only to have it recorded in Hansard, but outside you tell the consumer to look at the price. You said a moment ago that the price of margarine was equal to that of New Zealand butter, but surely you know that is not the case. Surely you know that the price of yellow margarine, as announced by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, is considerably lower than the price of New Zealand butter, which has in fact been sold at a loss now. I explained the matter to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District. He castigated the Dairy Board, and those people are very bitter about what he said here about them, and it is still our people, the so-called farmers, who control the Dairy Board. I told you explicitly that that butter had been loaded onto the ship at the time we announced yellow margarine and the consumption dropped by 38 per cent. But is it such a terrible scandal or “muddle” if one sees that the quantity which has been imported and the quantity which has been exported are both as much as we consume in two weeks? Now the hon. member says the export loss should have been given to the domestic consumer. It is 2 cents per pound which you could have granted for two weeks. Please be realistic. We have reached the stage today where anything is seized upon in order to make political capital. But with whom are you scoring any success with this sort of thing? Definitely not with the farmers, because not one of them has received a cent less. I want to put a question to the hon. member now. We can still reduce the price of butter.

Will the hon. the Minister give me the assurance that the cream producers will not have a reduction in their price in the next year?

I can say we shall do our utmost. But what have we done in the past? Under this Government that price has increased gradually, depending on the increases in cost. The hon. member is aware that the Dairy Board said last year that they wanted the price of butter fat to be increased, but you agreed that the man working in the creamery, the transporter, in fact everyone, should get a bigger salary, and then the price increased to 54 cents a pound, in spite of a Government subsidy of R5,6 million. I now want to ask the hon. member whether he would like us to increase this subsidy on butter? Look, we may not reduce the producer’s price now, but someone must lose, because he wants to provide butter cheaply now. Must we increase the subsidy on butter? You said we should protect the producer. All we can do is to pay a larger subsidy on the price of butter. Is the hon. member suggesting that the subsidy of R5,6 million on the price of butter is too low and that it should be increased, yes or no?

If it is necessary to do so, yes.

So, we must take it from the pocket of the taxpayer?

Surely you still have the stabilisation fund.

Oh, Sir, can you see what the hon. member wants to do? The hon. member wants to use the stabilisation fund which the farmers have built up for the lean years, in order to produce cheap butter. The hon. member has said he wants us to use the stabilisation fund in order to provide the urban consumer with cheap butter. Now he is precisely where I wanted him. I am so glad about that statement. It is not love for the farmer on his part; he merely wanted to capture a few popular votes in the cities, and for that the farmer must draw on his stabilisation fund today.

The Minister of Finance said that.

No, he never said that. I thought we were discussing legislation here, and now we are talking about butter again. I just want to mention this to the hon. member. We have this quota for yellow margarine, and now I want the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, who attacked the Dairy Board, to listen. Do you know what a positive Board this is? They come to us and say the time has arrived for us to do away with quotas, because the chain stores and the trade are using quotas as a psychological sales technique. The housewife comes in and there is enough margarine, but a notice is pasted up that she should remember that margarine is under quota and that she will not be able to obtain it next week. She wants to buy shoe polish and instead she buys margarine. This is a psychological system, and they will come back with a proposal—I am not saying it is final, but they are considering it of their own accord—to say that margarine should be free for all, and then the novelty of yellow margarine will wear off. There are always people who want to make money out of something and there are also a lot of people who want to make a political issue out of it. I just wanted to get that in, Sir.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In order to bring about uniformity, the Veterinary Association and the Veterinary Board thought fit to request that the Veterinary Act be made applicable in South-West Africa. This request is gladly complied with.

In order not to deprive certain persons who have been practising in the territory as veterinarians for years but who do not have sufficient qualifications, of their livelihood, it has been decided to afford them special protection in terms of clause 4. The names of the persons concerned may be found in the Schedule to this Bill.

Furthermore, the Veterinary Board requested to be invested with special powers as laid down in clause 5, in order to act where persons are unable to continue practising as veterinarians on account of mental or physical disabilities. Similar measures have already been laid down for medical practitioners and dentists, so that no new principles are involved here.

Since this is a perfectly innocent piece of legislation and I do not intend to push up the hon. the Deputy Minister’s blood pressure, we want to support its Second Reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

By way of preface I want to point out that the various provisions of this Bill are aimed at effecting adjustments and corrections to laws. Furthermore, it includes the addition of further matters to the legislative powers of homeland governments. In fact, this Bill contains no principles deviating from the principles embodied in previously adopted legislation, and consequently I trust that the House as a whole will see its way clear to accepting this Bill in its present form without any hesitation.

The various provisions of the Bill have already been explained in an explanatory memorandum tabled here, but for the information of hon. members I nevertheless want to add briefly some further comment on the Bill.

Clauses 1 and 2:

The pre-Union marriage laws in the provinces of Natal and the Transvaal provide that a Bantu female, irrespective of her age, may not enter into a marriage without the consent of her father or guardian. The said pre-Union laws will remain in force in respect of Bantu in terms of section 39 of the Marriage Act, 1961 (Act No. 25 of 1961), until they are repealed by the State President.

The provision to which I referred, is the only provision of the pre-Union laws which, at the request of the Bantu authorities concerned—and here I want to repeat, at the request of the Bantu authorities concerned—is still to be retained, and it is proposed to incorporate the said provisions in the Bantu Administration Act in order that the relevant pre-Union laws may then be repealed simultaneously with the commencement of the proposed section 22ter.

It is also provided that the Minister or a person authorized by him or a court of competent jurisdiction may grant this consent if, for some reason or other, a Bantu female who is of age is unable to obtain such consent from her father or guardian, or if such consent is unreasonably withheld by him.

If the relevant pre-Union laws are repealed, the object of section 2 (4) of the Bantu Administration Act, 1927, will fall away. Clause 1 makes provision for the repeal thereof.

Clause 3:

This clause seeks to include in the released area those farms mentioned here so that the South African Bantu Trust may legally purchase them, and to authorize the expenditure involved in such purchase.

Clause 4:

This clause provides that the word “Bantu” shall be construed as “Native” in the territory of South-West Africa, where it is not applicable, but where it appears in laws and documents and in the references to certain official titles and otherwise which are applicable in the said territories.

Clauses 5, 6 and 7 (1) (a):

†Mr. Speaker, this is a further development in accordance with the policy of this Government by which Bantu nations are given an increasing role in the handling of their own affairs on their road to self-determination.

While the Transkei Government is tackling their task with enthusiasm and would like even greater control over the affairs of their country, these clauses and that dealing with road carrier transportation comply with their wishes.

In Clauses 5, 6 and 7 (1) (a) it is proposed to extend the legislative powers of the Transkei Legislative Assembly to include the establishment, disestablishment, administration and control of prisons for Bantu persons in the districts of the Transkei excluding the White areas in the districts of Port St. Johns and Matatiele.

Provision is also made for the recognition of prisons, the control and administration of which has been assigned to the Government of the Transkei as well as prisons established by Transkeian authorities, as prisons for the purpose of laws of the Republic relating to prisons. This is necessary as the Bill also provides for the transfer, with the approval of the Minister of Prisons of the Republic and the Minister concerned of the Transkei, of Bantu serving sentences of imprisonment between prisons of the Republic and of the Transkei. This in turn is necessary to keep the administration of prisons in the Republic as a whole, flexible and is not to be viewed as an extradition arrangement as it only relates to persons already serving prison sentences.

The Minister of Prisons of the Republic is being empowered to assign the control and administration of existing prisons in the Transkeian districts mentioned earlier, to the Transkeian Government to be controlled and administered as prisons for Bantu persons.

As it is necessary for the Republican authorities to maintain prisons in the Transkei, for instance for non-Bantu and other persons not belonging to the Transkei, it is also provided that the authorities of the Republic retain powers over such prisons.

Clause 7 (1) (b), (c) and (2):

Mr. Speaker, the legislative power of the Transkei Legislative Assembly is being further extended to include motor carrier transportation in the districts of the Transkei, excluding the White areas of Matatiele and Port St. Johns, and in order to transfer such power completely, it is provided that there shall be no appeal to the National Transport Commission in terms of Section 6 (2) of the Motor Carrier Transportation Act, 1930. To make it possible for the Transkeian authorities to review even the existing position, it is provided that any existing certificate or exemption shall not continue to be valid after a transitionary period.

Clause 8:

*This clause seeks to give effect to requests received from the governments concerned for the names of their territories to be altered. These requests came from their side.

Clause 9:

This clause seeks to effect certain improvements and additions to the list of matters over which the Legislative Council in South-West Africa shall have jurisdiction. This does not comprise anything new, and in the main it brings the list into line with the position in the Republic.

Clause 10:

This clause provides that any property, both movable and immovable, which belongs to the State, Provincial Administrations and the Administration of the Territory of South-West Africa may, after the necessary consultation with the parties concerned, be transferred to Bantu public bodies.

Clause 11:

This clause seeks to provide that the Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development and the Secretary for Social Welfare and Pensions, respectively, may delegate their powers and duties in terms of the Bantu Authorities’ Service Pensions Act, 1971 (Act No. 6 of 1971), to officers both in the public service and outside their departments; this provision is essential since the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions is administering the Act on behalf of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development.

Clause 12:

The object of this clause is the “establishment of public holidays” as an additional matter in regard to which legislative assemblies established in terms of the Bantu Homelands Constitution Act, 1971, shall have legislative powers.

Clause 13:

This clause only contains the short title and dates of commencement.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill deals with several subjects. It starts with marriage laws and then it moves on to land matters, prisons, motor carrier transport in the Transkei, constitutional matters in South-West Africa, the transfer of land to Bantu bodies, the delegation of powers of senior and junior officials and finally, as the hon. the Minister has said, it ends up with holidays, which everybody will need by the time we have got through this Bill.

We have no objection to the first clause which deals with the removal of Bantu Affairs Commissioners as marriage officers.

As far as clause 2 is concerned we have an objection. This clause prohibits civil marriages by African Bantu females in the Transvaal and Natal unless they have the consent of their guardians. If a guardain refuses to give his consent and if the Minister considers his act unreasonable, he can give permission to marry. The Bantu woman is also entitled to go to court to seek permission of a Judge. The reason for this prohibition as the Minister has said is a request from the Bantu authorities in those two provinces. In the Cape we are more enlightened and we say that by all means the people who want to and still believe in their customs can stick to them. However, if the custom is not strong enough to bind the members of the tribe to it, we must not enforce it by passing a law. The Common Law of the country should prevail. I repeat if groups of people wish to respect their own customs or law they must do so without embarrassing others who do not wish to abide by those antiquated customs and we must not pass a law to be observed by all. What is the position with regard to a Bantu woman in the Native law in Natal and in the Transvaal, although I am not quite sure about that? She remains a minor all her life and she is under perpetual tutelage. In the Transkei, in the Cape she becomes a major like any other woman at the age of 21. No customary union in any part of the country is recognized as a union or as a marriage unless the father or guardian of the girl consents to the marriage. The consent is a prerequisite and without it there is no customary union. In the Cape the civil law also applies to all those who wish to marry by civil law and by Christian rites. If the Bantu authorities in Natal and the Transvaal wish to apply their customs to civil marriages as well, it is their indaba in their own homelands. I object to their forcing this custom on others living in Natal or the Transvaal, but outside the homelands. If this clause, as I read it, is passed it will mean that no Bantu or African woman can marry in the Transvaal or Natal without the consent of a guardian. Why should these Bantu authorities in the Transvaal stop for instance Transkeian citizens who happen to be living in the Transvaal from marrying without their guardian’s consent? Why should they stop others who have become detribalized from marrying because of an old and antiquated custom? Of course, the woman who is denied can apply to court, but why should she be put to that considerable expense and delay? By Native custom, if a guardian will not give his consent the woman of course can ignore it by merely going to live with her lover. Then she becomes what is known as a “dikazi”. Her father can then sue for damages for the seduction of his daughter, but moneywise it is much better for him to collect a dowry. In the end he will probably give his consent to the marriage so that he can claim the dowry. But what happens where the parties want a civil marriage? If the guardian will not give his consent, it will merely mean that they will be living in sin and the children will grow up as little bastards. In these days of the permissive society it should be our aim to make marriage easier and not more difficult for these people. Even in Natal where a female becomes emancipated on application to a Bantu Commissioner—he gives her a special certificate of emancipation—she will still not be able to marry because of the retention of this law in which the legal status of a woman is ignored. No matter what her status may be or what age she has attained, she will still have to obtain permission from her guardian who may be a cousin far removed and who has no real interest in her except for her dowry. She would have either to get his consent or be compelled to go to a Judge or to make special application to the Minister. I think it is wrong to keep the African bound to his old custom where he has left his homeland. Even in his homeland his way of life has completely changed from what it was even 25 years ago. The discipline of the Bantu was based in the kraal head and he expected and was given respect by all the inmates of that kraal. But this discipline has broken down because the authority of the kraal head is slipping for the simple reason that for economic reasons the African is compelled to leave his kraal site to go elsewhere to make a living.

The old order was changing, the new was replacing the old in Shakespeare’s time and I submit it has gone on and on. It is always changing. We, the White people, have accepted the changes. We do not abide by the old customs of our ancestors in Holland or Germany or Britain. We have changed with the times. Economic necessities have forced changes on us and they have also forced changes on the African. We must recognize and appreciate that his customs, perhaps regrettably so, are changing too. For those who wish to abide by the customs, I say, let them do so by all means. Jews have their laws. They do not all abide by them, but we do not pass a law compelling them to do so. If parents desire a customary marriage, let them have it and as other religions do, they can have it in addition to the civil marriage if their children desire such a marriage. The civil marriage has consequences in law which do not follow customary union. If two mature people wish to follow these consequences for themselves and for their children, I submit that they are entitled to do so. As I have said, we are opposed to clause 2.

In connection with clause 3, I should like to say that this is not the first time that the department has been guilty of this type of error, namely of buying land where it is not entitled to do so. Although we will approve of the clause, we ask that more care be taken in future because the purchase of land by the Trust may adversely affect neighbouring owners and their rights should be respected in terms of the law.

Clause 4 merely deals with the change in designation and we appreciate that in South-West Africa the word “Native” must be used instead of the word “Bantu”.

Clause 8 merely seeks to change the spelling of the names Ovamboland and Kawangoland. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister why the “w” is substituted for the “v” in both “Owambo” and “Kawango”. There is probably a very good reason for it. It is probably because of the Native way of spelling these names. I do not know, but I have no doubt that the hon. the Minister will be able to give us the reason.

The spelling of “Kavangoland” keeps the “v”.

I am sorry, it is only the spelling of “Owambo” that is changed.

I now come to clauses 5, 6, 7 and 9. Clauses 5, 6 and 7 deal with the Constitution of the Transkei, giving that Government wider jurisdiction and clause 9 empowers the Government to give further powers to the Native authorities in South-West Africa. I want to ask some questions about the application of these laws, but first I want to state our attitude with regard to the extension of political power to the Native or African authorities. I do not know why it is, but there still seems to be some doubt about our policy with regard to the political development of the Bantu in the homelands. Because we are opposed to the Government’s Bantustan policy, against the ultimate aim of giving ultimate sovereign independence, does not mean that we are opposed to the granting of more power to their authorities to control their own affairs. In fact we made it quite clear that it is our policy to establish communal councils giving them powers to control their own affairs. We have made our position quite clear. We stand for the economic development of the Reserves to the fullest extent and have continued to attack the Government for not developing them fast enough pointing out that under Dr. Verwoerd’s policy of prohibiting the use of White capital and initiative, he was stifling development in the Reserves which were becoming a drag on the economy of the rest of the country. At last, and in keeping with the changes of thinking by members on the other side, they are changing their policy. The Government is slowly taking over our policies in this regard too. They are now inviting White capital in the reserves. With regard to political development it should be well-known by now that under our race federation policy we promised constitutional development for the Reserves right up to and beyond provincial council standards, but in an ordered manner. In 1937 Genl. Smuts promised that the old Bunga in the Transkei and the Native Representative Council would be given more powers. Unfortunately he was not allowed to put his policy into effect. We have often expressed our concern over the tardy economic development. Now with regard to political development the Transkei is obviously better fitted than the other Reserves, both in South Africa and in South-West Africa, for the granting of more powers to manage its own affairs. We have agreed to extensions of their powers except where the extension has had the character or had been in character with the Government’s declared policy of granting eventual sovereign independence. If any amendment to a constitution of any of the authorities comes before us in this House, our consideration is first whether it is in accordance with our policy of granting them powers for self-government to control their own affairs or if it is in line for a constitutional change to bring about independence. The amendments proposed in this Bill before us fall into the first category and we will therefore not oppose them. However, that does not mean that if we were governing, that we would necessarily give all these powers now proposed. We are by no means satisfied that the South-West African authorities have reached the stage where they can be entrusted to manage and administer all the affairs which it is now proposed to hand over to these authorities. By passing this Bill these powers will be handed over to any of these authorities no matter what their state of development is. We say that as far as South-West Africa is concerned there is a balancing or controlling factor in that the State President still has the right of veto and can in fact legislate for the area, a right which he has lost in certain respects in the Transkei. In the Committee Stage we shall deal with these proposals in detail and voice our misgivings in certain respects.

As far as clause 6 is concerned, I see that it provides for the transfer of prisoners from the Republic to the Transkei and vice versa. I want to ask the Minister whether only Transkeians will be transferred to the Transkei and will non-Transkeians only be transferred from the Transkei to prisons in the Republic. Will any non-Transkeian be transferred to the Transkei to get vocational training in prisons there? I understand that at the new gaol at Umzimkulu, which I visited recently, there are facilities for giving training for builders, carpenters, and so on, in the building trade and I want to know if it is meant to transfer Bantu from the Republic who are not Transkeian citizens to a goal like that to teach them the various trades. If a Transkeian is permanently resident outside and is enjoying section 10 rights, and if he is gaoled and is sent to a prison in the Transkei, will he return to his home at the end of his sentence or will he be discharged and left in the Transkei?

Clause 7 deals with motor carrier transportation and I want to know what will happen to a carrier based in Matatiele and Port St. Johns. Where will he get exemptions? Will he be allowed to operate in the Transkei and will the Transkeian authorities be permitted to issue certificates or exemptions entitling operators in the Transkei to operate outside the Transkei? Let us take the example of the delivery of household effects by a Transkeian carrier, with exemption in the Transkei, from Umtata to Pretoria. Will he be allowed to do so or will he have to get an additional certificate of exemption from the authorities in the Republic? If he will not be allowed to operate elsewhere, will the Transkeian Government then in fact be able to prohibit traffic by haulers passing through the Transkei say from the Cape to Natal, or will carriers with certificates issued in the Republic automatically be allowed to pass through the Transkei?

Then there is the question of holidays. I would like to know what the position is in regard to holidays. These holidays will be in substitution for holidays in the Republic. The different authorities will be able to grant holidays with the concurrence of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in substitution for public holidays established by or in terms of the public holidays Act. I want to know what is meant by “substitution”. Does it mean that the holidays would have to be on the same days as holidays in the Republic? For example, will the authorities have to have a holiday on the 31st May, the 10th October and the 16th December, or can they have their holidays on dates which they choose as long as they do not have more holidays than are recognized in the Republic? This is important, because if all these homeland governments are going to be given permission to have their own holidays, I think we have 12 holidays recognized in the Republic, the eight Bantu authorities envisaged will all have their own 12 holidays, making the total 96 holidays for the different homelands on different days in addition to our 12 holidays in the Republic. Although they obviously cannot legislate to make holidays in the Republic outside of the homelands, if they declare certain days to be their national days for each homeland, their citizens who are living and working in the Republic will no doubt wish to recognize those days as well wherever they are working. We might find our economy here hampered by a multitude of holidays being recognized or celebrated by the different people of the different homelands.

There is nothing in the principle of this Bill to which we are opposed. In the Committee Stage we will certainly have a lot of criticisms to offer and we will want much more information, but at this stage we will not oppose the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Transkei, particularly because he, as we know, is the chief spokesman of the Opposition on matters concerning the Bantu groups in South Africa. In my speech I also want to refer to certain matters which the hon. member touched upon.

I want to begin by referring to clause 2, to which he expressed his opposition. In the discussion of this clause it became very apparent again what the difference between the National Party and the United Party is in regard to the handling of Bantu affairs. With the march of political events in South Africa, particularly in the times in which we are living, we will again indicate, much more clearly, the difference in approach and standpoint. It was interesting to see the reaction of the hon. member to the request from Bantu leaders in regard to their approach to marriage and the matters arising out of that.

The first important fact which the hon. member should take into consideration is that this clause, as it stands here, was inserted at the request of the Bantu themselves. Now one must concede that it is those Bantu who for various reasons want to accept and retain their own traditional way of life. The hon. member was actually emphasizing the other standpoint, i.e. that one should rather maintain the attitude of the other Bantu who no longer adhere so closely to their tribal traditions.

First I want to make a few general remarks about the standpoint of the National Party. In this clause the National Party is again recognizing the Bantu way of life, and in particular this one aspect, i.e. the recognition of Bantu law, regardless of how vaguely one has to state it at this stage. I must say that the National Party is displaying a much better knowledge of the traditional Bantu way of life here than the hon. Opposition, because one cannot deal with these matters in South Africa in a thorough, accurate and careful way if one does not have a very thorough knowledge of the traditional living patterns of the Bantu. If you want to create an orderly community in Bantu society, particularly after their contact with the Western way of life, you cannot get away from the fact that these people have particular norms according to which they have been living for many centuries. I can represent the difference between the National Party and the United Party symbolically by comparing it to a person travelling along a narrow road verging on a precipice. The United Party is trying to move as closely as possible to that precipice, while the National Party wants to stay as far away from it as it can. Therefore we are far more conservative in our approach than they are. That is why I think that we will survive the dangers, whereas they will plunge over the side of that precipice. I have said that in dealing with this matter we take very thorough cognizance of the existing norms in the living pattern of the Bantu. But in addition to that we also take very thorough cognizance of what influence the Western way of life has had on the Bantu. We have been admitting that all these years. We recognize that there has been a process of acculturation and cultural influence. We admit that there has been a change in the way of life of the Bantu. This influence on Bantu society came particularly from people who did not have expert knowledge of the Bantu and who were really imperialistic in their dealings with them. If we consider the history of the previous century, with the influences of the British Government in particular, then we note that these people deliberately wanted simply to force the Western way of life upon Bantu society, and that is quite simply as far as hon. members of the Opposition go, but one must go further and then one sees that there was a reaction on the part of the Bantu in respect of this so-called forced cultural influence on the part of the Whites. The hon. members of the Opposition have never really gone into that reaction.

What do you mean by “forced”?

“Forced” means that you deliberately, without taking into consideration the living patterns of the Bantu, simply want to force the laws of the Whites and growth as you find it in the White society upon these people, and this is followed by a specific reaction. If you consider the history of the rest of Africa, where the physical influence of the Whites has virtually disappeared, you note that it elicited a reaction and that even in the so-called modern society of today they fall back to the old basic norms. You cannot control that phenomenon. Sir, this specific clause is also extremely important in the way of life of modern Bantu communities, and in this I see the desire on the part of responsible Bantu leaders for stability not only for the Bantu in the homelands, but also for those Bantu who, owing to circumstances, have to go to the so-called White areas where the circumstances are able to detach them much more easily from the Bantu living pattern. The problems which result from the disintegration of family life are in fact derived from the approach one adopts to marriage. If you consider the traditional laws of the Bantu and the values and significance of family life, you will note that you find a permanent unity in the family life among the Bantu, whether it is the smaller family unit or the larger family unit. The hon. member referred to the so-called kraal communities. Responsible Bantu leaders realize that if there is no stability in marriage, there is going to be a disintegration of family life. Sir, I find it so interesting that the National Party has gained world renown as the group of people, the so-called White people, who simply have no time whatsoever for the Black people; that we are supposedly the people who are purposefully intent on the destruction of the Blacks, while this debate is a clear indication that it is in fact this side of the House which wants to bring about stabilization in the Bantu communities in this modern world. If the way in which two persons are joined in marriage is not such that it can bring about stability in family life, then one has all the consequences of a disintegration of family life, and I am afraid that hon. members of the Opposition do not take these things into consideration, for if there is stability, where it is accepted that an elder person can furnish better guidance, it is of assistance in the educational task in respect of family life.

The hon. member went on to say that the responsibility of the guardian could be retained in the homelands; it does not make any difference, but if the Bantu come to the White areas, then it should fall away. But, Sir, surely it does not work as simply as that; if you are grown up and you have certain things which give you stability in society, then it does not mean that you should abandon all those things when you drive across a border. I cannot regard that as a responsible argument.

But they can do it. They can marry in the Cape.

Sir, these Bantu leaders who asked for this particular clause, do in fact want stability in their family life, but now the hon. member wants to detach the younger Bantu who want to venture into—or plunge into, whichever way one wants to regard it —married life from those basic ties, the ties which bound them and which did in fact bring them stability in their family life, the moment they cross over the border. I wish the hon. member would go and take a look at certain research which has been done in regard to the influence of large concentrations of Bantu youths on Bantu family life where the people have detached themselves from the traditional way of life of the Bantu. It is precisely there where one found future tsotsi’s and all that kind of thing developing. Hon. members must realize that since we are, even in the White areas, already beginning to experience major youth problems in the large urban complexes of modern life, it is going to have a far greater aftereffect on the Bantu if we thoughtlessly detach them from their traditional pattern of living and bring them into contact with these family disintegrative elements, and that hon. member is contributing to the disintegration of family life, because he went further and pointed out inter alia, after he had referred to Shakespeare, that a change is taking place in the Western communities which he mentioned; in other words, that certain old norms have simply been rejected there. But, Sir, this is the very danger in human societies if you see change differently to growth; you must not see a change in cultural communities as a change in the basic principles which had a normative effect on that community, you must see it as growth, but as growth which is still being nourished by the basic principles which in former times gave substance and character and order to that specific community. The hon. member is making a grave error in thinking that change always means a change in the principles. He must realize that change actually means a process of growth of certain fundamental concepts.

The hon. member then went on to say that we are moving into the age of the so-called permissive society. That is very true, Mr. Speaker, the same applies to Western man, whom the hon. member presents as the civilized norm. What I am really concerned about today, even in the case of the Whites, is that we are accepting the so-called permissive society as something which simply had to come and that all we can do is adapt ourselves to it. But, Sir, if you have to proceed with that attitude, what is the condition of the major urban complexes going to be in 100 or 200 years’ time if you are simply going to accept that people have become permissive, and that you have to go along with this trend? Surely that would be an impossible situation. What is the Opposition saying in that way to the responsible Bantu leader? They are saying to him: “Go ahead and detach yourself; we are living in a permissive world, where norms do not count any more; simply go on until we reach a situation of total promiscuity or totalagamy. I think that is a very irresponsible standpoint.

You did not understand me.

No, the hon. member was not opposed to it. He said that we are living in a more permissive society.

You are verkramp.

If it means verkramptheid if one wants to maintain certain norms in society, then the hon. member will simply have to see it in that way, but he made the statement—I do not want to quote him incorrectly—that modern society has become more permissive, and on those grounds one must not bind a couple, when they are going to get married, to the old rules and regulations. Sir, I think that is an irresponsible statement. [Interjection.] That is my point; to intend getting married is the prelude to a family life, and in family life one wants stability; one does not want disintegration. We can discuss this matter again. If I understand the hon. member incorrectly; I shall go back and read his speech and we can discuss this matter again in the Committee Stage. I just want to say that I cannot agree with the hon. member at all. I hope that I did not understand him incorrectly, but I think that his standpoint in respect of this important matter will eventually lead to a situation of promiscuity and agamy.

As far as clause 3 is concerned, where we are dealing with consolidation, I just want to say that problems could perhaps arise, but the main point here is that we want to consolidate the Bantu areas.

As far as clause 9 is concerned, the insertion of the expression “culture”, we realize the need for having stability in the living pattern of these people as well, and that one must also accept the totality of the life of that person. What is important here is that this change is also being effected at the request of the Bantu themselves, and this proves that there is continual dialogue with the Bantu leaders by this side of the House.

I want to dwell in particular on clause 12, i.e. the establishments, with the concurrence of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, of public holidays in substitution for public holidays established by or in terms of the Public Holidays Act. I want to say that I have concentrated particularly on this clause, for this is also of fundamental importance to me in reviewing the way in which the National Party and the United Party deal with the Bantu peoples. I then went back and read up as thoroughly as I could the debates relating to Act No. 5 of 1952, particularly in order to ascertain what the arguments of the United Party were at the time. Now, it is not clear to me today precisely what the standpoint in regard to principle of the United Party in regard to this matter is. I could not get it clear in my mind whether the hon. member for Transkei is satisfied that the Bantu peoples, at their request, with the concurrence of the Minister, should nevertheless be given certain public holidays. I do not know whether he mentioned this, but it is not clear to me. But I want to say that on the basis of their solution to the population problems of South Africa they may not vote for this clause. In the light of your treatment of the population problems of South Africa you may in principle not vote for this clause because you do not see South Africa as the National Party sees it.

We see it as it is.

We also see it as it is, and realize that it consists of different ethnic groups. You see it differently, as one integrated ethnic community with certain small communities within it. In other words, the United Party may not in principle vote for clause 12, for implied in this clause is that the National Party is establishing through it all the conditions and all the ideals and all the emotion a nation associates with a holiday, and is saying to the various Bantu nations: We will help you in your growth to nationhood and independence and we are already giving you these things which bind a nation together emotionally, which make it powerful and strong and which gives it certain specific ideals on which its members may base their lives. Therefore I hope that the next speaker is going to adopt a very clear standpoint on this matter. I think that this clause in particular is true to the standpoint of the National Party, and I hope that the various Bantu nations will consider this, that they will consider their own national history and that they will make the best of this for their nation as it at present and also for the future.

It was interesting to hear the hon. member for Rissik talking about a permissive society because as far as we on this side of the House can divine what will probably happen if clause 2 as it stands becomes law? It seems that the position will be that more and more African people in Natal and in the Transvaal will not be able to marry. Now we all know what the alternative to that will be. They will simply live with each other, and as my colleague the hon. member for Transkei said earlier, what we will have will be more and more illegitimate births arising from more and more associations out of wedlock. That hon. member was quite right when he said that nothing illustrated the divergence of opinion between that side of the House and this side more than perhaps this particular clause 2. Sir, we are above all realists and we realize that quite apart from the tribal societies we have in this country we have firmly established urban Black communities. The fact that these communities have not been wrought into cohesive political units does not mean that they do not exist. What we have to deal with here are people, perhaps third or fourth generation Bantu people, who are as much urban dwellers as that hon. member and I, and perhaps they could be even more urbanized than some of us. The hon. member for Rissik completely misunderstood the argument of the hon. member for Transkei. It seems either as though he was not following him, or that he prepared his speech in advance, so that he was not prepared to deal with any of the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Transkei. Instead he came with something out of the White Paper which said that this clause was introduced at the specific request of Bantu leaders. I ask immediately: which Bantu leaders? He means tribal leaders, for I am quite sure that he will not be able to bring me one single urban Bantu leader, a man of authority, who will be prepared to subscribe to this clause. Furthermore, he went on to suggest that because the Government was prepared to come with legislation such as this, the Government was far more appreciative of Bantu rights and customs than we on this side of the House are. Sir, this again is not so. We must realize that we are dealing with two completely different societies. The one is a rural, tribal society and the other is a completely urbanized society. If the hon. member were to listen instead of talking to his verkrampte colleague, he might even learn something about it.

They are birds of a feather.

In this matter we are the realists. We realize above all that one cannot force customs on people, particularly old customs on a modern society, by way of laws. Now we all appreciate what the hon. the Deputy Minister had in mind when he came forward with this legislation in this form, but I am quite certain that by the time we have finished with this debate he will want to amend clause 2 at least because it is patent nonsense the way it is drafted. I hope the hon. the Minister himself will come into this debate and tell us why they came to approach things from this particular point of view. Clause 2 as it stands simply says that a marriage officer shall not in the province of Natal or the Transvaal solemnize a marriage to which a Bantu female who is of age is a party, unless the father or legal guardian, in terms of Bantu law and custom, has granted written consent to such marriage and such consent has been furnished to the marriage officer. The hon. member for Rissik has told us that this clause was introduced at the instance of the Bantu Tribal Authorities in Natal and the Transvaal. I want to ask him, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister right away, why does he then seek to apply it to Bantu people who do not come from the Transvaal and Natal but who just happen to be residing in those provinces? This is nonsense. It could apply to a Xhosa, in other words somebody from the Transkei or Ciskei, just because she happens to be living in Natal or the Transvaal. The Transkeian Government, for instance, has not asked for any such legislation. That Government, indeed, is impowered to pass a law such as this anyway. We all know that in the Transkei there cannot be a customary union without this type of consent. Therefore why seek to try to impose this on Transkei women in places such as the Transvaal? What makes even greater nonsense of it is the fact that this law can be evaded so easily. At the moment an adult African women living in a place such as Vereeniging would not be able to marry without the consent of her parent or guardian. What does she have to do to remedy this situation? All she has to do is to go across the Transvaal border, to Parys in the Orange Free State, and she can get married there with impunity. The law then does not apply to her. Then we are going to have the ridiculous situation that a place such as Parys could become the Black Gretna Green of South Africa.

A very nice expression.

We would much rather see that it is made easier for African or Bantu adult people to marry, not hander. If we made it harder for them they will live together with the attendant evil consequences. Our approach is to do the exact opposite. I trust that we will therefore not hear any more pontificating from members on that side of the House about the permissive society because this clause can lead straight to that. The hon. member for Rissik also had quite a lot to say about the public holiday provisions of the Bill. He did not read the Bill carefully because he only referred to the public holidays mentioned in clause 12. These are public holidays for Bantu homelands within the Republic other than the Transkei, which is dealt with separately. As we all know that question is before a Select Committee at the moment. Had he looked at the Bill a little more carefully he would have seen that a similar provision appears in clause 9, where it is included among the powers to be given to the Legislative Councils of South-West Africa. If one takes the embryo Bantustans of South Africa—there are eight of them—and the areas of South-West Africa which are capable of receiving local government or legislative councils—there are six of them—you will see that this makes a total of 14. These states will be able to have public holidays of their own. He asked us what our attitude in regard to this is going to be. But before he asks us for our attitude, and he will hear it later on, I should like to ask him, or the hon. the Deputy Minister, to tell us when he replies, what this all means. If one looks at clause 12 one sees that it provides for the establishment, with the concurrence of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, of public holidays in substitution for public holidays established by or in terms of the Public Holidays Act of 1952. Does that mean that these homeland governments will be able to establish holidays in place of say, Christmas Day? After all, that is a public holiday of ours. Would it be possible for them to abolish Republic Day in the Bantu homelands and establish their own holidays? Could they, say, establish Chaka Day in substitution for our Day of the Covenant? I see the hon. member nods his head. I take it that by that he means that this is possible; it means yes. The hon. the Minister is not saying anything. We have something like 12 public holidays in the Republic. This legislation seems to be aimed at making it possible for 14 Bantu homelands to have their own public holidays. Well, a bit of mental arithmetic shows us that we can in theory have something like 168 different public holidays throughout what we know now as the Republic and South-West Africa.

Take the whole of Africa as an example.

No, we do not legislate for the whole of Africa. We legislate for South Africa and South-West Africa. That is our job. That hon. gentleman knows it as well as I do. Of course, this is taking things to a ridiculous extent, But I want to say to him in all seriousness that if it is true that these Bantu homelands will have the power to have their own private public holidays, each homeland choosing its national days, there can be serious disruption in this country. It probably would not matter all that much if Kavango in the far north of South-West Africa had a few public holidays of its own, but I can quite see that if the Transkei, for instance, or Tswanaland were to have a half-a-dozen public holidays separate from ours, the citizens of these places would not be all that keen on coming to work at their places of employment in the Republic. I am quite sure that if they had a major day such as Chaka Day, they would want to celebrate it where ever they were, even though legally they were not entitled to celebrate it. By much the same token, what would be the position in such places as the Transkei? Supposing the Transkei were to opt for three or four public holidays of its own and in the course of this abolish, say, the Day of the Covenant and Republic Day. We all know that the Transkei relies very heavily on the White people there to run its affairs. Without them, the Transkei, it is common cause, would come to a halt. Are the White people of the Transkei then going to be deprived of their Day of the Covenant and Republic Day, or do they have to take the local holidays as well as the Republic holidays? Before the hon. member for Rissik gets a reply from us, we want some details from that side of the House. I trust we shall get them when the hon. the Deputy Minister replies to the Second Reading debate It is very necessary before we go over to the Committee State.

After his reply, when will we get your reply?

That hon. member need not worry about that. We have a long row to hoe; we have the Committee Stage ahead of us, we have the Third Reading Stage, and the Bill has to go to the Senate. Therefore, the hon. member need not fear. We have plenty of opportunities to answer.

I now want to turn to clause 9 of the Bill, which seeks to add certain provisions to the schedule to the Development of self-government for Native Nations in South-West Africa Act of 1968. As you will recall, we opposed this Act when it came before the House, because we believed that this Government was taking the wrong course in bringing forward this particular type of legislation. Just by way of review, we believed we could not subscribe to the radical approach adopted by the hon. the Minister in developing the native nations of South-West Africa on these lines. We believed in a far more conservative approach and still believe in it. As my colleague from the Transkei has said, this does not mean that we do not believe in the speedy advancement—as speedy as possible—of the Bantu towards local self-government.

While we do not propose to oppose this second reading, I think we should pause for a moment at some of the provisions of clause 9. As we know, there are two legislative councils in operation in South-West Africa at the moment, namely those of Ovamboland or Owambo, as the new name will be in terms of this legislation, and Okavangoland, or Kavango, as it will be called. Then we are going to see a legislative council established in the Eastern Caprivi. Apart from that, the Development of Self-government for Native Nations in South-West Africa Act provides that legislative councils can be formed in “Damaraland, Hereroland, Kaokoland and such other land or areas as may be recognized by the State President by proclamation.” It is difficult to debate the situation as it applies in Owambo. We all know that it is fairly remote. It is several years since I was there. Likewise the little we know about the Eastern Caprivi suggests that it is a fairly backward country and that considerable thought should be given to it before it is granted anything approaching the sort of powers envisaged in this Bill.

We do know quite a lot about the position in Kavango. It is a comparatively small territory of only 54 000 people and, when one looks at the type of powers this Bill seeks to grant to its legislative council, one wonders whether this Government is really going about things in the proper way. Kavango is, after all, a a poor country, which has very little agriculture, and almost no industry, and which is very backward in almost all respects. At the moment there are only five matriculants in this territory. Many of us on this side of the House, and especially those who have recently been to Kavango, have grave doubts —from what we saw anyway—whether the people of Kavango are skilled and sophisticated enough even to run a school committee properly, let alone a responsible government. We doubt whether they have the talent for it. We know that they are a backward people. They are river-dwellers who, indeed, do not even seem to be terribly anxious to take more and more powers. Until now these people have been content to live fairly quiet lives. They haven’t thought to aim at any sort of sophisticated government and I believe we should be very careful in the sort of thing that we should foist on them politically. Obviously this political situation has to change and the question that we must ask ourselves, particularly now that this type of legislation is before us, is what sort of change should be brought about and how it should be brought about. Our approach has always been to start at the beginning and to try to build up a sound economy or an economy as sound as can be managed, to build up agriculture and to build up industry to the optimum extent. We also feel that an infrastructure should be built up and that we should promote education. We are not suggesting that these things should be done to the exclusion of political advancement. What we do believe is that they and political advancement can run parallel and in sympathy with one another. Where we differ from the Nationalist Government is that we see the Nationalist Government as aiming to create a political superstructure above what is in many cases, and especially in the case of Kavango, an almost complete economic vacuum. This Bill is simply perpetuating the process. It is thickening the political superstructure while the vacuum remains. That is how we see the situation and we believe that in taking this line this Government is simply going further and further away from reality. I want to stress once again, as the hon. member for Transkei has done, that we are clearly not against political development, but that we believe in doing it in stages.

There is one safeguard that remains, as far as the Bantu areas of South-West Africa are concerned, i.e. that the State President still retains fairly wide powers as far as legislation by the legislative councils is concerned. We trust that the hon. the Minister will keep a very close watch on the situation. All laws must have the assent of the State President, who also has powers to repeal or amend them by proclamation. I think it would be fair for us to suggest from this side of the House that for a long time to come, certainly for the foreseeable future, in places such as Kavango it will not be possible to let these people go it alone.

In dealing with South-West Africa and with the matters mentioned in clause 9, one must bear in mind that these powers are taken by the legislative councils. But that is not all. It is possible in terms of the Development of Self-government for Native Nations in South-West Africa Act, for these powers to be given by proclamation to tribal authorities and to regional authorities. With the knowledge that we do have of the situation in South-West Africa and the comparative backwardness of so many of the people there, I would like to suggest to the Government that they be extremely cautious about conveying any of these powers to such bodies. Of course we are not talking of all the powers. If one looks at item 20K of the Schedule to the Act, inserted by clause 9 (e) of the Bill, one sees that it deals with a silly thing like the registration and control of dogs. It is obvious that anybody would be able to see to that.

But, Sir, what else is contained in this clause? We have such things as fish and game preservation, the conservation of flora and fauna, control over intoxicating liquor, the appointment, powers, duties and functions of justices of the peace and commissioners of oath, the protection of life, persons and property, land settlement, registration of deeds and surveys. There are such things as the regulation and control of road traffic, including the licensing and control of vehicles and the drivers of vehicles. One pauses immediately, and this is something we shall want to know in the Committee Stage, on the question whether licences granted to motor vehicle drivers in places such as Kavango in terms of Kavango Legislative Council laws, will be recognized elsewhere in South-West Africa or, indeed, in the Republic. Will drivers of motor vehicles registered under Kavango laws and according to their local standards, such as they are, be welcome to drive with those licences in Cape Town on our freeways, or in the traffic of Johannesburg? These matters we shall want to know. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister is prepared to give us replies to these points now. In this territory—I stress again—they have no more than five matriculants to handle any aspect of government. If the Government is going to proceed with giving more and more powers to the legislative councils, what we shall see is that, in effect, more and more power will be given to the officials of the Department of Bantu Administration. They obviously will have to act in the vacuum that has been created through the backwardness of the local people. Surely, it would be much better for all of us if the Government were to go just a little more slowly in these matters instead of thickening the political superstructure about which I spoke earlier. Instead of concentrating on purely political matters, would it not be better if the Government were to try to tackle first things first and not try to put political clothes on economic skeletons?

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the arguments put forward by the Opposition on this matter, I want to emphasize once again that we on this side and they on that side approach the question of the development of the Bantu in Bantu areas from completely different angles. Today, contradictions once again emerged on the opposite side. I want to emphasize that it is very clear to me that the Opposition does not argue in fundamental terms on this matter. The only person who thinks and argues in fundamental terms on the rights of the Bantu, the political rights in particular but also the economic rights, is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who unfortunately is not present here today. He is the only member I have come across on that side who thinks in fundamental terms and views this problem of the rights of the Bantu in Southern Africa and in the Republic of South Africa in its true perspective.

We have been warned by the hon. member for Kensington that we should not proceed too rapidly, but not an hour ago the hon. member for Transkei told us that they, the United Party, are in favour of development taking place more rapidly. He did not, like that hon. member, refer specifically to the Kavangos, but it is very clear that those hon. members are not unanimous in regard to what they want in the various areas. If one wanted to go further and to argue about this matter of granting people rights, then it is of course clear to us all, and it is a known fact, that the United Party does not have a clear policy on this matter. The hon. member for Kensington said that the Kavangos can scarcely manage a school committee. One can understand why hon. members on that side are not clear in regard to this matter. They are not honest in their approach that we are dealing here with people who have certain basic rights and that we may not withhold certain basic rights from them. Opposed to this we have the honesty of this side of the House that says that everything we demand for ourselves we do not want to begrudge to others.

That is moral.

Our standpoint can withstand the test on moral and all other grounds. Hon. members on that side say that the Bantu will be represented here by eight persons for an interim period: I do not know how long this interim period will last; it was only the other day that it became an interim period; at first it was permanently, as we understood. In any case, it is very clear that what are involved here are basic approaches. I can just give hon. members on that side the assurance, without going into this matter in too great detail, that we are engaged in leading and supporting each one of these nations. These people are being guided by the Minister as the responsible Minister and by the officials who are there to overcome the problems of the modern state in all its facets and the problems of administration. If one is not going to do this, in what way would these people receive what was rightly theirs? The hon. member referred to the Kavangos; he said it was a small place, but then he did not mention its extent, he mentioned the size of its population. In what way, under a United Party government, will the Ovambos or the Kavangos be given a say, no matter how elementary, in the government of the country? The hon. member referred to item 20K of clause 9 (e), which deals with the registration and control of dogs. In other words, he implied that the Ovambos and the Okavangos might be able to do that, but that they could scarcely maintain and manage a school committee. I want to make it very clear that each one of these nations is being given officials who support them. Their council members, who are elected and established as leaders, are supported, guided and instructed by these officials in this democratic system. If one does not confront them with these problems as far as their own affairs are concerned, then I feel that we are going to create frustration and dissatisfaction, and then we could not justify ourselves either in the eyes of the world or in our own eyes.

So much for the more general issues. Let us now come to the specific points in regard to which there were complaints. There the same kind of thing emerges. Hon. members on that side discussed the institution of marriage and asked why an urban Bantu woman who has become detribalized should obtain the consent of her parent or guardian in order to be married and why we do not allow her, in this modern, enlightened world, to fend for herself? Do hon. members not realize that they are undermining discipline by allowing all these liberties? The reason why the clause is in the Bill was that it is at present part of the Act. We are not going to do away with it without consultation. It was not in fact applicable in the Free State and Cape areas, but it was written into an Act late in the previous century. We were not simply going to change the existing position until such time as we had consulted these people. There was proper consultation in Natal and also throughout the Transvaal.

In the Transkei?

No, it was not applicable to the Transkei. We consulted all the territorial authorities; they held their tribal meetings, and everywhere their leaders decided in favour of this with large majorities. I do not want to go into all the reports now, but I have comprehensive reports of all the meetings which were held in Natal and among the various peoples in the Transvaal. They feel that that clause should be retained; that it should not fall away. We are dealing here with Bantu affairs, with Bantu customs. As they develop further politically, is it not right that they should themselves decide about their future? Why should there be a different Act for them in a White area than in their own area? Why should we undermine their morals and customs, while their leaders attach great value to these? We as Whites must not imagine that everything which may appear to be in our interests, is also in the interests of the Bantu.

Would the clause be applicable to Transkei citizens who find themselves in Johannesburg, in Soweto?

Yes, the Act will be applicable in the Transvaal. It will therefore be applicable to Transkei citizens there. If they want to come to the Transkei and get married there, then they are not subject to it, but the vast majority of the Bantu peoples in the Transvaal— the Tswanas, the North Sothos and the Shangaans, etc.—would very much like to have this clause in the Act, and that is why it has been included again in the Bill. I am not going to argue the merits of the case with those hon. members on the opposite side. There could be 110 different opinions about this. The fact of the matter is that it is a Bantu institution and tradition which they want respected; they want to retain it in this Act; they do not want it to fall away. I think it is for them to decide on this.

Did you ask the Bantu Councils in the cities what they wanted?

Sir, these Bantu councils also have representation now in the different Authorities. When these enquiries were made, they did not yet have representation there. What is of importance to us is that the leaders of the Bantu nations adopted this resolution. It was stated comprehensively to them, and they decided accordingly. I think it is fair to accept that these people can decide for themselves, as they develop further, whether or not they want to proceed with this.

But the Transkei does not want it.

The Transkei has never had it.

What about those living in Johannesburg?

If they go there then they are subject to the law which is applicable there. Although the vast majority of the Bantu leaders want this clause, hon. members on that side now want us to force the opinion of a few who do not want it upon the majority. We must give these people the right to enforce certain things among their own people in their areas, and that is what we are doing here. Sir, I do not think it is necessary to argue this matter any further.

Did you consult leading figures amongst the urban Bantu?

No, we did not consult the urban Bantu. We consulted the Executive Councils of the various areas; we consulted the Territorial Authorities; they held tribal meetings at which an opinion in this regard was expressed. These are the people who have the political say there and who are the elected leaders of the Bantu. They also liaise with their people in the urban Bantu areas. If the people in the urban Bantu areas who have a say through their elected leaders there, want to change the Act, then they can come to us and say that they want the Act changed. But we must leave it to them to say that they would like to have it changed; we must not force anything upon them which they do not want.

Sir, I think I have to content myself with that. It is no use trying to argue the merits of this Bantu custom, whether it is right or wrong. As far as they are concerned, it is right; it is their custom and that is why they have the say as far as this matter is concerned.

There were also questions in regard to the word Owambo, which is spelt with a “w”. I just want to mention to you that Owambo with a “w” according to the spelling of the Ovambos refers to the country, and Ovambo with a “v” refers to the person as an Ovambo. Therefore an inhabitant of Owambo with a “w” is Ovambo with a “v”. I hope it is clear now. That is actually how those people pronounce it.

Other matters mentioned were inter alia the transfer of prisoners. I just want to say that provision is being made here for that because it may happen that there are Transkeian citizens in prison in the Republic, and a prison in the Transkei is for example not fully occupied. Then provision could perhaps be made for them to be transferred. But you also have other cases, and that is why the clause is so flexible. There may be a prisoner in a Transkeian prison who needs certain medical services and whom we want to transfer because he needs specialized medical services. Because this may be necessary, provision is being made for prisoners to be transferred. But I cannot see it happening very easily that a non-Transkeian citizen will be transferred to a prison in the Transkei. Those prisons are there principally for Transkeian citizens. I think that answers the questions put in regard to this matter.

The hon. member for Transkei asked whether, if a person had served his term of imprisonment in a prison, and he had committed an offence in Johannesburg, whether we would release him in the Transkei. As the hon. member knows, prisoners are usually released at the place where they were arrested. I think that if it is practicable this type of thing will be taken into consideration. If a prisoner in the Transkei, for example, has to be released there, although he was arrested in Johannesburg, and he prefers to stay there, this will probably be allowed.

As far as transportation is concerned, i.e. to transfer the powers under the Motor carrier Transportation Act of 1941 to the Transkeian Government, a question was asked whether a person from outside may now drive through the Transkei without interference. I just want to say that unfortunately it is the case that a permit will have to be issued. A person transporting furniture from Durban to Umtata will have to obtain a permit to cross the Transkeian border. The reverse is also true for people coming from the Transkei. There will therefore be a degree of administrative work attached to this, but that is unavoidable. The position is that when crossing the borders special permits will have to be obtained on both sides.

Clause 12 deals with the question of holidays, and concerning this the hon. member for Kensington indulged in considerable speculation. He worked out that there could possibly be 168 holidays within the Republic of South Africa and he said that it would cause chaos. This may theoretically be true, but basically it is important, as far as we are concerned, that each one of these Bantu nations, each with its own tradition and history, will have the right to establish their own holidays which have value to them, and that they are not being prescribed to by the Whites as to what holidays they should have. This will happen in consultation with the Minister. It is obvious that such important holidays as Christmas and Good Friday will not easily be replaced. We do not expect these people to do anything like that, but if they want to celebrate their own heroes day, for example like Chaka Day, then why not? Must we now say to those people that they may not honour their heroes, only we can do that? It is obvious that we are going all the way with these people and we are not going to say to them they must simply fall into line with us. The practical application is that Zululand holidays are applicable there, and the Transkeian holidays are applicable in the Transkei and the Ovambos in Owambo. If they leave those places they are in the Republic of South Africa and then the Republican holidays will apply to them. In South Africa today we have Italians, French, Germans and Orientals, and there are quite a number of them, and each have their own holidays. Surely it is obvious that each cannot be given his own holiday. There are also religious holidays, and each could not want to insist on his own holiday.

Since the hon. the Deputy Minister has now explained to us in regard to the clause on marriage that everything which applies in the Bantu areas should also apply in the urban areas, will the holidays which apply in the homelands also apply in the urban areas with regard to each separate ethnic group.

That is a foolish question. It is very clear that these holidays are confined to the borders of every area. [Interjections.] The Marriage Act is an old White Act. I shall not go into this matter any further, because it is really not necessary.

Then, the hon. member for Kensington is very concerned about a person who received a driver’s licence in a Bantu area being let loose on the roads. I can only tell him once again that the standards of those people are completely in line with the standards and the requirements laid down by the Republic Government and the Provincial Administrations. We have the case in the Transkei where those people lay down their standards in accordance with those of the Cape Provincial Administration. The idea is not that these people can take out licences at random. We have proper control through the officials who are giving guidance. I can give the hon. gentleman the assurance that if he cannot get a licence here, he need not hope to get one in Owambo. Therefore there are no prospects for him to that side either. Where we are in all honesty trying to give these people certain rights, the hon. member may think that we are giving these people rights too rapidly, but in practice the process is actually rather slow. White officials are busy training people so that they can do these things for themselves as quickly as possible. Standards are, however, being laid down and these are in accordance with the standards which apply in the Republic. I do not think the hon. gentlemen need concern themselves unnecessarily about that.

I think I have with this replied to all the questions and problems of the hon. members. They say that they will go into these matters further during the Committee Stage, and this is therefore all I wish to say at this juncture.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Just before saying a few words about the contents of this Bill, I want to point out that the more important of the amendments we wish to effect to the South-West Africa Ordinance in question, are consequent upon representations made by the Association of Mining Companies of South-West Africa, which in South-West Africa plays a role similar to that of the Chamber of Mines of South Africa. In this regard the practical implementation of the present ordinance, which was passed as recently as 1968, has brought to light certain shortcomings which have a hampering effect on mining development in South-West Africa and which must be removed as a matter of urgent importance. Since one always finds conflicting interests emerging in the mining industry, i.e. those of the prospector or mine-owner on the one hand and those of the land owner on the other hand, we have, as far as this Bill is concerned, not only consulted with the Association of Mining Companies of South-West Africa, to which I referred a moment ago, but also made the original draft Bill available to the South-West African Agricultural Union and discussed it with them. The result was that the Bill was suitably polished, and that we, by pursuing a middle course between the conflicting interests, framed somewhat amended provisions which ought to satisfy both mining and farming interests in that territory.

Apart from the few improvements that have to be effected in order to promote mining development in South-West Africa, we also want to avail ourselves of this opportunity to effect a few essential changes and to amend a number of existing provisions which are causing the Department of Mines a great deal of unnecessary work, as well as unnecessary expense. To explain the Bill in somewhat greater detail, I want to start by referring to clause 1, in which important amendments are being effected to two existing definitions in the Ordinance in question. As far as the definition of the concept “accessory works” is concerned, the position is that prospectors and mine-owners are permitted in terms of the Ordinance, subject to the comprehensive provisions which force them to pay compensation to land owners, to establish on the land to which they hold prospecting or mining rights, “accessory works” such as mining installations, buildings, etc., which are incidental to their operations. However, the present definition contains a deficiency in that it does not include, for instance, administrative offices which the larger mining enterprises usually have to erect on their mines. All that is being done now, is to extend the scope of the definition in order that all buildings and structures which are required for prospecting and mining purposes, or which are incidental to prospecting and mining operations, may be included in this definition. As I have already indicated, compensation is payable by prospectors and mine-owners when the surface of the land is used inter alia for such purposes.

In regard to the extension of the definition of the concept “prospecting”, I just want to explain, apart from pointing out that this will bring the definition into line with the corresponding definition in the Republic’s Mining Rights Act of 1967, that the proposed change is aimed at facilitating matters for prospectors and the Department if the former merely want to undertake a geophysical survey on land in South-West Africa in order to determine whether such land holds any possibilities which will justify an application for an exclusive prospecting right. Naturally, such a concession will not exempt prospectors from their common-law obligation to make the necessary arrangements with land owners before private land is entered on for the purposes of such surveys.

In order to explain further the motive for the change to the definition in question, I may just mention by way of example that the whole of South-West Africa has been closed for public prospecting for source material—uranium and thorium —and that it would almost create an impossible position if mining companies first had to obtain from me as the Minister an exclusive prospecting grant in respect of a particular area prior to their being allowed to carry out geophysical surveys for the specific purpose of prospecting for the radio-active minerals in question. As hon members know, physical prospecting by way of drilling, etc., requires at present considerable capital expenditure, and in order to limit as far as possible the major risk involved in prospecting it has already become a common practice amongst the larger companies first to explore large areas by way of geophysical surveys for the purpose of locating promising anomalies where physical prospecting may then be concentrated. In terms of the amended definition prospectors will first have to obtain some suitable prospecting authorization under the Ordinance when they want to proceed to physical prospecting, such as drilling, etc.

On clause 2 of the Bill there is only one less important matter about which something need to be said, namely the proposed substitution of subsection (7) of section 17 by a new subsection. In this regard I just want to explain that in terms of the subsection concerned it is required that when a particular piece of land is withdrawn from the pegging of claims in favour of an applicant so that he may undertake or continue to undertake prospecting work without being disturbed, particulars in that regard should not only be posted up at the office of the mining commissioner, but also be published in the Gazette. Other sections of the Ordinance require similar action to be taken when prospecting or mining rights are granted. Previously it was a requirement that such particulars had to be published in the Official Gazette of South-West Africa, since numerous South-West Africans were subscribers to this Gazette. The requirement that publication of the particulars shall now be effected in the Gazette, is consequent upon the fact that at the time of the re-arrangement of matters relating to South-West Africa it was found necessary to substitute, in general, words such as “Official Gazette”, “administration”, etc., by such expressions as were used in the Republic’s legislation. However, very few people in that territory are subscribers to the Gazette—we do not take this amiss of them—and the numerous notices which, because of the present provisions, have to be published in the Gazette, are causing my department a great deal of unnecessary work and expense. The publication of such notices in the Gazette is not a requirement in the Republic, for people prefer to obtain their information from the local mining commissioner, who, in addition, usually provides guidance concerning the relevant statutory provisions. Therefore we are now dispensing with the requirement of having to publish notices of this particular nature in the Gazette, but we are retaining the requirement that notices with the necessary particulars are still to be posted up at the office of the mining commissioner in Windhoek, which is visited by prospectors and company representatives all the time.

Hon. members will notice that in subsequent clauses of the Bill similar amendments are also being effected to other sections of the Ordinance, and it is for that reason that I deemed it fit to furnish an explanation in regard to the change in question.

To come to the most important changes effected to the Ordinance, I want to deal jointly with clauses 3, 4, 6 and 7. In regard to these clauses it is necessary to bear in mind that, unlike the position obtaining in the Republic, the right to prospect for and the mining and disposal of minerals on all land in South-West Africa—excluding land situated in the Native areas—are vested in the State, and that private owners of land in that territory are consequently not consulted prior to prospecting or mining rights to their land being granted. That has always been the position. Because of this fundamental principle the mineral legislation of South-West Africa is a great deal less complicated than that which is in force in the Republic, and up to the present this system has been working quite satisfactorily.

The previous South-West Africa Ordinance of 1954 contained wide provisions in order to force prospectors and mine-owners to pay compensation for the use of land, damage, etc., to private land owners, but there were many complaints on the part of such owners because, inter alia, it often happened that the parties concerned had not come to an arrangement on the amount of the compensation due. The present 1968 Ordinance contains similar, wide provisions for the payment of compensation to owners of private land, but owing to the complaints which arose under the previous Ordinance, it was decided to proceed in the present Ordinance to inserting in several sections provisions prohibiting any holder of prospecting or mining rights from carrying out operations on private land, unless he had first entered into a written agreement with the owner of the land in question as to the conditions subject to which such owner shall be compensated in terms of sections 67 of the Ordinance. Provisions to this effect are contained in sections 28, 43, 60 (4) and 61 (6) (f), which are being substituted by clause 3, 4, 6 (c) and 7 (c), respectively.

The provisions in question were well-intentioned, but experience has since shown not only that these provisions are impracticable, but also that—if they were to be left intact—they would seriously hamper rapid mining development in that territory. The position is simply that, apart from the fact that at times it is simply impossible to trace land owners, cases are often found where land owners do not want to cooperate or deliberately employ so many delaying tactics that operations simply cannot get under way. I am sorry to have to add that companies which cannot afford to postpone their operations for a long time, are sometimes exploited as well, in the sense that in certain cases they find it cheaper to pay excessive compensation to a land owner than to let their paid employees be idle and then to pay interest on their available capital on top of it. I have also been informed that there have been a number of cases where land owners, far from finding a basis for co-operation in consultation with holders of prospecting or mining rights, threatened to go to court for an interdict which would prohibit such operations on their land. Now I want to say at once, and I also want to emphasize it, that both my department and I believe that the fault—i.e. when the parties are unable to succeed in coming to terms so that a formal agreement may be entered into—should not always be sought with the land owner. From time to time one also finds that there are wilful prospectors and mineral developers, and we must face the fact that prospecting and mining operations may not only create problems for progressive farmers, but also hamper and disrupt their farming operations seriously. In the full realization that continued farming development in South-West Africa is also of cardinal importance to the population of the territory, my department could not see its way clear to complying with the representations made by the mining interests in the territory to the effect that because provision already exists in the Ordinance for the payment of compensation to land owners, all references to written agreements whereby the amount of compensation, etc., is determined, should be deleted from the Ordinance. However, the present state of affairs, which is both unsound and unpracticable, may not be permitted to continue, for all of us know what mining has meant and still means to the development of South Africa; furthermore, we all know that our rapid industrial growth has virtually been built up around our mining industry. What is more, considerable and widely spread mineralization is found in South-West Africa, and it is our duty to see to it that these important assets are exploited in the interests of the various population groups in the territory—exploitation which will at the same time stimulate industrial development, farming and the establishment of an infrastructure.

As I indicated at the beginning of my speech, we can achieve these things by pursuing a middle course between these conflicting interests and without pushing aside farming interests in the territory. What we are doing now in the four clauses to which I have already referred, is to substitute the present provisions, which require a written agreement with a land owner before prospecting or mining operations may be undertaken on private land, by provisions which will empower the mining commissioner—he is always a senior officer with many years’ experience—also to authorize on private land, by way of a permit, the performance of prospecting or mining operations, as the case may be, if the land owner cannot be traced, or if it is proved to his satisfaction that the holder of the prospecting or mine rights has made real efforts to come to an agreement with the land owner but that, for reasons which the mining commissioner finds to be acceptable —such as excessive claims by the land owner—the parties could not succeed in coming to terms. However, a land owner will be allowed to put his case before the mining commissioner grants power to such a person, and if the fault obviously lies with the prospective prospector or developer, it will be possible simply to refuse the permit. Furthermore, I want to emphasize here at once that if any of the parties is dissatisfied with the mining commissioner’s decision, it will still be possible for him to turn to the board of adjudication, to which reference is made in section 68 of the Ordinance. Hon. members will notice that the latter section is being amended by clause 10 of the Bill, but I shall say something about this matter later on. I believe that members on both sides of the House will agree with me that the amendments I have just mentioned, will still permit justice to be done to land owners without prospecting and mining being hampered or delayed unnecessarily.

Clause 5 of the Bill does not require a lengthy explanation. Here I just want to say that section 50 of the Ordinance empowers the mining commissioner to authorize a prospector or mine-owner to use the surface of specific pieces of land for purposes incidental to prospecting or mining. However, here we have another provision to the effect that in respect of private land the mining commissioner may only grant authorization if a written agreement has already been entered into with the land owner as to the conditions subject to which the owner of the land shall be compensated. Prospecting or mining operations are already in progress here, and extensive changes to the section are not deemed to be essential. All that is being done, is to extend the scope of this section to a certain extent in order that the mining commissioner may also grant the necessary authorization if the board of adjudication, referred to in section 68, has settled a dispute between the parties in so far as the use of the surface of the land for such purposes is concerned. In such a case the parties are bound by the decision of the board, and a written agreement between the parties need not necessarily follow.

I have already dealt with clauses 6 and 7, and next I just want to refer very briefly to clauses 8 and 9. As far as clause 8 is concerned, the position is that section 64 of the Ordinance prohibits the transfer, leasing, etc., of claims or mining areas in the Rehoboth Gebiet or on land set aside for Coloured persons, except with the consent of the Minister of Mines, who may also lay down conditions. For the sake of uniformity the relevant provisions are now being extended to include claims and mining areas in the Bantu areas, so that mere speculators and other undesirable elements may be kept out. The words “Native reserve” are used because this is a defined term, and in cases where it is deemed necessary or desirable, the Department of Bantu Administration and Development will be consulted prior to decisions being taken on applications for transfer, and so forth. What we have in mind here, is more specifically claims and mining areas which were obtained from my department prior to control—as far as base minerals in the Bantu areas are concerned—having passed to Bantu Administration in terms of the present Ordinance. That was, I think, in 1968. In this regard I may just mention, for the sake of completeness, that certain more important prospecting rights and mining rights obtained in the Republic from my department may also be transferred only with the consent of the Minister of Mines, even if they are situated on Bantu land.

As regards clause 9, I just want to mention that owing to an oversight in regard to wording, the provisions of section 65 of the Ordinance are inconsistent with what is provided elsewhere in the Ordinance. Apart from this, it also contains redundant provisions. The proposed amendment which, unlike the position at present, also refers to a mine owner, is not of much importance, but it is nevertheless essential in order that the present inconsistency may be removed.

Unfortunately, I must pause for a while at the next clause—clause 10—for here we propose a number of minor yet important amendments which relate to the other important changes already dealt with. Section 68, which we seek to amend here, contains provisions to the effect that disputes between prospectors or mine owners on the one hand and owners of private land on the other hand, may be submitted for arbitration to the board of adjudication, to which reference is made in that section. The extensive provisions contained in this section, serve a useful purpose, for the decision of the board is binding on the conflicting parties, and the machinery that has been established, ensures that justice will be done to both parties without there being any need for them to embark upon a court case with its attendant high expenses. However, the section has certain deficiencies restricting its effectiveness.

In the first place, subsection (2) of this section provides that the board shall consist of the magistrate of the district, who shall be chairman, and two officers of the Department of Mines appointed by the Minister of Mines. These provisions not only have the effect that, whenever a dispute is submitted, I as the Minister first have to appoint two members to the board which will function in that particular case, but are not quite fair to farmers either, as the board—apart from the chairman—may only include two persons with specialized knowledge of mining matters, and not a person with specialized knowledge of agricultural matters. Consequently amended provisions are being envisaged, provisions in which it is provided that the board shall in all cases consist of the magistrate of the district—who shall be chairman—the chief inspector of mines for South-West Africa and the chief extension officer of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services for the area in which the land in question is situated.

A second provision that detracts from the effectiveness of this section, is the one contained in subsection (4), which provides that if the chairman should differ from the other two members of the board with regard to a decision of the board, the board shall be reconstituted and the inquiry begun de novo before all the members of the reconstituted board. This was an unnecessary and, perhaps, also an unjustified provision, but now the deletion of the relevant part of subsection (4) is necessary in any case because of the improvement which is being effected to subsection (2), and it is therefore more specifically a consequent amendment. The same applied to the deletion of subsection (6) of the section.

Finally, it is necessary for me just to refer very briefly to clause 11. As hon. members will recall, the Republic’s Mines and Works Act of 1956 was amended in the course of the previous session—consequent upon representations made by Iscor—to make it possible for a mine or works to be exempted from the prohibition in terms of which females are not allowed to perform shift work as operators, etc., at night. Similar exemption may already be granted under our factory legislation, and exemption may be granted conditionally. Such provisions may also come in handy in South-West Africa at some stage or other, and, in the interests of uniformity, clause 11 of the Bill therefore seeks to effect to the Ordinance amendments similar to those already effected to the Mines and Works Act. J want to assure hon. members that any exemption of this particular nature will also be granted with circumspection in South-West Africa and will also be subject to conditions just as strict as those which I laid down in respect of Iscor.

Mr. Speaker, as we are dealing here with South-West Africa. I have gone somewhat out of my way to explain the objects of the Bill as fully as practicable. I think I have said enough to prevent possible misunderstanding, and that I have made it clear that in this Bill our object is more specifically to remove shortcomings restricting the rapid mining development in the territory and complicating the speedy settlement of disputes between conflicting interests.

Mr. Speaker …

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.