Mr. Speaker, I move—

In pursuance of a recommendation of the Committee of Inquiry into the Financial Relations betwen the Central Government, the Provinces and Local Authorities (the Borckenhagen Committee) the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1945, was amended in 1968 so as to empower the provinces to levy licence duties on trades and occupations. At the same time, the provinces were empowered to repeal the Licences Act, 1962.

Up to now the provinces have not yet been able to introduce legislation giving effect to the amended provisions but, as the hon. the Minister of Finance indicated in his Budget speech last year, the Government intends giving effect to the spirit of the recommendations in the meantime, and consequently provision was made in last year’s Budget for the transfer of an amount of R4 million to the provinces in the 1971-’72 financial year in respect of licence duties and fines payable in terms of the Licences Act, 1962.

Clause 1 gives effect to this undertaking and lays down the formula according to which the amount of R4 million will be divided amongst the four provinces.

Mr. Speaker, we shall support this Bill. As the hon. the Deputy Minister says, it gives effect to a decision taken last year in the Budget. We have always been in favour of these funds being paid over to the local authorities by the provinces, and we shall therefore support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House do not intend objecting to the Third Reading of this Bill mainly because of the fact that we consider it an improvement on the existing position. The establishment of the South African Indian Council was a step towards achieving the object of giving the Indian community a means of consultation with the Government and we on this side of the House have felt that this body should be used also as the means of giving the Indians a right to elect their representatives to that council so that they may truly put the point of view of the Indian community whom they represent. For this reason we have supported the measure.

The hon. the Minister, speaking during the Second Reading, indicated that this Bill must be regarded as an interim measure. When we look at the contents of the Bill, we find that the existing council of 25 appointed members is now to be increased to a number not exceeding 30 members, and the additional five members are to be elected by the Indian community. The hon. the Minister has indicated that these five elected members would possibly be one from the Cape, one from the Transvaal and three from Natal. We hope that the hon. the Minister will give us some indication this afternoon as to the future of this council, particularly in regard to the question of representatives being elected to that council. He has mentioned at various stages during the discussion of this Bill, during the Second Reading debate and during the Committee Stage, that the Indian Council accepts this Bill and indeed supports it. However, I think it is only fair to say that we understand that that acceptance of the Bill is an acceptance of the principle of having some elected members of the council, and not necessarily an acceptance of the basis which this Bill outlines, namely that five members only shall be elected to that council. The position here has been clearly stated by the present chairman of the executive of the Indian Council, Mr. A. M. Rajab. In a letter published in the Daily News on Thursday, 16th March, he made it clear that he, as chairman of the executive, is in favour of a fully elected council. Mr. A. M. Rajab writes as follows—

He then goes on to make this observation—

Sir, this is the view that was expressed only a few days ago by the present chairman of the Indian Council. I think it is quite obvious that although the Indian Council has accepted the contents of this Bill, they themselves wish to see a situation develop where there will be a greater number of elected members sitting on the council and where ultimately there will be a fully elected council. I therefore hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to indicate this afternoon what he sees as the ultimate constitution of this council, and whether he and the Government accept that ultimately this council must be a fully elected council.

Then I want to touch upon certain other aspects in connection with this Bill, particularly the provisions of clause 8, which extend certain administrative functions to the executive committee of the newly constituted council. We accept that as a necessary step forward so that there will be greater consultation and so that there the members of the council elected by the Indian community will be able to express their views with regard to education, social welfare and pensions and any other matters which may be delegated to the executive committee by proclamation in terms of this Bill. However, there is one important aspect which I think requires greater consideration, and that is the question of the functions of this executive committee in discharging the various tasks allotted to it. The hon. the Minister has indicated that he as Minister of Indian Affairs intends to delegate to the executive committee of the new Indian Council those powers vested in him appertaining to the Indian community. But this is going to be quite meaningless unless the hon. the Minister is going to give further consideration to the financing of the administration of these two portfolios. As you know, Sir, the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council has been charged with that responsibility for a number of years now, and when one looks at the reports which are issued from time to time, one finds that many resolutions which are passed by the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council are not acted upon by the Government because of the financial position. Here I refer particularly to social welfare and pensions, which are now to form part of the functions of this new executive committee. We know that there was a strong feeling amongst many members of the Indian community that an effort should be made to close the gap between the amounts paid to the Indian community and the amounts paid to the White community. In terms of the Bill before us, this new council will merely be able to make recommendations to the hon. the Minister and to the Government to make available more funds so that they in turn can implement their ideas and their views on these important social welfare matters. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will give this House some indication as to how he proposes to avoid the stalemate situation where on the one hand you will have the Indian Council passing resolutions and asking for more funds to be made available so that they can implement their policy to close the gap between the amounts paid to Whites and the amounts paid to the Indian community, and the Government on the other hand refusing to act on those resolutions. It will be a case of coming back to the Minister again and again to ask that effect be given to these various resolutions passed by the council.

Then I come to the last point. I think it is important at this Third Reading Stage that the Minister should give the House some indication as to when he intends to have the election of these five members of the Indian Council. We realize that the Bill provides for the compilation of voters’ rolls and for other steps that have to be taken in order that an election may be held, and we know that this will be done, as the Minister has said, in consultation with the Indian Council. However, in view of the fact that the 25 members of the old council were reappointed for a period of another three years, their period of office will expire at the end of August, 1974, and therefore I think it is important that the hon. the Minister should give some indication as to when he expects the five elected members to be able to be elected so that they can gain some experience in this council before its term of office expires in August, 1974. We will also then be in a position to see what role the five elected members will be able to play in making this Indian Council a more effective body which will be able to voice its opinion, through its elected representatives, and come forward with suggestions as to how they believe the lot of the Indian community may be improved. At this stage, Sir, we support the Third Reading of this Bill in the hope that it will bring about an improvement and that it will be of assistance to the Indian community as a whole.

We are pleased to hear that the Opposition is supporting this Third Reading. Consequently it is also unnecessary to comment to any great extent on the speech made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. The hon. member said that this measure would be interim legislation. I do not think that one should view it in the light of interim legislation, but rather as legislation which will remain on the Statute Book for as long as is necessary, and then to pass on to greater deeds at a later stage. The Minister very clearly intimated here that there was consultation between him and the Indian Council all the time; that he and the Indian Council understood and trusted each other, and that they knew how to operate in these matters. The Minister and the Indian Council came to an agreement as to what steps were to be taken in order to constitute the council and how the council was to be elected, and I think it speaks volumes that there is so much confidence in the actions of the hon. the Minister and the Department of Indian Affairs that this population group is prepared to co-operate and go along on this road of development along individual lines. As regards the final shape which the Indian Council is to gain, we should accept that at this stage they would rather see slight progress instead of knowing right now what is going to happen to them from now until a point in time in the distant future. It is typical of the inherent code of conduct of this population group to practise patience and forbearance, and in my opinion we should drive them into moving faster than they themselves think they can move. They practise patience and forbearance; they believe in the honesty of the Minister and of the National Government, and to me it is very clear that they are prepared to make haste slowly in this respect. An author of repute once said—

This is also what we may in this case say about the Indian community, for they feel, as this author said—

Let us join them in this thought. I think that what I have just said here, reflects the attitude of the Indian community. The following words by the same author embody the development of the Indian community in their new fatherland, as they have in fact accepted it now, in which they want to achieve more and more, namely—

It is against this whole background that we should see the Indian people of the Republic of South Africa. They are assisted by the Minister and the Department of Indian Affairs in their gradual and certain growth and in their going from strength to strength on the road of development along individual lines and self-realization.

I am going to take the same line in the Third Reading of this Bill that I took in the Second Reading, and that is to oppose it. I was not here unfortunately during the Committee Stage of the Bill, but I have read the debates and the points of view expressed by hon. members here. I have also read the replies given to them by the hon. the Minister, and I cannot say that very much has emerged from the Committee Stage of the Bill and that any improvements have been effected. As far as I can make out there was one only, and that relates to the question of the removal of a member of the council should he be found to be of unsound mind. That procedure has been changed and improved to some extent, but obviously in the Committee Stage no principles which were involved at the Second Reading could in fact be changed and therefore I am back to square one as far as this Bill is concerned, and so of course is the official Opposition. They take the same line that they took in the Second Reading, namely that they are going to support the Bill. I must say at once that I think we are deceiving ourselves if we think that this Bill will satisfy the Indian people. The hon. the Minister has told us that he has consulted with the Indian Council and that they have said that they want him to go ahead with the Bill. The quotations which have been made in this House from the chairman of the council show that the Bill is very far from what is really wanted by the council, and I would say that it certainly is very far from what is wanted by the mass of the Indian people. I do not believe that the council itself can be considered to be truly representative of the feelings of Indians who have any political opinions because, as we know, over the years political Indians have largely been silenced in South Africa. The once powerful organization which represented them and their political aims and ambitions, the Indian Congress, has been emasculated because many of the leaders of the organization have been banned or placed under house arrest and so on, so that these people no longer function in the political sense; they are no longer vocal as they used to be when they represented the Indian people. Some of them may have been extreme but the majority of them were asking for what all men ask for if they wish to live in a democratic society, and that is the right to have a meaningful say in the government of the country in which they live. I do not believe that this council offers anything of the kind. It is, as has been shown in discussions during Second Reading and in the Bill itself and in the Committee Stage, a body which certainly pro tem and for the foreseeable future will consist of 25 nominated members and of 5 elected members. So it can hardly be considered a representative body at all. The hon. member for Port Natal stated at Second Reading that he was surprised and disappointed at my attitude during the Second Reading of this Bill. I must tell him that the feeling is not mutual. I am never surprised and I am never disappointed at what the United Party does in this House. Six years in the caucus of the United Party relieved me of my youthful illusions, so I am neither disappointed nor surprised. But I must say to the hon. member for Port Natal, that he must have discovered in the Committee Stage discussions of this Bill that he was very wrong in one assumption that he made, and that is that meaningful powers as regards group areas and housing were going to be handed over to the Indian Council. When I read the Bill I immediately assumed that this was not the case because I knew full well that neither the portfolio of housing nor the portfolio of group areas fell under the Minister of Indian Affairs. The Department of Indian Affairs has nothing whatever to do with housing for Indians, or with group area proclamations and the administration of Group Areas Act, and I see that during the Committee Stage debate this is what the hon. the Minister has had to tell the hon. member for Port Natal—that the Indian Council will not in fact have as one of its delegated functions the right to handle group areas proclamations. So the hon. member must realize that the powers which he hoped the council would be able to use, are in fact not going to be handed over to the council.

The other little comment which I must make before I get on to the Bill again, is about his statement, or words to that effect, that my attitude was that if the Indians could not have the whole loaf, I would not want them to have half a loaf. He spoke I think of a slice and I said that I did not consider that this was even a crumb. As far as this loaf business is concerned, I just want to remind the hon. member of the words once used by the late Chief Luthuli in this regard. He said that if people offered you half a loaf, you should be very careful that it was made of bread. In this case I do not believe that the half a loaf is made of bread, it is a sawdust loaf.

Will you give them a full loaf?

I said that I would give them a full loaf.

When?

Of course I said that we would do that when we were in power. [Interjections.] The hon. member can do nothing until he is in power, nothing at all. That may be longer than he thinks it is going to be. In point of fact, one must set one’s aims and one’s policy and stand by that. Our policy says very clearly that we will give meaningful rights to the Indian people on the same basis as we will give meaningful rights to everybody else in this country, by a qualified franchise …

Tell us about it.

We say that the right to vote on the common roll and to sit in this Assembly would be granted. What the United Party is offering the Indian people today, as the hon. the Minister rightly pointed out, is less than what they were offering them in 1945. [Interjections.]

But there would be a communal council in addition.

I am talking about rights in this House. What would happen in the communal council? The communal council would have no right to administer on its own, it would be dependent upon the central Parliament. By my reckoning two members of Parliament are very much fewer than three members of Parliament and two senators and two members of the provincial council. The hon. the Minister was dead right when he said that in 1945 the United Party was offering the Indians more than it is offering now. [Interjections.] Where the hon. the Minister was not right … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may just continue … [Interjections.] Could we not have a little order?

Order!

The hon. the Minister was not right when he said that 1961 was the first time that the Indians were recognized as a permanent part of this population. It was not then that the Indians were recognized as a permanent part of the population even by the National Party. [Interjections.]

Order!

Has the hon. the Minister forgotten the 1927 agreement? Has he forgotten the Cape Town agreement of 1927 when Dr. Malan was the Minister of Interior of this country? [Interjections.] Most important of all was that Dr. Malan, by agreement with the Indian Government —his agreement was on behalf of the South African Government—recognized that those Indians who remained in South Africa were a permanent part of the population. I took the trouble to look this up because I remembered suddenly, as I was preparing this, about the 1927 agreement and I remembered the famous upliftment clause. I think I should like to read it to the hon. the Minister, because I think he has forgotten it too. It reads as follows—

That was in 1927. It was then already accepted by the Nationalists in the Nationalist Labour Pact Government with Dr. Malan as its spokesman. The Indians were at that time accepted as a part of the permanent population. I should like to say that the upliftment part of this clause has been taken somewhat literally and thousands of Indians have been uplifted from their houses and removed elsewhere. [Interjections.]

Order!

I wish to tell the hon. Minister that it is a long time since the 1927 agreement was signed. If this is all that this Government can produce now by way of giving the Indians any political rights in this country, it is a very sad story indeed. The hon. the Minister in reply to the Chairman of the executive committee of the Indian Council, when the gentleman informed him that very strong public opinion had been built up in favour of the council as an entirely elected body, said that he did not want to be rushed. I have his exact words here. He said he did not want to be rushed, and he gave a very interesting reason for this. He said that practical difficulties had made this impossible at the present time. He said that these difficulties included the finalization of group areas and the resettlement of people, which must be done before voters’ lists could be compiled and the electoral divisions could be demarcated. Furthermore, he said that the system of elected members could therefore only be introduced gradually. I do not know what the hon. the Minister means by that, and I hope he will explain it to us. A large number of Indians have already been moved under group area proclamation and a large number remains to be moved. I think there are over 12 000 families who still have to be moved under the present proclamation. There may still be further proclamations in the future. However, this is no excuse for delaying the existing council in becoming a fully representative body.

They are worried about the verkramptes.

The hon. member says that he is worried about the verkramptes, which may very well be true. Certainly this excuse does not hold water. After all, there is a floating population in the whole of South Africa. Even the so-called White settled areas are full of mobile people. All of us know that when it comes to running an election, about a quarter of the constituents have disappeared. They have to be traced all over again. We would never have delimitations if we had to worry about whether the population was permanently settled or not. This excuse is simply not valid: it is not valid from a practical point of view, and it is certainly not valid from a moral point of view. The Indian people are one of the most advanced groups in the country. Educationally, they are certainly the most advanced non-White group. In this regard I give credit to the department for the improvements in education as far as the Indians are concerned. However, there is no valid excuse at this stage, in the year 1972, for offering the Indian people this poor excuse for political rights that this Bill represents. I am not prepared to put a stamp of approval on this Bill, which I believe does not only not go far enough, but which does not even begin to go anywhere at all. I believe that that is the opinion of thinking politically-minded Indian people. I believe that it is really an insult to the Indian people at this stage to offer them a council like this as a so-called substitution for political rights in this House.

I want to refer to the finances again. I asked the hon. the Minister where the council is going to derive its finances and he said that this Parliament would vote money to the Department of Indian Affairs, which in turn would hand the money on. This shows that the council has no political say of any importance, and it has no financial independence whatsoever. So far we have heard only of the two portfolios which they are going to handle. Other powers may be delegated in the future as the State President, i.e. the Minister in Executive Council, will decide, but as the hon. the Minister has pointed out, his own Department of Indian Affairs has very limited jurisdiction indeed. The things that really matter to the Indian people are group areas proclamations, job reservation and economic problems which flow from those two particular things. These things are entirely out of their control. Therefore we can at no time envisage that the Indian Council is going to be able to take a practical hand in assisting in finding a solution for the economic problems caused by the tremendous shunting around of the Indian population which has taken place already and which is still to take place. For all these reasons I am afraid I am unable to support this Bill, and I must express my disappointment at the fact that the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs, who says that he has consulted with Indian leaders, can for one moment imagine that this Bill, which we are passing this afternoon, is going to satisfy the aims and the ambitions of the Indian people in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton, the self-appointed champion of the non-Whites in South Africa, has spoken once again. Sometimes one wonders with what end in view that hon. member always comes forward with this tragic appeal in regard to the conditions of our non-Whites. Sometimes we wonder whether they want her as their representative here. I do not think so. In any case, the hon. member tried to make out a case here to establish by whom the Indians had originally been granted the right to exist in South Africa. Whether or not it was Dr. Malan or Gen. Hertzog in 1927, or whether it was during the sixties, the fact nevertheless remains that it was done by the National Party. That is the only point that has actually been made.

This Bill will serve as an important step towards the self-realization of the Indians in South Africa as regards their political say in their own affairs. This Bill contains two important principles. The first principle is that this will now be a partly elected body. As I said before, this is really a tradition in South Africa. Many forms of executive powers in South Africa have developed in this manner. In this regard I pointed out that in years gone by the same thing happened in the history of the Cape, i.e. that a nominated body became a partly elected body in the course of time. That was also the tradition in Natal. Therefore I think that this Bill follows a typically South African tradition.

The second principle contained in this Bill is that this Indian Council is going to be granted certain executive powers. These two principles are supposedly supported by the United Party. The only thing that I find rather strange, is how, when one says one supports something, it is possible that during the debate conducted on this Bill we have now virtually had to listen for a week to the objections of the United Party in regard to a matter which they support. The hon. member for Umbilo once again made it clear this afternoon that the United Party supported this principle, but then he did not go on to attack the details of this Bill, but specifically the principle of this Bill. That is something one cannot understand. This has been the pattern throughout the Second Reading and the Committee Stage of this Bill. How is one to save a nation with the aid of such people! Of course, this is typical of the United Party, which can never adopt an attitude on a matter. They always want to have it both ways in order to satisfy certain people here and another group of people over there.

As was done in the case of sea-side resorts.

Yes, when we discussed sea-side resorts last week, it was very clear that they always tried to follow a dual policy on any matter that came up for discussion here. The United Party regards itself as the champion of the Indians, but in the course of the debate on this Bill the dubious motives of the United Party were exposed in regard to this matter. The Indians realize this very well. That was why the hon. member for Port Natal made a special effort during this debate to make personal attacks on me and others; he tried to make a big fuss of the fact that allegedly I know nothing about Indians. Then he went on to say—

Now I want to ask, in the first place, why they never proclaimed that Act before 1948. When they granted the Indians these rights in 1946, did they not have the courage of their convictions to proclaim that Act? This Act was never proclaimed. If they are supposedly so concerned about the rights of the Indians in this House, why did they not state unambiguously, when they had the opportunity to do so over the years, that if they ever came to power, they would restore the representation of the Indians on the basis of 1946? Why have they never said that? They are afraid of what the voters outside will say. When one looks at their constitutional plan today, one sees that in terms of that the Indians will have a miserable representation by Whites in this House of Assembly. I want to ask whether that side of the United Party has any morality. None whatsoever. On the contrary, we are dealing here with a United Party which advocates a policy of “communal councils”, and heaven only knows what that means. I believe that there are very few people who know what it means. Apparently this qualified franchise of 1946 is now far too enlightened for the United Party in these times, because at the moment they are engaged in recruiting rural voters again. Over there we have the true United Party in the person of the hon. member for Houghton, for up to now she has consistently adhered to the pre-1948 policy of the United Party. In analysing the matter, one cannot arrive at any other conclusion. The United Party also said in this debate that we were not going far enough. I wonder how far they want to go in regard to this matter. Why do they not say how far they want to go? To what lengths do they want to go in this White Parliament, should they ever come into power? All I know, is that the Indians themselves are rejecting the United Party’s policy.

The hon. member for Port Natal also made a personal attack on me. The fact remains, however, that last year, when he along with certain members of the Other Place tried to plot and scheme behind the scenes with the Indians at Newcastle, the Indians told them, “Be off! We do not want to have anything to do with you.” That hon. member and certain United Party Senators tried to plot and scheme behind the scenes with the Indians in order to persuade them to get a court order against the chairman of the Group Areas Board. It is true that these people have been rejected by the Indians. In fact, the Indians very soon discovered that that trick of the United Party was only employed for one single purpose, namely for their own miserable political gain and not for the benefit of the Indians. This delicate situation of group areas is constantly being exploited by those people for their own miserable political gain. That is one fact we cannot argue away. I am supposed to be the person who knows so little about Indian affairs, and the hon. member for Port Natal did not even want to reply to a question of mine because, ostensibly, I do not know a thing about this matter. And yet I have had the closest contact with the Indian leaders of Natal on various occasions. I can assure you, Sir, that their thinking does in any case not go as far as was suggested here by the United Party. They reject the United Party with the contempt it deserves. This Bill is another important step on the constitutional road of the Indians. They will accept it with the same responsibility as that with which they handled the old Indian Council.

The next matter we come to, is another very important one. The United Party is also opposed to this Bill because of the provision that extensions to the council and its functions may be effected by proclamation. Now, how is one to understand this? In the same breath they say that we are not going far enough; but because this Bill provides that the powers and the constitution of the Indian Council may be extended by proclamation, they are raising objections. Surely, this is the very thing they asked for, i.e. that we should go further than this Bill envisages at this stage. But, Sir, if this Bill is passed, surely the House of Assembly will have adopted this principle. Why then should we come back to this House every time in order to reconfirm this principle over and again? Surely that would be absolutely foolish. That would be inconsistent. That would be ridiculous and contrary to all logic. The National Party’s standpoint is consistent and clear, and this Bill reflects our singleness of purpose to implement our policy in South Africa. The United Party is once again riding its two horses, one for the city and one for the rural areas, and now it also has a foal to ride on—the Indians.

Mr. Speaker, in speaking the other day, I said the hon. member for Newcastle knew nothing about the Indian problem. I felt at the time that I might have been a bit harsh in making that statement. However, after listening to the hon. member this afternoon, I can state with far more authority that he certainly knows nothing about the Indians. He talks with some pride about what the Nationalist Government has done for the Indian community, but I have yet to hear an Indian talk with any gratitude for what the Nationalist Government has done for the Indian community. He mentioned that in 1946 we passed an Act of Parliament and asked why it had not been promulgated. But he overlooks the fact that in 1948 his party came into power and repealed the 1946 Act in 1949. I want to give that hon. member the assurance that, though this Bill of 1972 will not have been put on the Statute Book by the United Party Government, when we come into power we will certainly not repeal this Act and offer the Indians less than they have now. The hon. member also talked about my activities in Newcastle. I want to say to him in that respect that the last has certainly not been heard of Newcastle. In future months a good deal more is going to be heard and that hon. member’s activities will not be noted with a great deal of pride.

I should like to turn to what the hon. member for Houghton had to say. I criticized the hon. member for Houghton in my Second Reading speech, and I believe justifiably so. Her attitude, as she clearly stated herself, after I had said that half a loaf was better than no bread, was that it was not even a crumb. I should like to remind the hon. member for Houghton that even a crumb to a person who has nothing is almost a meal.

Come off it! Have you ever been hungry?

The hon. member for Houghton can speak with these high motives from her point of view, but I believe that she is speaking from the point of view of her own Party and not from the point of view of what is good for the Indian community. We on this side of the House judge our motives from what is good for the community for which this legislation is being passed. For this reason we supported this measure and we continue to do so. Finally, as far as the hon. member for Houghton is concerned, I should like to quote to her what was said in 1946—

This was said by the late Mr. Hofmeyr in 1946. He took that point of view in 1946, but the hon. member for Houghton today takes a completely opposing view. As far as we are concerned, we have to judge every measure that comes before this House from the point of view of what benefit it will have for the community affected. We on this side of the House, although this Bill does not go nearly as far as we would like it to go, nevertheless believe that it is an improvement on existing legislation. For that reason we must not only accept the Bill, but we welcome it; we welcome any improvement for the Indian community and any other community in South Africa as well.

We see this as a sign that we are moving into saner and more realistic times in South Africa. We, in common with the Indian Council, and the Indian people would like to see a fully elected Indian Council. We have made our point of view in that regard quite clear. We see this nevertheless, though it is far from what we would like it to be, as an improvement on the existing position.

The hon. the Minister says that he consults with the Indian Council. One of the disturbing features is that he certainly may consult with the Indian Council, but he appears to ignore their views. As the hon. member for Umbilo pointed out, when the Indian Council made it quite clear that they wanted a fully elected council, they were ignored, although the hon. the Minister himself, in an earlier statement some time ago, said that he would give them a council when they asked for it. They have asked for it, and the Minister has cut down that representation to only five elected members. The Indian Council have also made other pleas to him over the years. They have asked him to do away with provincial travel permits; this is one of their biggest bones of contention, and the Minister has ignored that act of consultation as well. The point I am making is that there is no point in consulting with this Indian Council if the Minister is then going to ignore their every wish. For this council to be effective, the Minister must accept their recommendations. In the past this has certainly not been the case.

The Indian Council is now going to have five elected members. For the first time the Indian people, the ordinary Indian man-in-the-street, the Indian community, is going to have a voice, and an elected voice. If the hon. the Minister now ignores the recommendations of the council, he will be ignoring the wishes of the Indian people themselves. If he chooses to do this, we shall be back where we started. At long last an element—a small element, it is true, but nevertheless an element—of democracy has crept into Indian affairs in South Africa. There will be elected members in the Indian Council who will be the watchdogs for the Indian people on the council. The nominated members owe their position to the Minister himself and they would be less than human if they did not watch and guard their tongues in the council. The elected members, however, are not going to be in this position. They will have a tremendous responsibility, because there will be nothing to stop them speaking their minds in the council; their position in the council will not be dependent on the whim of the Minister. It is to these people that the Indian Council are going to look for an improvement in their affairs. These elected members in the midst of the Indian Council are, as I have said, going to be the voice of the Indian people. I believe that the Minister will be very chary of not carrying out their wishes. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister, when he replies to this debate, to tell me whether the hearings of this newly constituted Indian Council are going to be held in public. One of the criticisms of the last council was that its meetings were held behind closed doors. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether these meetings are now going to be held in public, whether Hansards are going to be published of their proceedings, and whether these Hansards are going to be made available. It is important, more to the Indian people than to anybody in this House, that they are aware of what is going on in their council. Up to the present they have not been aware of the proceedings in the council except by means of Press statements, which are not at all satisfactory. If, therefore, democracy is to work in the Indian Council, it is going to have to be seen to work, and so I ask the hon. the Minister to let us know whether these meetings are going to be held in public and whether Hansard reports are going to be published of their proceedings.

This new Indian Council is also going to have a wonderful opportunity, in that it will for the first time be able to draw up full voters’ rolls and constituency boundaries. It will be a very simple matter, once this has been done, to increase the number of elected members from five to the full thirty, because all the machinery will have been established. For this reason too, we support this measure, because it is a move in the direction which we ourselves wish to travel. It is a move in a direction in which the hon. member for Houghton would also wish to travel. So, for this reason and for the other reasons stated by the hon. member for Umbilo, we shall support this measure as we did in the Second Reading. We hope that the Indian Council will have a great deal of success. We hope, more than anything else, that its members will be as outspoken as they need to be, because if they are not outspoken the council will not be a success. For those reasons we support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, at the start of his speech, as well as on a previous occasion, the hon. member for Port Natal accused the hon. member for Newcastle of having no knowledge of Indian affairs. I leave it to the judgment of this House to decide on the basis of the arguments advanced by the hon. member whether he may be regarded as being an expert in the field of Indian affairs. The hon. member had another disagreement with the hon. member for Houghton about her refusal to accept this legislation.

Sir, it is a long time since I have seen a party giving its support to legislation and then having four or five speakers participating in the Second Reading debate in order to tell us of its support for the legislation, and then having two more speakers participating in the Third Reading debate in order to tell us once again of its support for the legislation. I do not think the Minister had stronger support than that of those hon. members in regard to this legislation, particularly in that they said the Bill “moved in the direction we wished to travel”. It was striking that those members of the United Party did not have the courage to move an amendment to the Second Reading, or even now, to the Third Reading. Throughout they quoted what the chairman of the executive committee of the Indian Council had allegedly said. They accepted the statements he had made, i.e. that he would like to see the entire council being an elected one. They probably repeated that four or five times in the Second Reading debate, during the Committee Stage and once more during this stage. I repeat that hon. members of the Opposition do not have the courage of their convictions to say that they do not accept this principle. This principle of elected and appointed members is an important one in this legislation.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I am not going to reply to questions now. I say the principle laid down in this legislation is a very important one, i.e. the principle of elected and appointed members, and hon. members of the United Party support it. Although I do not agree with the hon. member for Houghton at all, she is at least honest in opposing the entire principle. Sir, hon. members of the United Party say every time: “We would like to see a fully elected council.” but they have supported this legislation throughout.

To have all the members of the Indian Council elected at this stage would, to my mind, be in conflict with the policy of gradual or evolutionary progress of the Indian Council in respect of their powers and privileges on the one hand, and their responsibilities on the other hand. It will wreck the object of systematic constitutional progress, because hon. members of the United Party and the hon. member for Houghton want to place too many responsibilities too soon on the shoulders of the Indian Council. What is the constitution of the existing council, which consists of appointed members at the present time? Sir, after the Minister had given thorough consideration to the fields of interest, etc., of persons, he decided to retain the 25 appointed members. On what basis? On what basis were these members appointed? In the first place, the geographical distribution of the members was taken into consideration, and, in the second place, their religious and cultural interest, and in the third place their commercial, professional and public activities. On that basis Natal obtained 15 members, the Transvaal 7 members, and the Cape three members. I say that this Council was constituted judiciously. A particularly fine balance was maintained. The Minister may act as a kind of arbiter to give fair representation to the various groups. I do not think that at the present time the Indian electorate is sufficiently educated politically to be able to consider matters as judiciously as the Minister. If one religious group were strong, they would simply elect members of their own religious group if all members had to be elected. In the course of time they have to be educated politically so that they may judge objectively. Sir, I want to mention to you what has already occurred in a few cases. In the case of Verulam, an independent Indian city council or town council came into being in 1969. It was a local authority of full status. It used to consist of appointed members. Those appointed members were the people who were originally appointed by the Administrator, and in the election virtually all those people were successful and were elected. That is proof that the Administrator—and this is the case with the Minister as well—acts judiciously when they appoint the people. I am not sorry that the United Party supports the legislation, but I am disappointed that they come forward and said time and again, despite the fact that they support the legislation, that they would have liked to see this council being a fully elected Indian council at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to say that the debate has not gone contrary to what I expected. I expected the hon. member for Houghton to oppose the Bill. She did that in the Second Reading, as I expected. I expected the United Party to display its usual attitude, that they support the Bill but … [Interjections.] Then they continued to criticize the principles of the Bill in their roundabout way. I know how they do these things. They are playing up all the time to the supporters of the hon. member for Houghton. After all, in regard to the hon. member for Port Natal, I first of all said that I hoped this lovers’ quarrel would be settled, but now I can see what is happening. He is jealous of the position he has held in Natal with the Indian Congress as the champion of the Indians and he is afraid that the hon. member for Houghton would take over his role. That is why he said what he did. I am afraid it goes much deeper than I originally thought, and I am afraid that the hon. member for Houghton will not be able to woo him over. He is so much in the United Party at the present moment that they have fixed him good and solid. They have gone out of their way to tie him to them because they were afraid that the hon. member for Port Natal might have been looking a bit too hard at the hon. member for Houghton. [Interjections.] Now let me deal with the hon. member for Umbilo, who had so much to say. He said that I said that this was an interim measure.

Yes, that is right. You said it in the Second Reading.

I never said anything of the sort. I said it was, as the hon. member for Zululand said, an enabling measure.

You said it was an interim measure.

I never said it was an interim measure. The hon. member must get his facts right. What I said was that the fact that five elected members were mentioned in the Bill, could be regarded as an interim measure, because this Bill is an enabling measure and their numbers may be increased after consultation with the Indian Council at the next election. But it is not an interim measure.

What is it then?

“Interim” means what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said it was. This is an enabling Bill. We are talking about the word “interim” now. This is an enabling Bill which says specifically that although there will be five elected members now, when the next Indian Council is to be constituted the matter of the number of elected members will be decided after consultation with the Indian Council. The hon. member as a frontbencher must get his facts right.

They are right.

No, they are not.

Where are they wrong?

This is not an interim Bill. This Bill is before Parliament and the future constitution of the Indian Council will not be dealt with again in the form of an amending Bill. (Interjections.] The hon. member for Umbilo is getting very excited. The hon. member for Zululand said that it goes further than an enabling Bill; he said it was an empowering Bill. That is the phrase he used, but the hon. member for Umbilo now says it is an interim Bill.

You said it would be changed, it was an interim Bill.

I did not say the Bill would be changed; the number of elected members would be changed. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member thinks he can run away from what he said and the mistakes he made, but I will not let him get away with it. He would never let me get away with a mistake like that and I am not going to let him get away with it. If the hon. member can find it in my speech that I called this Bill an interim Bill or an interim measure, I shall be very happy to apologize to him, but he knows that that was never intended.

You used those words. [Interjections.]

Then the hon. member came with this business about the United Party actually believing in a fully-elected Indian Council. The hon. member for Port Natal came with the same sentiment. They believe in it and that is United Party policy, a fully-elected Indian Council. It amazes me that they can still come with that argument, because I told them in my Second Reading speech exactly what the position was. I read out a regulation under a Natal Provincial Ordinance. The United Party controls the province of Natal. They control the local authorities in Natal, and if they felt so strongly about this … [Interjections.] … why do they not change their regulation? I want to read it again. It says—

This is the Indian Local Affairs Committee—

Now all this talk that they believe in a fully-elected council! However, here they have it in black and white in their provincial ordinance. Does the hon. member want to say something?

Yes. That is the first step to the immediate change over to a fully-elected council such as exists at Verulam.

I should like to point out to the hon. member for Durban Point that that is not the case, because under this very ordinance …

Is Verulam not in Natal?

The hon. member should wait a moment. He asked me a question and I shall read the regulation. This is what we are discussing—the question of local affairs, and not a town board like Verulam. This is how the regulation reads—

It does not even refer to the second only, but to the second and succeeding …

1. (i) two eligible persons who shall be nominated by the local authority and appointed by the Administrator, and
2. (ii) three eligible persons elected in terms of these regulations.

The majority, in other words.

The hon. member did not talk about the majority; he talked about the fact that a subsequent local affairs committee was elected. Here it says quite distinctly that the two are appointed. That is why I want to ask these hon. members why they tell this House that they believe that the Indian Council should be a fully-elected body. Why do they not do it in their province through the Natal Ordinance? Why do they not do it? I shall tell them why. Because they do not believe in it. They only say so for argument’s sake and for propaganda and because they want to be the champions of the Indians and compete with the hon. member for Houghton.

What does old man Douglas say?

The hon. members can talk, but these are the facts pertaining to this situation. We make no bones about it. We say that this is an enabling Act. We are appointing members by nomination and we are electing members. We are starting with the 25 appointed members who are now on the council and we are adding another five elected members.

By nomination!.

No, by election. The hon. member must get his facts right. [Interjections.] All I want to say is that when the next council is due to be constituted the Minister will be obliged to consult with the Indian Council. It says so in this Bill. That is what we are prepared to do.

Are you in favour or opposed to a totally elected Indian Council ultimately?

I am prepared to discuss the matter with the council and not with the hon. member for Umbilo. That is the viewpoint of this side of the House. We know the hon. members on that side of the House and we know that the only reason for their objection is to try to make it appear as if we must consult them about such matters. When it comes to the Indians, we shall consult the Indians themselves and not the hon. member for Umbilo or any other member on that side of the House. I repeat we shall consult with the Indians and it is their community, they themselves, who are concerned in the matter.

And not the Whites?

The National Party represents a large section of the white population.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

Just let me finish this and then you can ask the question. The National Party represents a large section of the voters of South Africa. They will take the responsibility of discussing the matter with the Indian Council and of coming forward with their proposals. Hon. members on that side of the House can argue and criticize, but that is how we intend to operate this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the question I wish to put to the hon. the Minister is as follows. If the Indian Council …

Is the hon. member asking a question or making a statement?

Mr. Speaker, I am asking a question.

That is all the hon. member is entitled to.

If the Indian Council, after due deliberation, as has been mentioned by the hon. the Minister, asked the Government for a fully elected council, what would be the attitude in this regard?

I know it is very convenient for hon. members to ask hypothetical questions, and they know it. The hon. member for Yeoville, the deputy leader of the party …

The shadow leader.

… said in this House that any Minister who answers a hypothetical question must be out of his mind. I did not say this, but the hon. member for Yeoville. If the hon. member thinks that I am going to fall for that sort of question, he is making a big mistake.

May I put a further question?

I will answer the hon. member for Umbilo’s question first.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is in favour of a fully elected Indian Council or not. Is the ultimate aim of the Government a fully elected Indian Council?

Order! The hon. member may only put a question.

I am quite prepared to be reasonable, but I am not going to allow questions of this nature to be put to me, when I have already answered on the principle involved. I am not prepared to answer any such questions. As far a I am concerned, if that is the way hon. members are going to abuse the privilege of asking questions, I will not reply to them.

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. Minister not reflecting upon the Chair?

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I want to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Port Natal. I have made some notes in this regard. He said inter alia, that I have ignored the council. Is that right, or am I misquoting you?

You do not carry out their recommendations.

He also said that consultation means nothing. I want to know if the hon. member has ever taken the trouble of speaking to members of the Indian council.

Oh please!

The members of the Indian Council have had opportunities of consultation which they have never had before, definitely not during the period that the United Party was the Government. The Indian people in South Africa, through the statutory Indian Council, have access not only to me, as Minister of Indian Affairs, but also to the various Ministers, such as the Minister of Community Development and the Minister of Planning, with whom they have had many discussions already, and they have even had discussions with the Prime Minister.

I want to know from the hon. member whether that sounds as if they are being ignored.

Yes …

You see, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says I am ignoring them. That is not true. The facts are completely against what the hon. member has said.

You listen to them and then you ignore them.

The hon. member also said that the elected members would be the watchdogs and that the nominated members will have to guard their tongues. Well, I am thankful for one thing: The hon. members on that side of the House previously talked about the members of the Indian Council as “stooges”. Now at least they are more circumspect. They now talk about their having to guard their tongues. With reference to what the hon. member for Umbilo read to the House what Mr. Rajab, who is chairman of the executive said, I want to ask hon. members whether it sounds as if that man is knee-haltered and that I opposed his saying what he did. Does he sound like a man who expresses his opinion, or as the hon. member said, does he sound like a man who has to guard his tongue? It is just talk, an attempt to give not only the Indian people, but the people outside, the wrong impression about the Government’s attitude to the Indian people. That is the situation. The point is that the hon. members in the United Party are retreating. First of all, the members of the council were stooges. Now they say there is no real consultation and that I ignore them. When they find out that that is not the case, they will come with something else.

For years now this council has operated, and operated successfully, on a basis which has been decided by the council. They do not allow the Press to be present. They allow the Press to be present only at certain stages. When I addressed the council, the Press was present. This enables the council to have their private discussions. They do not have a Hansard. The minutes are kept for the information of the department and the members. We intend proceeding on this basis, because we find it the best. We find that it is in the interests of the Indian community that it is done in this way and the opportunity of exploiting the Indian community, which so many people want to do, does not arise.

Does the hon. the Minister not agree that the Indian electorate are entitled to know what goes on in their council?

I think that is the U.P. new line—“the Indian electorate”.

They know what goes on here.

They are appointed to the council on the basis of the operation of the council as it exists. This is how the council affairs are run, and how they will be run. I want to tell the hon. member that he can talk as much as he likes, but the council is going to be run as it has been run in the past. We will run it that way. The hon. member can run around criticizing as much as he likes in Natal, but we consider that this is the best way of running the Indian Council. I am not impressed by the comment of the hon. member, because I think all he wishes to do is to make an anti-Government publicity stunt out of the Indian Council. I am not prepared to allow that. The hon. member has still not explained his statement that the elected members are the only watchdogs and that the nominated members must guard their tongues, while his colleague, the hon. member for Umbilo, reads out what the chairman of the executive committee has to say. So, where are they having to guard their tongues, and in what way am I exercising such a restraint on them that they dare not say what is on their mind? I will, of course, listen to them, but not to the hon. member for Port Natal.

How many have you taken off the council?

The hon. member for Umbilo also talked about the financial arrangements of the council. I want to tell him that under the Act the executive committee will have delegated authority to carry out certain functions which are delegated to them. They will carry out such functions within the framework of funds voted for such services here in Parliament. That is how it will be done. I made no bones about it and I told hon. members that that was how it would be done. Parliament will decide what funds are to be voted and only the funds given by delegation to them in respect of education and social welfare will be handled by the executive committee.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Are you aware that you used the following words during your Second Reading speech: “The measure now before the House is, therefore, an interim measure which is flexible enough to allow the council to develop on a partly elected basis.

I apologize to the hon. member for the fact that these words were used, but I think he will appreciate that when I talked about flexibility I meant that it was a feature of this legislation not the Bill. I am sorry I was harsh with the hon. member for Umbilo but what I wanted him to understand, and what I want hon. members to understand, is that this Bill is introduced as an enabling Bill. I accept the criticism of the hon. member for Zululand when he said that this was more than an enabling Bill, that it was an empowering Bill. But this is a Bill which will enable us to develop the election of members to this council.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister a question, just to clear up one point. Can the Indian Council elect or decide to hold their meetings in public?

It was the Indian Council itself that decided the manner in which they should conduct their meetings and they decided that they wanted to conduct their meetings in this way and that the Press should not be present during discussions. The Indian Council made its decision, and presumably the power to decide how they should conduct their discussions lies with them.

Can they change it?

I presume they can, but presumably also they will have to convince me that this change is for the good and not for the worse.

I really appreciate the contributions made to this debate by hon. members on this side of the House. I appreciate their contributions because they have to face facts. They are in the Government while the hon. members opposite can be completely irresponsible as to what they say in this House. Members on this side, however, have to maintain their responsibility as supporting members of a Minister. I have appreciated all along what they have contributed in the debates that have taken place at the various stages. I think this covers all the aspects of the debate that has taken place up till now.

When do you expect to have the election of the five elected members?

As far as I am concerned, as soon as they can arrange it, but the hon. member will appreciate that this is largely a matter where the Indian Council in conjunction with my department will have to advise me on how it can be done. Delaying it in any way is not my intention. In fact, the mere fact that I introduced this measure to say that the 25 members already appointed will remain and that five members would be elected to increase the council to 30 members, points to the fact that I want to get on with that job immediately, so that the five members can be elected. The hon. member also talked about the Cape and the Transvaal, but he will appreciate that there is no voters* roll for Indians in the Cape at all. There is no voters’ roll for Indians whatsoever, and I have to start from scratch. That is why we may have to do it piecemeal and will have to tackle the Transvaal and Natal first, for example. We may not be able to tackle the Cape immediately and I am not going to hold up the elections in the Transvaal or in Natal because I am waiting for the position as a whole to be clarified.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? I should just like to know from him what his attitude is to the statement by the hon. member for Koedoespoort that the Indians are not sufficiently educated to have a fully elected body.

Number one, it was stated that the Indian representation, according to the United Party plan, had been reduced from three representatives to two. The hon. member for Durban Point said: “Yes, but there is another body.” I want the hon. member to tell me whether he thinks the Indians are satisfied with the basis on which they offer representation. As far as I can see, the situation is that the Indians resent very much the fact that, whereas the United Party is prepared to allow Coloureds to come into Parliament, they are not prepared to allow Indians into Parliament. [Interjections.] If the hon. member will repeat the question and feels that I have not answered it fully, I am prepared to do so.

Motion put and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. H. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, motion declared agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask just one question here? I wish to refer the hon. the Minister to clause 1 (b), where the definition of “prospecting” is amended by the insertion of the words “by means which disturb the surface of the earth or bed of the sea”. Is any area demarcated in “the bed of the sea”? Would the Minister just explain what that part means and tell us what the distance from the coastline is?

Sir, in the first place the hon. member’s question refers to land. Although provision was made for certain activities, we have found in South-West Africa that these did not specifically include administrative offices, etc. As regard the sea, there are, as the hon. member knows, activities concerning diamond mining and prospecting. It is because of these activities that we are inserting this provision, in the event of any need arising to use it.

Would the hon. the Minister be kind enough to tell me how far out the area of jurisdiction is? Is it a matter of three or 12 miles?

Usually it is from the high-water mark to the low-water mark; however, there are activities which take place further out at sea. As far as these are concerned, I think—I am speaking under correction—the distance is three miles. But in practice this is not really applicable, because for all practical purposes it is quite impossible to do prospecting or mining that far out at sea.

As regards oil that can be drilled for off the coast, is the Minister sure that he would have jurisdiction over such activities further than the three-mile limit? Could he go to the 12-mile limit, particularly for the purpose of drilling oil?

The matter of natural oil is, of course, something quite different, as the continental shelf determines the prospecting for and the mining of natural oil. Now one does find that sometimes the continental shelf is under very deep sea, but this is recognized internationally and is also defined very clearly in the various agreements entered into by Soekor with the various companies. These agreements, too, duly implement international practice.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this clause amends the definition section in the principal Act, and I should like to raise a point in this connection. I hope the hon. the Minister will be good enough to explain the position. In paragraph (d) of clause 1 the expression “pupil nurses” is inserted. The definition of “training school” now reads as follows—

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would explain the difference between a “student nurse” and a “pupil nurse”, because I can find no definition in this regard, although both expressions are used in this Bill. Later on in the Bill there are references to student nurses and pupil nurses as regards the curricula to be established; there appears to be a different curriculum for student nurses and pupil nurses. There are other references of this type as well which appear from time to time in the Bill. I shall be grateful if the hon. the Minister would indicate the difference between the two, and where that difference is defined in the legislation before the House.

Mr. Chairman, this change has been brought about in a number of clauses. The present position, as the Act stands at present, is that “student nurse or midwife” refers to students who are studying for a diploma which entitles them to be registered with the Nursing Council in general nursing, in psychiatry or in midwifery. In the Afrikaans version the present position is that “student nurse and midwife” is translated by the words “leerlingverpleegster” and “leerlingvroedvrou”.

*We are now changing it to “studenteverpleegster” and “studentevroedvrou”, to bring it into line with the English, as it was. It is also related, however, to the further changes which are being introduced, namely that “hulpverpleegster” and “hulpvroedvrou” are also being replaced.

†The present position is that in the case of auxiliary nurses or midwives we are using the expression “student auxiliary nurse or midwife”. This is now being changed, because of the diplomas, to “pupil nurses or pupil nursing assistants”. This is translated as “leerlingverpleegsters of leerling-verpleegassistente”, because they are entitled only to enrolment with the South African Nursing Council. In other words, we are drawing a clear distinction between those studying for a diploma to be registered with the Council and those undergoing training to be enrolled with the Council. I may say that this request came from the Nursing Association, from the Provincial Administrations and also from the missionary hospitals in the Bantu homelands and outside the homelands.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the Minister for his explanation. I appreciate the purpose behind the difference between “student nurse” and “pupil nurse”, but one still has to bear in mind the question of definition and the legality of the position. I do not want the Minister to worry about this now, but I wonder whether his department, at any rate, should not ensure that the power to differentiate is in fact given to the council, because I cannot find it in the regulations. However, I leave the matter with the hon. the Minister to see whether that power to apply a titular differentiation between student nurses and pupil nurses in fact exists.

Mr. Chairman. I must concede to the hon. member that even the Select Committee could not really define the word “nurse”, but in practice there will be no problem at all for the Nursing Council to keep registers of these different categories of nurses, whether they be student nurses or pupil nurses. In practice, therefore, I do not think we shall run into any difficulties at all.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 2:

I would like to refer the hon. the Minister to paragraph (n), which refers to “one registered person elected by the advisory board for Indians”. May I ask the Minister whether this person to be elected must be a White person? Secondly, how will these people elect a White person, if that is what is intended here? Are these people going to be given a panel of names from which to choose, or are White nurses going to be allowed to canvass for that position? Furthermore, I would like the hon. the Minister to tell me whether he will allow the Indians to nominate an Indian to represent them on the Nursing Council if they so wish.

The reply is, firstly, that according to the Bill before us, this person will be a White person; secondly, if this Bill is passed I will not have the power to allow Indian nurses to elect a member of their own race. The hon. member’s third question is whether nurses will be allowed to canvass …

Will they be given a panel of White persons from which they can elect one, or would they choose their own representative without a panel, and, thirdly, would White nurses be allowed to canvass the Indian Board?

There is no provision whatsoever for a panel. It will be done in exactly the same way as it has been done since 1957 by the Bantu and the Coloured nurses. We have had no problems in that regard at all; it has worked extremely well. They get to know the White nurses who are active in nursing affairs. Hon. members must not forget that they have their separate congresses where White nurses address them on different matters, but apart from that, there are very few places where they are in employment where there are not White nurses also who play a leading role. The system has created no problem whatsoever so far, and I do not think hon. members need worry about this point at all.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 5 :

In this Bill before us the hon. the Minister has done away with the compulsory fee to be paid for registration with the council and which was limited before to 10 shillings. There is now to be a prescribed fee in terns of the new subclause (c). I have heard the point raised on occasion that it is virtually compulsory for nurses to join their associations also. I know that legally it is voluntary, but it is well-nigh compulsory for them to join their associations as well. The fees are becoming extremely steep, and I wonder if the hon. the Minister could give us an assurance that where there is not equality of pay between the different races, he will look into the question of some adjustment in their membership fees. At the moment I believe it is R20 for a White nurse who wishes to join an association, in addition to her registration fee, and if that is to apply to all races, a fee of R20 per annum for membership of their associations could place a very heavy burden on these nurses. I should like the hon. the Minister to look into this, because apparently the associations can levy whatever fee they wish for membership of their association.

The position is that membership is not voluntary.

Of the associations?

Yes. Since 1957 the association has been a statutory body, so all nurses are members. I think the fees to be paid are laid down by regulation. I will certainly keep an eye on this in view of the fact that, as the hon. member has pointed out, there is a discrepancy between the pay for different categories of nurses and nurses of different colours. In terms of the Act passed in 1957, the association in this case is different from the Medical Association or the Dental Association. This was laid down at their request, and I must say that I have had no complaint about this whatsoever in the 15 years during which this measure has been in operation.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 6:

I want to refer to the new paragraph (h) in line 19, which refers to the curricula for the training of student nurses or midwives, pupil nurses or pupil nursing assistants. I want to deal particularly with student nursing assistants. Here I would like to recommend to the Minister, if he has the power to do this, to see to it, if possible, that the curricula which student nursing assistants will have to comply with, run parallel with the curricula of student nurses, so that a student assistant nurse could switch over into full nursing. I do not know whether the Minister understands what I mean.

You are mixing up the words.

There are the two curricula, one for student nurses and one for student assistant nurses.

No, “pupil nursing assistants”.

Yes, that is correct. I want to put it to the Minister that I think some means should be devised whereby a pupil assistant can switch over to the higher diploma course without being blocked and told that she has to start from the beginning again.

The hon. member has somewhat mixed up this matter of students and pupils, but let me explain to the hon. member. The term “student nurses” applies to those who are studying for the diploma in general nursing, in psychiatry or midwifery. To become a student nurse, that student has to comply with certain requirements.

She enrols?

No, wait a minute. She has to have at least Std. X. Only then can she become a student nurse. A pupil nurse can become a pupil nurse without having Std. X, having Std. VIII only, but after she has gone through the course of a pupil nurse, she can go on to become a student nurse without ever attaining Std. X. In other words, the training as a pupil nurse takes the place of the higher requirement of Std. X. So what the hon. member has in mind can happen today. I might also inform the hon. member that I was a bit worried about this Std. X qualification, but I made extensive inquiries even in the Bantu homelands, and it is creating no problem at all. The nurses are enrolling as student nurses in large enough numbers, even in the Bantu homelands, with one or two small exceptions, so that this has not brought the number of nurses, of young ladies who are studying or who are becoming student nurses, for the diplomas in South Africa, too low.

I want to refer to page 11, line 44, paragraph (s). I want to tell the hon. Minister how much one welcomes the substitution for the word “calling” of the word “profession”. I believe this is long overdue, that nursing should be regarded as a profession; there has been some difficulty in this regard in the provincial legislation. One has in the Cape Provincial Ordinance for instance a division of the hospital staff into the professional, which is the medical and the para-medical section, and the “nursing division”, as they call it, and then they go on to the administrative division. I hope that under the Minister’s pressure, this will lead to the full recognition of nursing as a profession, with all the full privileges of a profession in so far as their positions in hospitals are concerned. There is at the moment a distinction which I believe is no longer necessary, having regard to the advances which have been made and which will be made under this new dispensation.

Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt whatsoever that these ladies can look after themselves, but this, again, is at their request and I think it is a great improvement, as this whole Bill is. I think that this Bill is one of the best Bills that we have had before us for a long time. A lot of work has gone into this, not only on our side, but also on their side. This is brought about after 15 years of experience of the new Act, which has never been amended, as hon. members know.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 7 :

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister mentioned to me the difficulty of trying to find a definition for “nurse”. We find the problem on page 13, line 47, subsection (2), which reads—

and then it goes on to stipulate certain intermediary registrations. One wonders how this person fits in. With all the obligations and duties of a registered nurse, does that become her category when once she is registered in this form under this particular clause, notwithstanding the fact that she is not a completely qualified nurse and still has to undergo certain training and should therefore not really be in the same category as a registered nurse? Is this something in the interim stage between “nurse” and “fully registered nurse”?

The word “interim” now applies.

Yes, that is really what the position is—it is an interim registration.

The other point is the difficulty which one sees arising in regard to the penalty provisions which are included in this particular clause. I am referring to the words “a person who wears a uniform” as prescribed in respect of a nurse. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can tell me whether there has been any success in defining, or designating or determining what is a uniform for a nurse, apart from the embellishments, apart from the badges of rank, the particular belt or something of that nature. We should like to hear whether it has been possible, because I doubt whether that has in fact been done, to determine a uniform exclusively for the nursing profession; that is, apart from the cape or the epaulettes or badges of rank. I am referring to the actual uniform which is normally a white uniform with a belt.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member referred to page 13—

This I think can truly be called an interim registration. The hon. member will recall that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout explained some time ago that non-Whites will be represented in this House by Whites, but according to his views, that would only be an interim period. In other words, after the interim period you might have to continue with the Whites or the Whites might be replaced by Blacks or Coloureds or Indians. In other words, it is not permanent.

In this particular case we have the situation that there are many nurses in South Africa who became qualified in other countries, but they cannot be accepted by our Nursing Council for full registration. There are also many nurses who qualified and registered overseas, and who are still there, who inquired at our offices what the position would be were they to come to South Africa. After this has become law, such a nurse will be able to register with the council as a nurse, most probably on a separate register, and she will be able to follow— not her calling—her profession in any institution, either government, provincial or private, with the only exception that, in so far as that part of the nursing profession is concerned for which she is not qualified, she will not be able to be recognized as a fully qualified nurse for that specific branch of medicine. For instance, she may not be qualified as an orthopaedic nurse. In the two-year period she will be able to qualify in that branch as well and then she will automatically be entitled to be registered as a fully qualified nurse. I think this is a great step forward towards making it possible to make use of those who are in our country and also to draw more qualified nurses to this country, nurses who are considered as qualified in their countries. In terms of this measure we shall be able to create an opportunity for them to get immediate registration as nurses.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to quarrel with the hon. the Minister in regard to these provisions because they are excellent provisions and will help considerably in the staffing of hospitals. It will help considerably because girls with training and experience sufficient for them at least to be utilized while they are awaiting further registrations, can now be used. My difficulty was purely one of the entitlement. This girl would now call herself “a registered nurse”. A “registered nurse” in terms of the Act, is a nurse who is registered under section 12. The first subsection of section 12 determines that the council shall register as a nurse any person in possession of the appropriate prescribed qualifications. Therefore, if a woman says that she is a “qualified nurse”, it implies that she has full qualifications. Here, when these women are registered in terms of this new subsection, she does not have full qualifications. I wonder whether some precaution should not be taken to ensure that she does not hold herself out as a fully registered nurse, when it is in fact purely interim registration. This precaution should be taken because such a person may be applying for a post and then, to my mind, it must be made quite clear that she only has an “interim registration” as the hon. the Minister has said. I leave it at that, but I think it is necessary to differentiate between such persons. This should be done because all registered nurses fall under this particular section of the principal Act, which is now going to be extended in order to include these people. I think the wording “interim registration” or “temporary registration” in terms of section 12 (2) (a) or 12 (2) (b) should appear on the certificate so that when it is produced to an employer or the hospital, it is clear that she is in possession of a temporary or an interim registration.

If one of these temporary registered nurses fails to obtain a clearance as a registered nurse after a period of two years, will she lose the registration? Is that what the hon. the Minister is indicating in this clause? I ask this because she is only going to be registered for three years under certain conditions. The conditions are that she will qualify in those subjects in which she is not fully qualified at the time. She gets this temporary registration. Will that be on her registration certificate or will the Minister introduce some examination after two years, the examination required to reach a certain degree of proficiency in the subjects in which she is not fully proficient at the time of temporary registration? We would like to know what the difference is going to be between such persons holding temporary registration and permanent registration certificates.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that I differentiate between a temporary and an interim regulation. Hon. members, however, must read the whole clause as it stands here. Then it will become quite clear what the position is. I just want to quote section 12 (2) as amended by clause 7 (1)—

1. (a) is registered as a nurse in a country or State outside the Republic …

As I have indicated—

Secondly it provides, and I quote subsection (2) (b)—

This is important and I quote subsection (2) (c)—

Provided that a nurse so registered—

1. (a) may not exercise his profession in respect of such branch or branches of nursing as may be determined and indicated by the Council; and
2. (b) shall not be entitled to vote at an election of members of the Council or an advisory board.

Now I want to quote subsection (3) which provides the following—

Hon. members will see that provision is being made here not only in regard to the two years, which is final, but also that regulations can be made in regard to the registration of these nurses. Regulations will be made with regard to the certificates issued. So, all the points raised by the hon. members will be covered in the regulations made. This is a very serious attempt to register that person as a nurse, not temporarily, but for the interim period of two years, which gives the nurses firstly the opportunity of exercising that part of the profession in which she is proficient and which our council recognizes and, secondly, the opportunity of being trained within that period. I am advised that clause 12 (2) (a) also refers to this particular registration. We will come to that in a moment.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 12:

In this clause we have the establishment of an advisory board, who will advise the council. May I ask the hon. the Minister what channel there will be whereby those members on the advisory board, who may not be White, will have to get their views to the Nursing Council, which is a White council? Is there any channel whereby the wishes of the advisory board will go to the Nursing Council other than in writing?

As I understand the position, officials of the Nursing Council attend these meetings. Of course, an arrangement is made and can be made at any stage for either the president or another member of the Nursing Council to attend the advisory board meetings—not as a full member—in order to enlighten them on certain points or to listen to a particular point being discussed. Also, there is nothing debarring the advisory council having dialogue with the Nursing Council or members from it at a round-table from time to time. So there is ample opportunity for this contact to be exercised continuously.

I take it that the hon. the Minister means that the advisory board could attend the Nursing Council’s meetings on the invitation of the Nursing Council, whether they be White or non-White?

Will you say that again?

I shall put it as clearly as I can. If a matter is going to be discussed between the advisory board and the Nursing Council, the hon. the Minister said that a member of the ‘Nursing Council can attend a meeting of the advisory board. That means that a White person will attend a non-White meeting or a White meeting. Would the reverse be allowed, namely a non-White person representing the Board at discussions of the Nursing Council which is a White body?

That is completely in the hands of the Nursing Council itself, only it must be by invitation.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Food, Drugs and Disinfectants Act, Act No. 13 of 1929, has now been applied for 42 years. This Act enjoys the particular distinction of not having been amended ever. When this legislation was passed by Parliament in 1929, it was described by the British Medical Journal as the most complete and comprehensive legislation of its kind in existence at that stage. However, gradually it became apparent that it contained certain deficiencies, that it did not afford sufficient cover in every respect and that it did in any case no longer meet modern needs. Drastic changes would have had to be effected to the Act in order to meet these needs by way of amendments. Under these circumstances it was decided to repeal the Act as a whole and to replace it with a new Act. The old Act was aimed at protecting the public against exploitation as a result of dishonest and fraudulent commercial practices, and at protecting the health of the public by prohibiting the adulteration and false description of foodstuffs and other articles, and to regulate related matters.

When this Bill was drafted, the following approach was adopted—

1. (a) As drugs are now being controlled fully in terms of the Drugs Control Act, Act No. 101 of 1965, the inclusion thereof in the Bill under discussion is no longer necessary, and they have been omitted.
2. (b) The Bill is aimed at controlling the articles which one consumes, uses and with which one comes into contact daily, namely food, cosmetics and disinfectants.
3. (c) The Bill is aimed at prohibiting dishonest and fraudulent commercial practices, which may lead to the exploitation of the public.

In this Bill it is provided that—

1. (a) foodstuffs, cosmetics and disinfectants, which are in such a condition or of such a nature that they are or may be harmful or injurious to human health, shall be prohibited and may not be imported, manufactured or sold. In this regard I should like to point out that the Public Health Act, 1919, and municipal ordinances deal with the unsuitability of food because of contamination, decay, putrefaction and the presence of parasites. This matter does not belong in this Bill;
2. (b) foodstuffs, when they are in a particular condition or when specific processes or actions have taken place in regard to them, shall be deemed to be false. This provision is aimed inter alia at preventing foreign substances being added to foodstuffs, such as water to milk, and ingredients being abstracted from foodstuffs, although such additions or abstractions may not be harmful to human health. The principal motive is that the consumer should get what he expects to get as far as foodstuffs and other attributes are concerned; and
3. (c) foodstuffs, if they are described or advertised in a specific manner, shall be deemed to have been described falsely. The object is mainly to protect the consumer against deception. In recent times the public have become more and more aware of the effects of certain foodstuffs and their ingredients on the bodily constitution, and are insisting more and more that ingredients and their ratios should be specified on the label.

Now I should like to deal briefly with the contents of this Bill. In order to obviate unnecessary references, I shall use the word “clause” with reference to the Bill and the word “section” with reference to the Act, which is common practice.

In clause 1 the customary definitions are made.

Clause 2 contains prohibitions in regard to the sale, manufacture or importation of articles which contain substances prohibited by regulation, which do not comply with the standard as prescribed by regulation, which are impure or decayed, or which contain foreign substances. Provision is also made for exceptions in this regard. The provisions of section 4 have been embodied in this clause.

In clause 3 it is provided that a person may not sell any article which differs from the article described on the label. The use or employment of any process, method, appliance, container or object in connection with the manufacture and preparation of articles, or the sale or importation of such articles in connection with the manufacture, preparation or conveyance of which a prohibited process, method or appliance has been used, is being prohibited in terms of clause 4.

Clause 5 deals with the false description or advertisement of articles, and has been included in order to protect the public against deception and adulteration.

In clause 6 provision is made for special defences, in terms of which the accused may plead inter alia that the article was not sold for human consumption, or that it was imported under a written warranty. The warranty mentioned in the previous clause, is dealt with in detail in clause 7, and provides inter alia by whom it shall be furnished, what information it shall reflect, that the furnishing of a false warranty shall be an offence, and what court shall have jurisdiction in respect of an offence.

In order to combat malpractices, it is essential to place the liability on the employer to accept responsibility for the acts of employees in regard to foodstuffs, cosmetics and disinfectants. Such provisions have been embodied in clause 8, in which provision has also been made for defences by the employer. Similar provisions exist in section 30 of the Act.

In terms of clause 9 the liability shall be placed on the person who, according to the label of any article which is sold in a sealed package, is presumed to have imported, manufactured or packed the article in question. Similar provisions already exist in section 10.

Clause 10 makes provision for the appointment of inspectors by the Secretary for Health, and prescribes certain requirements in regard to such appointments. In section 3 of the Act one finds a similar provision, which has to be implemented by the Minister. It is really unnecessary to burden the Minister with such matters, and one may therefore feel free to entrust this task to the Secretary, i.e. the administration and appointment of inspectors, and so forth.

The powers, duties and functions of inspectors, are defined in clause 11.

In clause 12 provision is made for the appointment of analysts by the Secretary for Health. In order to afford accused persons every opportunity of proving their innocence, provision is made in clause 13 for the further analysis of samples, which may be done by a decision of the court, or at the request of the prosecutor, or the accused. Similar provisions exist in section 31.

Clause 14 deals with the inspection, sampling and detention of imported articles. Similar provisions exist in section 11, which are being amended in the following respects, i.e. that—

1. (a) the provision that the detention of articles shall be done with the consent of the Secretary for Customs and Excise, be deleted as it is unnecessary;
2. (b) the provision that the removal of articles and the warranty of the owner shall be approved by the Secretary for Customs and Excise, be changed to approval by the Secretary for Health, since it is actually the latter who has control over articles of the kind in question; and
3. (c) the responsibility for the decision on the disposal of the consignment, be entrusted to the Secretary for Health instead of to the Minister. It should be mentioned here that officials may not act arbitrarily, as the requirements with which articles must comply, are prescribed fully by law and regulation.

In terms of clause 15 the Minister is authorized to make regulations in regard to—

1. (a) the nature, composition or standards of any article;
2. (b) the use of substances, processes or appliances in connection with the manufacture, treatment, etc., or abstraction of substances;
3. (c) the disclosure of the use of particular substances, processes, additions or abstractions, etc.;
4. (d) the maximum presence of substances which may unavoidably be present as a result of the process of manufacture;
5. (e) what articles shall be deemed to be harmful or injurious to human health;
6. (f) the foodstuff which is declared to be perishable;
7. (g) the prohibition on the sale of a particular article;
8. (h) the name under which the article may be sold;
9. (i) the prohibition on, or restriction or regulation of appliances, etc., in the manufacturing process;
10. (j) the packing of articles;
11. (k) the labelling of articles;
12. (l) the exemption from labelling;
13. (m) the duties and powers of inspectors in regard to samples;
14. (n) the duties and powers of analysts; and related matters. The duty is imposed on the Minister to publish draft regulations for comment not less than three months before promulgation. This is the usual practice, and it works satisfactorily that way. Regulations under the present Act are dealt with in section 42.

Provision must also be made to protect manufacturers against the disclosure of information obtained as a result of analysing articles. This is being done in clause 16, in terms of which information may only be disclosed in a court or with the authority in writing of the Secretary for Health. Similar provisions exist in sections 39 and 40.

Offences and contraventions are dealt with in clause 17.

Consequent upon these contraventions, the penalties are provided in clause 18. Increased penalties are being proposed in order to fit in with the passage of time since the passing of the present Act in 1929. In clause 19 the jurisdiction of the court is defined, which corresponds with section 41.

The only difference between clause 20 and section 35 in regard to the forfeiture of goods, is contained in the fact that the responsibility for the decision on the disposal of the articles passes on from the Minister to the Secretary. Forfeiture as such is done by the court, and the decision on the disposal thereof, may be done by the Secretary.

Clause 21 deals with the time limit of trials in prosecutions and the evidence of analysts.

In clause 22 it is provided that—

1. (a) copies of or extracts from documents may serve as prima facie proof in a court;
2. (b) a certificate signed by an analyst may serve a prima facie proof;
3. (c) unless the contrary is proved, any quantity of an article shall be presumed to be in the same condition or possess the same properties as the sample;
4. (d) any sample obtained by an inspector, shall be presumed to have been sold to him;
5. (e) articles that have been manufactured, treated or imported, shall be presumed to have been obtained for purposes of sale;
6. (f) appliances and materials found in any premises where articles are manufactured or stored, etc., shall be presumed to be used for that purpose;
7. (g) any person who sells, manufactures or imports any article which contains any other article or in which any other article is present, shall be presumed to sell, manufacture or import such other article.

A similar provision is already in existence, and is now being extended.

In terms of clause 23, the Minister may authorize any local authority to enforce the Act within its area of jurisdiction.

In clause 24 the local authority is being granted the right to prosecute, and it provides to whom such fines shall be payable. A similar provision exists in section 24.

From the nature of the case provision must also be made so that the Secretary may delegate his powers. This is being done in clause 25. These powers of delegation already exist in section 2.

In clause 26 it is provided that any person who is prosecuted, may not plead a defect in the form and, in doing so, be acquitted on a technical point. A similar provision exists in section 26.

Any person who acts in good faith in the exercise or performance of a power or duty, is exempted from liability in terms of clause 27. This is a new provision aimed at exempting officials from judicial liability for anything done in good faith in the course of their services.

In terms of clause 28 the State President may, at the request of another state or territory, by proclamation apply any time any provision of this Act to articles which are imported in transit through the Republic to such state or territory. The same provision exists in section 12.

The Food, Drugs and Disinfectants Act, 1929, is repealed in clause 29, and at the same time any proclamation, regulation, etc., made under the said Act, is authorized.

Clause 30 contains the short title and provides that different provisions of the Act may come into operation on different dates. This is being done because proper directives in regard to cosmetics have not yet been drafted, and the opportunity must be created for doing so. Hon. members will appreciate that this is a new addition and that we want the other regulations which are in existence and are working satisfactorily, to remain in force. This measure may therefore be introduced on another date, when we are ready.

I have now dealt briefly with the contents of this Bill, indicated the respects in which it differs with the present Act, and tried to motivate them. As you will notice in a comparison between the present Act and the Bill, the latter is a great improvement. The provisions of the Bill follow one another logically and those which belong together, have been consolidated. The most important aspect is that now, for the first time, clear and detailed provision is being made for control over cosmetics.

This Bill was also sent beforehand to interested parties for perusal, and the comments received were, as far as possible, incorporated in it.

We on this side of the House will support the Second Reading of this Bill and, in fact, we welcome it. The principal Act was considered to be a model piece of legislation; it dates back to 1929, as the Minister has said, and I feel, after comparing the principal Act with this Bill, that this Bill represents a great improvement. I feel strongly about maintaining the high standards of produce in this country, and I consider that this type of legislation is going to help considerably to maintain those standards. Standards of quality and purity are most essential, especially in the case of foodstuffs and cosmetics, or products which are used to keep food and households clean and in a sanitary state. The public outside should welcome this Bill as well, and I think if the provisions of this Bill are implemented as envisaged, those people who in the past have perhaps been a little too gullible in buying produce of this country will now feel that they are safeguarded. Now only does this Bill look after the produce of our own country, but, what is equally important, we are making sure now that produce which comes into our country from other countries shall have the same standards of purity and excellence as those which we are trying to maintain in this country. This Bill contains some measures which are very strict indeed, and I have no hesitation in saying that I for one, and I am sure all hon. members in this House, support the introduction of these strict measures. The public must realize that these strict measures are being taken for their own good. There may be members of the public, who are interested in producing substances which are now brought within the purview of this Bill, who may grumble about these strict provisions, but I have no sympathy with those people who try to bluff the public, and I think they must be suitably punished if they contravene the provisions of this measure. Sir, the implementation of the provisions of this Bill will require a large number of inspectors. These inspectors will have to be properly trained, and I want to suggest to the Minister that the training of these inspectors should be undertaken by the South African Bureau of Standards. I think every inspector who is enrolled to do this work should go through a curriculum drawn up by the South African Bureau of Standards. To have a group of inspectors who are not well trained could be just as dangerous as having no inspectors at all, and for that reason I say that the quality of the knowledge of these inspectors should be of the highest standard.

There is one clause—I think clause 14, if I remember correctly—which deals with the detention of articles which are suspect. I do not like this clause very much, because I think the Minister is being a little too liberal in this clause. Here we are dealing with people who are producing foodstuffs in this country, or who are importing foodstuffs which for some reason or other are suspected of being impure or contaminated or polluted. According to this clause—I am talking here particularly about foodstuffs —those foodstuffs, after having been inspected and, I take it, sealed, will be allowed to remain in the warehouses where they are landed or they can be taken from those warehouses and put into a warehouse of the owner or the consignee of the foodstuffs. I think that is dangerous, and I would like to recommend to the Minister that where foodstuffs which are suspect come into our country, the crates or containers in which they come should be suitably labelled to show that they are suspect. There are many ways of doing this, but I do not think that sealing is enough. If they are dangerous products which can cause death through contamination or deterioration, I think they should be labelled to show that they are contaminated or polluted or unfit for human consumption. In view of the fact that some of these articles may be found after examination to be pure, the labels put on these containers should be removable so that the contents can be sold without suspicion. There are one or two other matters with which we intend dealing in the Committee stage, but these are my suggestions which we think will be necessary to make the Bill even better than it is now.

With these few words I want to say that we on this side of the House welcome this legislation. We think it is for the good of the public; we hope that the public will realize what is intended by the legislation, and we hope that the legislation will safeguard the purity, the excellence and the high standard which we require in products of this nature.

According to calculations there has been a four fold increase in the knowledge of the world since the year 1900. It is calculated that over the past 20 years alone there has been a threefold increase in the knowledge of the world. For that reason I think it is extremely important that we should now amend this Act, which has been in use since the twenties. The knowledge explosion, with the concomitant technological development, and the more sophisticated specialization of the manufacturing industry, with special reference to the science of medicine, the science of organic chemistry, are inevitably making new demands on our responsibility in respect of legislation which protects the interests of the public and which also effects orderly administration in regard to such matters. Therefore there is also a need for continually amending and adapting existing legislation, not only to knowledge, but also to modern circumstances. In this respect the Department of Health should to my mind be congratulated on the fact that they have always, by way of adapting legislation, kept pace with this development. We may as well say, “They are always on the ball.” In introducing this Act, the Minister is once again meeting the major need that exists for justice to be done to these new standards and for protecting the public against exploitation, as well as protecting the health of the people. I am of the opinion that there are probably few products on the market in South Africa in respect of which there are as many irregularities as are in fact to be found in the sphere of specialized foodstuffs—which, of course, include baby food and concentrated baby foods—as well as in the sphere of cosmetics and also disinfectants. It is because the ordinary layman and the public do not have the knowledge to discriminate in regard to the various kinds of these products that this legislation is so important. It quite often happens that members of the public are exploited in an atrocious manner by unscrupulous dealers who bargain on the ignorance and sometimes on the superstitiousness and gullibility of the buyer in order to deceive him for financial gain. Futhermore, I am of the opinion that literally thousands of foodstuffs, cosmetics and disinfectants are marketed in South Africa, articles which, in the first place, do not comply with the purpose for which they are used or sold; or, in the second place, contain insufficient concentrations of the active ingredients, or too little of those active ingredients; or, in the third place, reflect inadequate directions for use, and of which the volume has also been supplemented artificially by inactive ingredients in order to make up the weight of such an article; and, in the last place, contain impurities which are injurious to health and do not serve any useful purpose either.

In this regard I should like to mention to the House a number of examples as far as my own experience is concerned. Although this does not have any bearing on any of these articles, it does have a bearing on medicine. A number of years ago a European firm advertised tetracycline hydrochloride capsules at approximately a quarter of the price.

Is there not another Act which deals with medicine?

I think the old Act deals with it, but I am merely mentioning this as an example of the type of thing with which we are dealing now. After many medical practitioners had ordered this drug and used it freely, it was found that these capsules did not contain 250 mg of the ingredient concerned, but only 100 mg. This is an example which also holds good for these other substances dealt with in this Bill. Then I want to mention to you. Sir, drugs which are advertised and in respect of which the distributors claim that they are suitable for anything imaginable, and I think this is also applicable to these particular articles which we are discussing now. Some of these advertisements are really shocking, not only in respect of the use and the composition of a product, but also in respect of the directions for use, which are quite often given in the most atrocious language. I hope that this Act will also meet that particular need. I should like to mention an example to you of the monstrosities that are sometimes found in such advertisements. The first one I should like to mention, is an antiseptic. The advertiser calls it in Afrikaans, a “antiseptik en keel en mondwas vir seerkeel en die mond sal was. Gebruik die vir reukende van die vuil asem”. I want to mention another Afrikaans example: “Hierdie medisyne is vir die mense wat nie kan sien nie. Hierdie medisyne is baie belangrik. Dit help blinde mense om te sien.”

Is this with a view to Oudtshoorn?

I think this would be very good medicine for the hon. member for Durban Point. Then, as far as cosmetics are concerned, we find the following in Afrikaans : “Die volmaakte reukwater. Dit is een wat die soek reuk het. Die soek reuk hou baie dae lank. Dit is slem gemeng en by u sal bly. Mense sal verlang om naby u te wees.” Sir, if this Bill would eliminate advertising monstrosities of this type, it would render a great service. There are also many monstrosities which I have come across in the English language as well. This does not sound like Afrikaans to me, but I must tell you that we also come across this in other languages in South Africa. In this connection I should like to put in a plea by asking the Minister whether consideration could not perhaps be given to making it compulsory for the directions for use of all commodities of this nature to be presented in both official languages. However, if the Afrikaans part were to consist of monstrosities of this nature, it would perhaps be better to keep such directions for use in one language only. For that reason it is essential that there should be certain minimum standards in respect of the use of language. Furthermore, I should just like to mention that as far as advertisements are concerned, we should perhaps, on the other hand, not take the matter too far, for to my mind a measure of flexibility should be permitted in so far as advertisements are concerned. The right of the distributor or manufacturer to place an advertisement in restrained psychologically motivated language, should not be interfered with. This is the method they use, sometimes in colourful language, to advertise their products, and as long as it is within limits, I think we ought not to impose any unnecessary restrictions on it.

Then I think we should like to have more clarity in the course of this debate on the respects in which chemists, for instance, are concerned in this regard. It is customary for chemists, especially in respect of prescriptions, to remove the labels from bottles and then to place their own labels on them; they do so in good faith. The question that arises now, is whether the chemist is liable if he removes the label from a bottle and places on it his own label with his own directions for use, or the directions for use specified in the prescription. This is a common practice, and perhaps we should have clarity in this regard.

Then I should like to refer to another aspect which is applicable to drugs and may also be made applicable to these particular commodities, and that is the question of expiry dates. Although it is the practice in most cases to make use of codes, printed on the bottle or the packing, to enable one to determine from what particular production series such a commodity comes—codes from which one may from the nature of the case also deduce the date on which the product was manufactured— I think it is perhaps important that we should also think in the direction of also making it compulsory to have a date of expiry displayed on certain products, or at least a code, on the basis of which it may be determined when the product was manufactured. This would serve to protect the public, and when people buy these commodities—and this also has a bearing on foodstuffs in particular—they would be in a position to know whether they are buying quality and how long the product has been on the market or on the shelves in that particular shop. I think it would be a good service to the public if we could in fact specify the date of manufacture and the date of expiry of these preparations.

I should also like to make a request to the hon. the Minister to the effect that, in drafting regulations in terms of this Bill, he should pay particular attention to the minimum requirements in respect of prescribing methods for the purpose of analyses, in order that there may also be a system of cross-checking in regard to the analysis of commodities so that the human error may be eliminated. Approximately a year or so ago there were serious misgivings about certain methods being followed for determining alcohol content, and also in respect of determining the alcohol content of the blood. It was found …

The hon. member is on the wrong Bill.

He is only giving examples.

The hon. member for Durban Point is merely displaying his ignorance, because there are many of these commodities which also contain alcohol. I am talking about the determination of the alcohol content, and he will not put me off my stroke through his interjections, because I do not think the hon. member really knows what is involved here. [Interjections.]

The fact remains that according to certain surveys that have been made there can be a reasonably serious factor of error when different people do the same analysis under different circumstances. Therefore I want to ask that we should have proper standardization so that that factor or error may be eliminated. We would not like to see people being prosecuted because of the factor of error of the analysts. I am saying this without having serious misgivings about their intelligence.

As regards the regulations which, are applicable to inspectors, I want to ask the Minister to make these regulations very strict and to apply them very strictly, also as regards instructions to these inspectors in regard to their conduct towards the public, for it is true that we quite often find that inspectors are not quite diplomatic in their dealings with the public and that this may present a major problem when the public is offended. Strict provision should also be made in the regulations as in regard to the specific method for the taking of samples. I myself was a witness in a particular case where an inspector had, for instance, taken a sample without having shaken properly the original contents in the bottle, and the result was that there was a considerable difference in concentration between the contents of the top half of that bottle and that of the bottom half. Naturally, all of these are human errors, but I think that if we drafted our regulations on that basis, we would be able to reduce the number of errors to a considerable extent.

I am also interested in what the Minister envisages in respect of clauses 12 and 21, which deal with the establishment of analysing laboratories, unless use is going to be made of the existing Government laboratories of the S.A.B.S. Furthermore, it is not clear from clause 23 how the local authorities will exercise the power delegated to them, especially in regard to the free analysis of samples. These questions will possibly be clarified through the regulations. Then I have problems in regard to clause 15, which provides that the regulations may not be made applicable to a particular area. I am not quite sure what the object of this is and whether it may mean that the regulations will perhaps not be made applicable in certain distant areas, where inspectors are not available, or that it may perhaps cause a shortage of services.

What part of the clause?

I am referring to clause 15, the last paragraph.

I should like to conclude by saying that South Africa has for many years taken the lead in the sphere of standardization, also in respect of the medical science and the health standards of South Africa. It is hoped that this legislation will contribute to the further promotion of the high standard that has been maintained by us over the years.

Mr. Speaker, I find myself in agreement with certain of the remarks made by the faon, member for Newcastle. I am, however, puzzled by his reference to the question of chemists and druggists who remove labels in order to put other directions on them. Quite frankly, I would have thought that that particular procedure has been confined to Act No. 101 of 1965, namely the Drugs Control Act. I should say that it would apply in very few cases to the subject matter of this Bill, namely foodstuffs, cosmetics and disinfectants.

I want to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for the detailed manner in which he introduced the Bill and dealt with the various clauses. I believe that it makes it much easier for the House to consider a Bill of this nature if the background is given so thoroughly.

But there is one question I would like to ask him. Only this week we heard the disturbing news about the standard of our export meat. I believe Great Britain has indicated that they do not find the standards which control the handling and preparation of our meat to be adequate in so far as allowing the importation of these meat products to the United Kingdom is concerned. I want to ask the Minister if he can give us any indication whether this Bill, the provisions in this Bill, since meat is a foodstuff, will be of any assistance in ensuring that the standards are adequate and that this difficulty we have encountered will be removed?

I would like to say that this Bill has a short long title, but it deals very adequately with the matters concerned. I want to quote the long title—

It is very comprehensive and it has a very broad scope. Seeing that the original Bill has remained intact without amendments since 1929, I think we can appreciate that it is obvious that in this particular instance many of the provisions of this Bill, when it is enacted, will have to be carried out by regulation so that it will not be necessary to come to this House frequently in order to amend it.

The sentiments which I now express are not my own and I do not necessarily endorse them. However, I feel that it is only fair to quote them to the hon. the Minister bcause they come from an informed opinion in the cosmetic manufacturing sphere. While we on this side of the House accept the Bill the pharmaceutical and cosmetic manufacturing industries seem to accept it with reservation. They seem to be critical in regard to certain aspects. I felt that it was only fair that this should be placed on record. First of all there is the comment :

How very true! It then goes on and says:

Well, that may be very profound, but I believe the hon. the Minister’s intentions in this regard are laudable and that we must do the best we can so as to ensure that there is no abuse in regard to the manufacture, marketing or promotion of cosmetics. This comment records the fact that “a person is innocent until proven guilty by the State but this Bill creates a situation where a person is presumed guilty until he has proved his innocence”. They feel that this onus of proof is not acceptable.

The fourth comment is that:

If I may add my own comment to this, I believe that in other countries there are just as stringent requirements and believe that they are necessary in this country as well, and that it will effect no particular hardships to the manufacturing industry as far as cosmetics are concerned. It also refers to the very strong powers which are given to the inspectors. This is a matter I believe could be dealt with adequately in the Committee Stage.

I think that what is most important, though, in regard to this Bill, is the fact that it protects the consumer. It protects him against undesirable practices in manufacturing and it also has the power to deal with undesirable practices in so far as promotion is concerned. I believe that consumers basically welcome these safeguards. The comprehensive nature of the definitions and the stricture on false and misleading advertisements is something which offers protection to the consumer because, to say the least of it, many of the advertisements we do see, are dubious and can be misleading. May I make it quite clear that I am not referring to firms of repute in South Africa, who themselves obey a strict disciplinary control over their products and are prepared to submit themselves to various marketing codes which have been compiled and introduced on a voluntary basis. I still believe, though, that there is some room for the State to supervise these particular codes. I do believe, too, that we must have strong measures to deal with the get-rich fly-by-nights, who come and go on the marketing scene and usually conduct operations through a post office box. We know that there are provisions in the existing Act whereby they cannot do this, but the number of firms who advertise from a post office box in contravention of the existing law, surprises me. The post office box is then the only means, really, whereby they can be contacted. I believe that, in so far as cosmetics themselves are concerned, there is ample scope for exploitation particularly with regard to manufacturers’ claims and their methods of advertising. I believe, too, although I do not see how this Bill can have any effect on it, that the question of the price of some cosmetics is something which should not pass unnoticed by the State. One hears of face creams priced from R15 to R100 per jar, although we know—and I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me—that the cost of the ingredients bears no relation whatsoever to the consumer price. We also know that the manufacturer’s profit margin is boosted by various costs of distribution, marketing and promotion and by fancy containers. Because of this I think it is time that the position is at any rate watched. Here again I wish to emphasize that I believe that these are exceptions rather than the rule and that many firms do have an honest and decent standard by which they market their products.

Then they put a sales tax on it.

I am coming to that. The hon. member for Durban Point and I are on the same wave-length, because I was going to refer to the steep increase in prices of cosmetics and toiletries, coupled with this imposition of the sales tax at the point of manufacture. This is a problem and makes a lady’s pursuance of beauty a very costly undertaking indeed. The definition of “cosmetic” as it stands in the Bill is broad and I believe there is one aspect with which we can deal in the Committee Stage, because I believe there is a loophole in this definition.

I want to come to the definition of “disinfectant” because I have a problem here. The definition as stated in the Bill is that a disinfectant means “any article or substance used or applied or intended to be used or applied as a germicide, preservative, or anticeptic, or as a deodorant or cleansing material which is not a cosmetic”; my problem is whether it is intended that substances such as benzine, carbontetrachloride, turpentine, commercial ether, acetone, etc., should be classified as disinfectants, because they are cleansing agents or can be used as cleansing agents. If this is the intention will the hon. the Minister give the reason for this particular definition of a disinfectant.

I believe that as far as the definition of “foodstuffs” is concerned, it is adequate. I believe that it could mean to include the cyclamates. I want to ask the hon. the Minister if at this stage there is any intention by his department to control or limit the use of cyclamates. This is something which certain people in the industry have expressed concern about.

I would like to deal briefly also with the question of advertising. This has been referred to by the hon. member for Newcastle. This comprehensive definition appears in clause 5 and I believe is the same definition that appears in the Drugs Control Act of 1965. But I find a problem here because, whereas the Drugs Control Act lays down specifically that in so far as the regulations are concerned, the Minister may make regulations, the question of advertising being specifically dealt with in one of the subsections dealing with regulations in this particular Bill although the definition of advertising is the same, and although I believe the need for the control of advertising is just as necessary, there is no specific mention in the regulations clause, that the Minister may make regulations laying down the manner in which products may be advertised. I would like to point out that although the original provision in Act 101 of 1965, the Drugs Control Act, has been amended on two occasions since then, there is still the provision which stands in the amended Act. I believe that if it is necessary to include that provision in the Drugs Control Act it should then also be necessary in this Bill to have some specific provision in regard to the manner in which advertisements can be phrased, and can be dealt with under the Act. I welcome the carry-over from the previous Act of the provision in regard to regulations. The Minister has indicated that the same system will be put into operation, that regulations will be published for information and that three months will be allowed to elapse to enable interested parties to give their comments. I believe this is the way in which workable and satisfactory regulations can be framed to the satisfaction of most people who are concerned.

I now come to the question of inspection. Quite a large portion of one of the clauses deals with the powers of the inspectors. It is my intention to raise this matter further in the Committee Stage and I trust that the Minister will show me the same consideration and sympathy which he did in a previous Bill which we debated last week. I will not deal with this matter any further now.

There are some other queries I would like to have clarified at this stage, and that is in regard to clause 2. Paragraph (c) (ii) of clause 2 (1) provides that any person shall be guilty of an offence if he sells, or manufactures or imports for sale, any foodstuff “to which any substance had been added so as to increase the mass or volume of such foodstuff with the object to deceive;”. I would like to ask the Minister if this is intended to deal with some of the poultry dealers who have been known to add aqua pura to poultry prior to sale.

No, water to milk.

Is it only water to milk and not water to poultry?

I said water to milk.

I heard you say “water to milk”, but I am asking if it is also “water to poultry”. Clause 13 deals with analysis and I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he would give consideration to the question of whether it is necessary in subsection (3) to lay down in this Bill that “A request by the accused for such a further analysis or examinations shall be granted only on condition that he deposits the sum of R25”. My submission is that if this measure stays on the Statute Book for 40 years without any amendment, and it could well do so, the sum of R25 could become completely unrealistic with the value of money changing as it does. I believe that in the light of this it would be much more satisfactory if such a matter were dealt with by regulation. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister if he does not feel that this is something which he would care to amend in the Committee Stage in order to make that provision.

Then there is the question of penalties. The Minister referred to penalties and indicated that they have been increased in so far as the first section of penalties is concerned. On first convictions there is a fourfold increase and in the case of a second conviction there is also a fourfold increase, but that on the third or subsequent conviction there is a tenfold increase together with a period of imprisonment not exceeding 24 months It seems to me that this increase is exceedingly harsh and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister feels that it is really necessary to embody such a harsh clause in a Bill of this nature. Notwithstanding the doubts of manufacturers, with which I do not fully concur, we support the Bill and we hope that the amendments which we will introduce in the Committee Stage will receive sympathetic consideration in order that we may produce an even better Bill than the one we have before us now.

Mr. Speaker, we are very grateful to the hon. the Minister for having introduced this Bill. We are also very grateful to the hon. members for Newcastle and Berea who so clearly stated the existing problems and how extensive present-day development is. I should again just like to make a brief summary of the Bill. This measure is of great importance, as far as I am concerned, because it concerns human beings and the human body. I do not want to wax theological now, but in the first place this Bill tells me: “You must not injure the body of your fellow-man. You may not do so by giving him prohibited materials.”

In other words, you may not poison him. You may not give him anything that is contaminated either. Neither may you give him a mixture that can be contaminated. In addition you cannot give it to him in a container that can contaminate that article. The second thing this Bill tells me, and this is very important, is: “You may not bear false witness, not with respect to a label or the contents of a bottle. What you state on a label must be contained in the bottle and this must not harm your fellow-man.” If you do these things we are going to keep on eye on you. We are going to see what you are doing; we are going to appoint inspectors; we are going to give them certain powers; we are going to give them a letter of authorization and ask them to see that you do not harm your fellow-man. They will be given the right to take samples which will be regarded as having been purchased from you, so that you cannot have an excuse. These will be analysed; that evidence will be used in court against you. These are amendments the hon. the Minister explained very clearly in his Second Reading speech.

And to protect you we shall also order those inspectors to preserve a certain measure of secrecy, so that the results of the analysis of those samples will not be generally known thus giving you a chance to wriggle out of it in court. We shall punish you; the first time we shall punish you with a fine of R400, the second time with a fine of R800 and the third time with a fine of R2 000. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. member for Berea— third time does the trick. He asked whether the penalty was not perhaps a little severe. We go further and state that if we catch you and you are punished we shall confiscate those goods and declare them to have been forfeited. I have now said what I wanted to say about the matter.

I should also like to join the hon. member for Rosettenville in lodging a plea with the Minister. In thinking of the tremendous explosion in the field of cosmetics and with respect to disinfectants and the other aspects dealt with by the Act, we must make sure that we have inspectors who are, in fact, well trained. This Bill makes provision for the local authorities to implement the legislation on behalf of the Minister. But do we have local health inspectors who have the necessary time? We know there is a great shortage of local health inspectors. Are they going to have the time to read these regulations and to get the hang of the Bill so that they will consequently know when and how they should act? The Bureau of Standards can help, but this is still a matter that must be handled by the Minister of Health. The training must also be done by the Department of Health at whatever level.

There is only one matter I want the hon. the Minister to assure me about. The matter is mentioned on page 3 and involves the definition of a cosmetic. It reads as follows—

I should just like to ascertain whether the word “article” can also be an instrument, because it could also be a cleansing or rejuvenating cure.

I want to conclude with that. I am convinced that here we have a very good Bill and I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on our being able to place this Bill before this House in so comprehensive a form.

The hon. member for Brentwood referred quite rightly to the explosion in the world of cosmetics. This is the first time a measure of control is going to be exercised over cosmetics in South Africa, and I think it is high time. In the second place, the ladies will now have the assurance that the cosmetics they buy are quality goods, or at least contain what they think they contain. With reference to the cosmetics used nowadays, perhaps you will allow me, Sir, to relate the story of the little girl whose mother asked her when she arrived home: “I see your hair has been plaited; who plaited your hair?” The little girl replied that she could not remember at all which teacher had done it. The mother then said to her: “But, my child, surely you must remember; which teacher plaited your hair?” To this the little girl replied: “Mommy, that one with the dirty eyes,” referring to the eye-shadow ladies put on nowadays. The fact of the matter is that the cosmetics being used can constitute a danger to health. The hon. member also referred to the price of cosmetics. In this regard I can tell the hon. member that I do not have as much sympathy with the ladies as he has. One has sympathy with people when it comes to the prices of medicine and essentials, but cosmetics …

They are highly necessary.

A member of the Pharmaceutical Commission told me that a few weeks ago a lady sat in front of his pharmacy to have a petition signed about the high cost of medicines. When another lady took over from her, she walked into his pharmacy and bought a very small bottle of cosmetics for R15, and this while she was asking people to sign a petition about the high cost of medicine! The pharmacist also told me that if a cosmetic is cheap, they simply cannot sell it. But, in any case, I think that this problem will also be combated to a certain extent if we at least have this control so that we can ensure that the cosmetic complies with the standard it professes to comply with and, secondly, that it constitutes no danger to health.

Under clause 18, the hon. member for Brentwood also asked me whether it would include an instrument as well. This is how I interpret it, but I shall ascertain with the law advisers whether it is in fact included, after which we may discuss the matter again in the Committee Stage.

†The hon. member for Berea raised the question of poultry being injected with water or some other substance to increase the weight of the poultry being sold. This can be controlled under clause 2 (c) (ii). He also raised the question of penalties which are now being increased ten-fold for a third or subsequent transgression of the Act. Sir, that is being done on purpose because one must not forget that these people make a tremendous amount of money. I think it is necessary to take this step for the protection of the public. Hon. members must realize that we are not embarking here on something completely new; we have had this for the last 42 years, and experience has shown that those people who are found guilty for the third time of having contravened the provisions of the Act do this for substantial financial gain.

Then the hon. member referred to the question of disinfectants and inquired whether a certain disinfectant, which he mentioned, would also be included. The answer is no, because those which he mentioned are patently not for use on the human body but for cleaning clothes and so forth. If we covered a wider field than the definition covers at the moment, we would have had to include substances such as petrol and paraffin, and this would have made the administration of the Act virtually impossible. For practical purposes, therefore, we have to confine the definition to the substances mentioned here. We cannot include the substances mentioned by the hon. member, such as spiritus, carbon tetrachloride and a few others.

*The hon. member for Newcastle quoted very good examples here which relate to the Bill. He asked specifically that in the regulation in which stipulations in respect of labelling are laid down, it should be ensured that justice is done to the two official languages. I will definitely give this undertaking; it will be done. It is problematical whether one can lay down a minimum standard for the one or the other language by way of regulations, but I think it should be obvious to the manufacturer that it would be to his disadvantage if he did not use proper English and Afrikaans on the label he places on his product. It would be difficult to prescribe minimum language standards, but nevertheless there may be a method by which it can be done.

What about imported goods?

It definitely applies to imported goods as well. Surely the importer knows that he is marketing his products in a bilingual country. If, for example, an exporter in Italy exports products to Spain, surely he knows that the people in Spain speak Spanish. Therefore, in respect of labelling, I do not think one can make any differentiation at all between the imported product and the locally manufactured product. It would be totally wrong. The same regulations should be applicable to both.

Then the hon. member referred to advertisements. Control over advertisements as far as medicines are concerned, falls under the Act in terms of which the Drug Control Board was established. Furthermore, he mentioned the question of analyses and the necessity of cross-control. Of course, we make use of the South African Bureau of Standards, but we also have our own laboratory, which many other departments make use of today. We also have a director in the department, the director of laboratory services, who is at the same time a professor at the University of Cape Town. I may just mention in passing that very recently he gave very good advice to the Lesotho Government as well in regard to their laboratory services. Furthermore, they have instructed him to visit them every six months in order to see that their services are developing properly. Of course, they would prefer us to render services to them from Bloemfontein, instead of their having to erect a small laboratory themselves, which is perhaps going to be very expensive for them.

†Then the hon. member for Rosettenville had one problem. He said that we were being too liberal in clause 14. In terms of clause 14, the Secretary for Health could in certain circumstances allow the goods to be removed.

*I just want to say to the hon. member that it was put like this premeditatedly. When the Secretary allows it, he may, in the first place, allow it to be done under guarantee. In the second place, he may lay down certain conditions, not only as laid down in the clause, but also by way of regulation. He may also issue regulations in regard to the duties of inspectors. We may include the question of labelling, etc., in those regulations. I want to say to the hon. member that it was put like this for three specific reasons. As far as customs and excise are concerned, they may need the space, and such an analysis may take a long time. The second point is that the importer must pay storage charges, which may cause him to be prejudiced. A third very important point is that the nature of the substance or the remedy may be of such a nature that it must be kept in cold storage, and naturally the importer has cold storage rooms available for whatever he may import. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that past practice and experience have shown that this creates no problems at all and that, by promulgating proper regulations, one can eliminate any possible dangers of misuse.

†Lastly, the hon. member spoke about this Bill in general.

I raised the question of the training of inspectors.

Well, there are inspectors at the moment; it is not as if we are starting anew. But I will certainly go into the question as to whether we can solicit the aid of the Bureau of Standards to ensure that inspectors receive better training than they do at the moment. This Bill is there to protect the public. It has been modernized and improved and it has been rearranged. Cosmetics has been added and medicines have been taken out. That is the gist of the whole Bill. Because it is there in the first place for the protection of the public I can see why the Opposition and everybody else in this House are pleased and not only support this Bill but also welcome it as an improvement on an Act which has never been changed in the 43 years of its existence.

May I ask a question? In connection with the powers of the Bill and the problem that we have with meat that does not meet with overseas standards, will the Minister please tell us what the position is?

Yes. I forgot about that. I suppose it is in connection with the report in the papers about the abattoirs. Whether that report is true or not, I do not know, but the control of matters appertaining to abattoirs does not fall under the Department of Health. It is the responsibility of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, and any question that you would like to ask in connection with this particular matter, must be directed to the Minister of Agriculture. We have no powers in that respect whatsoever, neither in this Bill nor under any other measure, and quite frankly I would not like to have those powers either.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The most important provisions in this Bill should not be unfamiliar to hon. members, since I have already referred to them in a public speech I made in Johannesburg. I mean the prevention of physical decay in our cities and towns, and the role which private enterprise can play in the clearance of existing slum areas and the replanning and redevelopment of such areas. I am convinced that the new steps which are being envisaged in this respect will have beneficial results for the improvement of our urban areas.

I think it advisable, however, for me to explain each clause of the Bill in greater detail.

Clause 1 (a) (Prevention of physical decay): For some considerable time now there has been concern about the physical decay which is gradually taking place in our cities and towns. Residential buildings, as well as a vicinity, may in due course cease to comply with specific standards of habitability. The result is that the health or safety of the inhabitants is placed in jeopardy, or that the attractiveness or acceptability of the area is affected or reduced to such an extent that restoration is essential.

A comprehensive investigation of this matter was carried out by a committee which was constituted on a very representative basis. As you will recall, I made a comprehensive statement on the matter in this House after the investigation had been completed. I indicated at the time that completely new legislation to improve the situation was not necessary, but that only a minor amendment of the Community Development Act would provide the necessary machinery to establish preventative measures against physical decay.

Clause 1 (a) of the Bill, which seeks to amend section 15 (1) (a), meets this need. In terms of the said section 15 (1) (a) the Minister may designate an area, and then it becomes an object of the Community Development Board, subject to the directions of the Minister, to develop or assist in the development of the area and to promote community development in such area. The amplification of this section, as contained in the clause, envisages, in an area designated by the Minister, to make it the object of the Board as well to take steps to prevent decay in any such area or to rehabilitate or assist with the rehabilitation of any such area or any portion thereof which tends to decay so that unsatisfactory conditions may be prevented. When the aforesaid then becomes an object of the board, the board is competent in terms of section 15 (2) (f) (iv) to grant loans for the prevention of such decay.

As I have already indicated, responsibility for the prevention of urban decay has to be accepted by local authorities in the first place. Whereas local authorities were not perhaps in a position to guard against this in the past, the necessary machinery is now being established to enable the local authority, especially as far as finances are concerned, to take effective steps. I could just add that local authorities have already been fully informed about this matter and that a very favourable reaction was received from several of them.

Clauses 1 (b) and 5 : This clause deals with the second important matter I mentioned, viz. to enable private developers to make a contribution in regard to slum clearance and urban renewal. The Community Development Board may take steps to promote a slum clearance or an urban renewal scheme. Then, too, it is common knowledge that the Department has, during the past few years, taken positive steps in this regard through the agency of the said Board—to which extensive schemes in Cape Town, Johannesburg, Durban, Port Elizabeth, etc., testify.

Experience has already shown, however, that when such a scheme is attempted, all the properties in question should be acquired by one body. Such a step is essential in order to implement the new planning proposals which include the consolidation of existing sites, the closing of streets, etc.

It happens that private initiative becomes interested in the clearance and improvement of a slum and decayed area, and then draws up a development plan for such an area, and also buys up the land in such an area. Such steps make a very important contribution, of course, to the renewal of our decayed urban areas, and are welcome assistance to the Department and also to the local authoritize. Sometimes it appears that the private developer simply cannot succeed in acquiring all the properties within the renewal area. Then, too, one has the phenomenon that a developer, in the final stages of his attempt to redevelop a slum and decayed area is obstructed or prevented from achieving his object, after he has already purchased the vast majority of the properties, by owners who either refuse to sell or try to extort unrealistic prices. It is therefore the opinion that private developers who are prepared to utilize private funds in the interest of slum clearance and urban renewal, which is also to the advantage of the public, should be encouraged, and that they should be assisted in eliminating unreasonable obstacles.

Clauses 1 (b) and 5 were drawn up with this object.

What the provisions contained in these clauses amount to, in brief, is that the Community Development Board, with the approval of the Minister, may designate such an area as an area which is to be developed by such a developer. However, the Minister must first be satisfied that the developer is acting in the interests of slum clearance and the attendant urban renewal and that the said plan is acceptable to the administrator and the Board, that the developer has the ability to carry out the development and that he has already purchased 85 per cent of the properties, other than land owned by any religious organization, or by the State, the provinces, the Community Development Board, the National Housing Commission or a local authority, and that the owners of the remaining properties are not prepared to sell the land at reasonable prices. Upon such designation the ownership of the property in the area, subject to the obligation of the developer to pay compensation, is vested in the developer, with the exception of course of the properties which belong to religious organizations, the State, etc. The developer may then, after three months, take possession of the properties of which the ownership vests in him. Should it happen that the developer and the owner of the land in question cannot, within sixty days, agree on the compensation to be paid for the land, that compensation shall be determined by an arbitration court, appointed by the Minister and consisting of a former Judge or magistrate or an advocate and two other members of whom the developer and the owner shall each nominate one. The compensation determined shall not exceed the market value, and to that may be added an amount in respect of any actual financial loss or any inconvenience suffered by the owner in consequence of the designation. These provisions will prevent this type of development, which as has already been indicated is also to the advantage of the public, from being restricted in an unjustifiable way, but they will also ensure that owners are compensated for their properties on a reasonable and equitable basis.

Clause 1 (c): At present section 15 (5) (b) provides that the arbitration costs shall be determined in terms of section 23 of the Slums Act, 1934, and, according to a legal opinion, the procedure in regard to arbitration proceedings as laid down in the Arbitration Act, 1965, has to be followed. This is confusing and is not conducive to efficiency. Efficient directions in regard to arbitration costs in the case of expropriation are contained in section 45 of the Community Development Act, and consequently an amendment in this respect is being introduced. The regulations made in terms of the latter Act will also be applied, as soon as is practicable, in respect of the arbitration procedure in terms of section 15 (5) (a).

Clause 1 (d): In terms of section 15 (5) the Community Development Board has a preferent right to purchase such property in a “frozen” area at a price agreed upon between the Board and the owner. If the parties cannot agree the price is determined by an arbitrator. In the practical application uncertainty exists in regard to the determination of the price … particularly when cases are referred to arbitration. There is for example, a difference of opinion as to the date on which the price has to be determined, and what value has to be taken into account in determining the price. In order to clear up this matter, an addition to subsection (5) is being made.

Clause 2: The definition of “township” as contained in section 16 (4) does not comply with the requirements of the Board when it has to take steps in urban renewal areas. However, the Deeds Registries Act, 1937, contains a subsequent definition of “township” which is far more comprehensive and will therefore cover any problematical cases the Board may come across, and consequently the definition contained in the Deeds Registries Act, 1937, is now being substituted for the existing definition of “township” contained in the Community Development Act, 1966.

Clause 3: When a property is expropriated by the Board the Act provides that the Board may pay as compensation the market value of the property as at the date of expropriation. The owner is therefore being compensated on a reasonable and equitable basis for his property. But the owner may also, in consequence of the expropriation, have expenses or suffer inconvenience for which he certainly was not responsible. Owners of property which has been expropriated in the past have already presented strong representations for compensation in respect of such costs and inconvenience, but up to the present the Board has not been in a position to make any payment in this respect.

The Expropriation Act, 1965 (Act No. 55/1965), in terms of which expropriation on behalf of the State takes place, provides that the market value shall be paid for the property and that an amount to make good any actual financial loss or any inconvenience caused by the expropriation, shall be added to that.

The formula prescribed in the Expropriation Act is undoubtedly more equitable than that contained in the Community Development Act, and consequently the latter Act is now being brought into line with the former.

Apart from expropriations, the Board, of course, also purchases properties by means of an agreement, for example—

1. (a) in the case of affected property where the disqualified owner has to resettle [section 15 (2) (a) or (b)]; and
2. (b) in the case of an area which has been frozen in terms of section 15 (2) (e) in futherance of slum clearance or urban renewal.

It is consequently felt that in such cases, which actually constitute an obligation on the owner to sell, he should also be compensated for any actual financial loss or inconvenience, as in the case of expropriation. It is no more than fair that an amount which is paid for any actual financial loss or inconvenience, shall not be calculated as part of the consideration for the purpose of determining an appreciation or a depreciation contribution.

Clause 4: In regard to the transfer of expropriated property, the Expropriation Act provides that if a property is expropriated on behalf of a body corporate, the body corporate becomes the owner thereof and that the notice of expropriation shall serve as authority for the Registrar of Deeds in question to register transfer of that property in the name of that body corporate. Section 43 of the Community Development Act is now being brought into line with this provision in the Expropriation Act.

Furthermore, section 43 (3) provides that transfer of an expropriated property may not be registered unless a certificate has been furnished to the Registrar of Deeds to the effect that—

1. (a) the notice of expropriation has been properly served on the owner and the mortgagee; and
2. (b) all amounts payable by the Board on the transaction have been paid or guaranteed.

The Board is required by the Act to serve the notice of expropriation on the property and mortgage holder in a proper manner. The Board is also compelled by the provisions of the Act to pay compensation for expropriated property and the Board is attempting throughout to determine and to pay out such compensation as quickly as possible. The obligation to furnish the certificate in question, particularly paragraph (b), has the effect of delaying urgent urban renewal projects. Owners refuse to agree on the amount of compensation, and even arbitration proceedings are delayed. Before the compensation has been determined, however, the required certificate cannot be furnished and transfer cannot be obtained. This delay not only results in heavy costs, but prevents the making available of urgently needed plots. Since the Board, as has already been mentioned, is required to pay compensation, there is no reason why the payment of such compensation should stand in the way of registration in the name of the Board, and thus obstruct projects involving thousands of rand. Consequently the clause provides that subsection (3) of section 43 be deleted.

Mr. Speaker, this measure before us today, although in the form of an amending Bill of the Community Development Act, introduces into our law and our practice a new and vital principle as far as property ownership is concerned. The principle and intent of this Bill is to permit expropriation of defined urban property to enable an urban redevelopment scheme which is incidental to slum clearance, to be undertaken by the private sector. This is something entirely new in that these undertakings have been in the hands of local authorities in the past. This intended activity, which in the end is for the financial gain of a private developer, must be approached, I believe, by this House with great caution, especially as expropriation becomes a necessary incidental to such private sector interests in urban redevelopment. If one accepts that the need may arise for such expropriation, then I think it important that all relevant matters be provided for in the Bill, and particularly that expropriation will only be resorted to in special and clearly defined circumstances. We have had many comments, objections and proposals in regard to what I may call the test of the need and desirability of the intended expropriation. We on this side have doubts, which are shared in other sectors, whether these powers, should in fact be vested in the Community Development Board and not in some other authority. We also have queries relative to the method and determination of compensation. I mentioned this at the outset lest there be any misunderstanding. When we support the proposal or basic principle in the measure, namely that we believe circumstances may well exist where the right of expropriation should be resorted to, we nevertheless feel that this Bill needs careful consideration as to the surrounding modus operandi of the basic principle. I believe that the hon. the Minister will understand that we have no objection to what I might call the principle of this Bill as embodied in that part of the long title which reads—

We accept that; there is no question about that.

I believe that reference of this Bill to a Select Committee before the Second Reading would enable that Committee to investigate the relevant aspects of the principle, both prior to and subsequent to the designation of the area for renewal. I wonder whether there is any matter relating to property which raises so quickly so many and so emotional reactions as does the suggestion that a man’s property might be expropriated. Recently, following speeches by the hon. the Minister, we had reactions from the South African Property Owners’ Association which is investigating the proposals, and from property owners. I think the queries to hon. members opposite have been as numerous as those which we received. “What happens if my property in a slum is in good condition; will it be expropriated?” or “Must my property be in a decayed condition or a slum property?” According to Die Transvaler of the 7th March the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture has stated his views in regard to expropriation in somewhat of an extreme way. No doubt the sound of Agliotti was ringing in his ears, because according to him no expropriation should take place and no compensation should be settled in any circumstances unless by a court of law. I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister is going too far in suggesting those means of dealing with expropriation. I believe that while that is not necessary, it should not be necessary if there is efficient departmental control in so far as these matters are concerned.

The hon. the Minister gave warning of this legislation in a speech which he delivered in Johannesburg on 6th December, 1971. At that time he made certain other statements as well, but I only want to refer to one or two aspects of that speech. The first one is his statement which I quote as follows—

This is a sentiment with which we are in full agreement. I shall come back to this aspect a little later when I shall deal with the question whether this is covered in the measure which is before us. In the second place the hon. the Minister spoke about the role of private initiative in slum clearance and said this—

Now that is not in this Bill before us. In this Bill before us the only reference where there must be satisfaction on the part of the provincial administration is that the plan for renewal meets with approval and not that the basic decision of the expropriation has the approval of the local authority, the provincial administration, the board and the Minister. There are interesting points which emerge from this speech of the hon. the Minister, e.g. that financially owners of individual properties will be assisted in doing repairs and renovations. In the new subsection (1) (a) of section 15 of the Act, inserted by clause 1 (a) of the Bill, provision is made for power to be given to the board to take steps to prevent decay in any such area or to rehabilitate or assist with the rehabilitation of any such area. I do not know whether that does cover—the hon. the Minister did not say so in his Second Reading speech—assistance to an individual owner of an individual property and that such a person can now obtain financial assistance to renew his individual property. I believe that that is desirable if it is possible, but I do not know whether that is so. The second point which was raised, was the introduction of private initiative in slum clearance and the need to deal with an unreasonable owner. The Minister went further and said the following in his speech:

I believe that is correct, but I question again whether this Bill, and I will deal with it presently, does in fact provide just that which the Minister stated could be provided. Mr. Conradie, the M.E.C. for the Cape Province, addressed the South African Property Owners’ Association in Cape Town on 24th November, 1971, and expressed views which I believe deserve careful consideration before we actually pass the details of this Bill, namely how this procedure is to be carried out. According to a verbatim report of his speech he said:

This was a view expressed—and I had the privilege of listening to him—which indicates to me that this is an aspect which needs more consideration than merely to pass a Bill in the form that it is here. We therefore have at this level a conflict between province and State as to where the terms and the powers of this Bill should vest.

I move as an amendment—

My reasons for moving this amendment will become clear if I deal with some aspects of the Bill itself. We have, for instance, on page 5, line 58, a new paragraph (d) in regard to compensation. I believe the wording there is most unfortunate. It reads:

Immediately when an owner reads this, he becomes apprehensive. Why is it not stated quite clearly that he should get the market value of his property. The need for this becomes clear when one realizes the extraordinary number of laws which are applicable at various levels, municipal, provincial and State, regarding expropriation. The laws in this country dealing with the expropriation are almost legion, each one having some slight variation on the other, each one having some different emphasis in regard to the determination of compensation. I do believe, and I hope, the Minister’s department is busy with what is has been requested to do, viz. to try and consolidate all the expropriation laws under one umbrella, so that people know what is going to happen, how they will be treated and in what manner they can make representations in the event of their being in danger of losing their property.

I think we should remind ourselves that the ownership of a piece of land which gives such pride to a person who feels“I am the registered owner of this land”, gives to him three basic rights: The one is the right of possession and to recover possession from another person who wrongfully takes it from you. The second one is the use and the enjoyment of that land. The third one is that he has the right to dispose of that land. There is, of course one overriding restriction, and that is that the land should so be used as not to injure another person or another property. There was initially a compulsory aspect to this provision. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that part of the penalty on someone convicted of certain crimes in the old days was to dispossess them of their property. That was abandoned before the 1800’s in South Africa, in the Cape Colony. But it is interesting that dispossession was always regarded as a punitive measure. This expropriation as it now exists in South Africa, is based only on one criterion, viz. whether it is in the public interest that a man should be dispossessed of the ownership of his property. I wonder whether the criteria in the Bill before us are sufficiently strong. I have my reservations as to whether they are, if one looks, for instance, at the suggestion in this Bill, that a man, if he owns 85 per cent of the property, can obtain the other 15 per cent by expropriation. 85 per cent of an area may well be obtained in one transaction between two wealthy concerned owners, while the remaining 15 per cent might affect the individual homes of 5. 6 or more persons, if one is dealing with area only. If one is dealing with value, one has other considerations. I mention it as one of the aspects which I do not think is sufficiently covered and which I believe justifies our suggestions from this side that this Bill should go to a Select Committee, so as to take the views of persons and local authorities into account. The expropriations in the past have been approved for utility undertakings. I was interested to find a quotation in regard to one of these matters of Mr. Justice van den Heever in the appellate division, who quoted with approval a judgment in England of 1866, which reads—

The hon. the Leader of the House might be interested to know that this was the case in 1866—

It is interesting to know that as recently as 1866 the formation of a railway was regarded as the undertaking of an adventurer.

How far the Minister has gone, is another matter which worries me in this case. I have a copy of an affidavit, which I believe has also been submitted to the hon. the Minister, in regard to the Doornfontein scheme. I want to read this out to the hon. the Minister, because I hope we can get it quite clear that he has not committed the Government or ourselves in regard to the type of legislation to be passed. This affidavit by the owner of one of these properties who is holding out, if I may put it that way, in Doornfontein says—

That is incorrect.

I think it should be known publicly, and I am glad to hear from the hon. the Minister, that that is incorrect. I accept then that these matters are still open for negotiation and that at this stage there is no commitment in regard to persons who are the holders of minority properties.

The scheme has not been passed by the local authority yet, so I do not know how I could have said anything of the kind.

I suppose that this is a stunt that is being used to try to force somebody to part with his property under the threat of possible expropriation.

If I may go on to the Bill itself, I see no protection in this Bill for a person who owns property in a slum area and who says, “I am quite prepared to develop my own property if this whole area is to be developed; I am prepared to rebuild; I will put up a modern garage, for instance, in place of my old dilapidated garage.” Should he not have some protection and not be forced, because he is holding out, to give up his property? There is no provision in this Bill for the protection of an owner of that type, the owner of a property which is in a slum area but whose property is in good condition. Would he be forced to part with his property because some private developer wishes to use that particular site for a purpose other than the one for which the owner is entitled to use it and is using it in the proper manner? When the Bill talks about 85 per cent of the land, does it mean in terms of value or in terms of area? Should it not possibly be higher? It has been suggested by the South African Property Owners’ Association that it should be as high as 90 per cent or 95 per cent before one goes to the extreme of expropriation. The provisions of clause 2 (b) will have the effect of vesting in the Community Development Board the ownership of areas set aside for public purposes in a local authority area, which again seems to be most undesirable where a township or plots have been obtained for an urban development scheme and areas are reserved for open spaces. I do not think that the ownership should vest in the board. Obviously, according to normal practice, the ownership should vest in the local authority. Then, Sir, according to clause 3 (1) (b) the board in its discretion may make good any financial loss or any inconvenience caused. What is intended by “inconvenience caused”, and how does one relate inconvenience to rands and cents? I believe that that is an aspect that needs further consideration. Sir, another aspect that I want to raise is that the hon. the Minister has not mentioned why this Bill should be introduced with retrospective effect from the beginning of 1971. It is provided here that clause 3 (1) shall be deemed to have come into operation on the first day of January, 1971. What outstanding expropriations are waiting to have their “inconvenience” assessed in rands and cents? One wonders for what reason that provision is being introduced with retrospective effect. The Minister has not suggested any reason.

As far as clause 4 is concerned, the hon. the Minister has said that this provides for a short procedure of registration. You merely lodge documents with the Registrar; he then endorses the bond “Cancelled” and that So-and-So now owns the property. I would hesitate to suggest that a procedure of that sort carries the support of the Chief Registrar of Deeds, who is responsible for our deeds registry system, or the support of the Minister of Justice. I doubt whether they would support this form of encroachment on the system of registration which applies in South Africa.

Finally, I want to mention the grave risks of loss which can arise under clause 5 in the event of the financial failure of a developer company before the compensation has in fact been paid, because under this clause one is providing for ownership of the property to vest in the developer before the compensation has even been determined. One can imagine the complications which would arise if the developer company were to fail in those circumstances. Sir, there are other matters with which other hon. members on this side will probably deal, but I think I have indicated sufficiently why we on this side of the House would urge the hon. the Minister and hon. members opposite to allow this Bill to go to a Select Committee before the Second Reading so that these ancillary matters to the basic principle can be determined in a manner which will be acceptable to both sides of this House and which will also set at rest the disturbed minds of many persons who visualize that they are to be the first victims of these expropriation procedures.

I think there are two matters we must first obtain clarity about in respect of this matter the hon. member for Green Point enlarged upon quite extensively. The first is that we would also like to include the private developer in redevelopment schemes in decayed urban areas that have been designated slum areas, firstly because we want to give the private developer himself the opportunity to come to light with original plans, with a view to redevelopment, and also because it becomes financially difficult for the Development Board and the department to finance all those development schemes themselves. We therefore agree that the private developer must he given the opportunity of assisting with urban renewal but, on the other hand, we are also saddled with the problem of the private owners, the owners of that 15 per cent of the land area that has not yet been obtained by the private developer. How must we protect his rights so that he can defend himself against the rights we grant the private developer? Must we not give him the right to come light with his own plans and perhaps, within the framework of a large and broader plan, to erect a new building on his property? Sir, here we are dealing with a very important principle that we on this side of the House are also fighting for, and that is that the private individual must not be surrendered to the large developer and that the rights of the private owners, eventually occupying that 15 per cent of the land area to which the Bill refers, must be fully protected. We on this side of the House are set on the private individual, who is being caught up in a process of urban renewal, not being surrendered to the large developer. What are the methods we must now employ to protect such an individual with his property? I really have no objection to what the hon. member for Green Point said. To tell the truth, we on this side of the House, who are also involved in these matters and have usually discussed them, went personally to the Minister and told him that we agreed that we should eventually include the large developer to help us, but that we would have to look very carefully at the method by which the private owner is protected. The hon. member rightly said that when there is talk of expropriation, emotions are stirred up. We do not unnecessarily want to stir up emotions here. We do not unnecessarily want to squeeze out the small owner. We actually want to bring the two principles together so that this will be to the benefit of the whole community and also to the benefit of the small private owner in such an area. I personally want to tell the House honestly that some of us approached the Minister in connection with a Select Committee. I therefore have no objection to conceding to the hon. member for Green Point that it is perhaps the best way for us to solve the matter. There are other members on this side of the House who will make further reference to the matter, but there is something else in the legislation before us to which I want to refer in greater detail.

This concerns the first portion of the first clause, the portion that deals with the renovation of decayed areas. If we look at the Minister’s speech last year under his Vote, where he referred to the committee he appointed to investigate the question of urban decay and to report to him, we find that there is a very practical classification of an urban area. We find this in column 7806, where the committee states that in practice we can actually divide the areas of a town into three groups, (i) the redevelopment areas, i.e. where the degree of decline is such that the entire area will have to be replanned and/or redeveloped; (ii) rehabilitation areas, i.e. areas which only fall short in respect of certain factors and must therefore be rehabilitated and (iii) conservation areas, which the first part of that clause is actually concerned with.

Decay is a phenomenon an urban area cannot escape and which no urban area is exempt from. There are also various reasons why decay sets in, and it is perhaps interesting to just point out again the reasons the hon. the Minister mentioned at the time. It is important for us to repeat these reasons. For all of us who concern ourselves with these matters, it is a good thing to look at the reasons why urban areas decay. The Minister mentioned the following reasons—

Most recently we have given particular attention to urban renewal. We have already gleaned considerable knowledge in connection with urban renewal; we gained good practical experience where urban renewal schemes are carried out and we have already spent a great deal of money on urban renewal schemes. It is an expensive and cumbersome method but it is unfortunately the only remedy when an area has totally decayed. To think that we can simply allow urban areas to decay would be a wrong attitude. It would be wrong to have the plans and the money ready and then only come to light with these when the area had totally decayed, spend a large sum of money on an urban renewal scheme and then think we have saved the area. Such a policy would in the long run cost us a great deal of money and time will catch up on us because we shall not be able to keep abreast with the general renewal of urban areas. To continually replace buildings that have to be razed as a result of these aging factors, leads to one eventually falling behind with the provision of new accommodation. If one must continually be engaged in reconstructing decayed areas, this prevents one from providing new accommodation.

In that way one can easily fall behind with the provision of new housing. That committee was appointed and investigated the existing legislation. They investigated whether our present legislation, the Slums Act, the Community Development Act, provincial ordinances and even the regulations of local authorities grant us the powers we should like to have. It appears that we do not have the powers to renovate decayed areas. Local authorities in particular are faced with the problem that an owner continually advances the excuse that he does not have the money to renovate such a building. A big responsibility now rests with local authorities to keep an eye on possible conditions of decay in such a conservation area; to identify such an area or certain buildings in such an area and to negotiate the necessary loans to help the owners, whether of dwellings or business premises, to do the necessary renovation work. At this moment no standards are being laid down; there is a great measure of flexibility and local authorities are being left a large degree of discretion, but it is now their task to keep a weather eye open for possible decay.

I now want to express my personal opinion. I think we in South Africa have contempt for old buildings that still have a sturdy structure and are strongly built. We just like moving into new buildings. A new dwelling affords status and one does not like to live in an old dwelling. I think that in this respect we are making a very big mistake. I say again that I am speaking of strongly built structures and not of buildings that will in any case decay within ten years. Since this legislation is now clearing the way for us, we must give attention to renewing, beautifying and again putting our older buildings to efficient use along these lines.

A new dwelling does afford status, but just like people in overseas countries we must evidence respect for an old building. When I speak of an old building, I am not speaking of historical buildings, but of serviceable buildings, where the frontage and the recent style of architecture are not of primary importance, but where convenience is the factor that counts. The face of our cities is, as it were, changing from year to year as serviceable buildings vanish. By means of this Bill we can retain, beautify and usefully employ serviceable buildings. In this way we can again give greater status to the old buildings. The most important aspect that goes hand in hand with this is that by spending money in this way we shall eventually be saving a grat deal.

Since we are at present spending money to prevent buildings from decaying, we shall have to use this money correctly because once buildings have decayed completely we shall have to devote much more money, time and manpower to redeveloping and rebuilding those areas eventually. We must therefore be grateful to the Minister for this legislation. Because we do not want to set the large developers and the private owners against one another, we shall also have to solve that problem. I also want to associate myself with the hon. members opposite and ask the hon. the Minister, as we have done in the past, to consider this matter very carefully and to ensure that here we do not adversely affect the rights of the private individual, but give him proper protection against the big developer. I also support this legislation in principle.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased indeed to hear that hon. member on the other side of the House find a great deal commendable in the amendment that thas been moved by the hon. member for Green Point. Obviously this amendment has been moved in the spirit of the Bill with which we are dealing, namely that here we have an important problem facing the country, a problem which has exercised the mind of the hon. the Minister for some years now. We well know the importance he attaches, he has said this on many an occasion to urban renewal and slum clearance. In fact, in Johannesburg, which is the largest city in the country, and which I know better than some other cities—I represent a constituency there—the hon. the Minister has in terms of the Community Development Act frozen a certain portion of my constituency for urban renewal purposes. Over the last few years we have seen quite a lot of change taking place in that private owners themselves have purchased property there and, with the consent of the Community Development Board, have effected some very sound restoration. They have in fact brought some new ideas from Europe into the manner of restoration of old homes and have in this way enhanced the appearance of that area. They are thus making their contribution to this urban renewal scheme which the hon. the Minister has set in motion. I would like to say that it is important to remember, as has been stated by the hon. member for Green Point, that when it comes to the ownership of land and the expropriation of a man’s rights to his property, it does arouse tremendous feeling. Over the years I have always believed with regard to the question of expropriation even by local authorities, that everything possible should be done in the interests of the owner of the land, who innocently has found his property to be in the way of certain public interests which are important to the community as a whole. One must unfortunately accept this because the over-all requirements of the community are paramount. I have always, however, believed in the principle, for which I have fought, with regard to arbitration negotiations, that the owner of the land must receive every possible consideration and be given, if anything, every possible advantage. If there is to be any erring in dealing with his rights, the erring should be to the advantage of the owner who is being deprived of his ownership and the use of his land. That is the spirit in which we approach this particular Bill. I believe too that, if anything, a Bill of this nature should have been a Bill standing completely on its own feet; and that, particularly as it introduces an entirely new principle, it should have been appropriate and within the historical perspective of land ownership in this country, that a private developer, for whom land is expropriated, believes that his objective will ultimately prove to be in the interests of the community.

It must be in the interests of the community also in the opinion of the local authority.

I do not want the hon. the Minister to misunderstand me. We hope—after all we are only human—that our belief that it will be in the interests of the community, will be well-founded and this will be so assessed. It is only a hope we express, because we realize that, to the private developer who is developing the property, to the organization or consortium that does this development, there is also the important element of profit. Therefore we believe that one has to approach the whole of this aspect with a great deal of caution and care. That is why we do not want to bind ourselves to all which is contained in the title, it contains a varied number of principles which particularly attach the whole administration of this new concept to the Department of Community Development. We believe that the Department of Community Development has a purpose which is entriely apart from this particular kind of development by the private developer. Whereas the Department of Community Development has hitherto concerned itself mainly with urban renewal of housing areas, we find that in the first scheme which may be became a real scheme it is a part of the city so close to the centre of the city that it will eventually form part and parcel of the business as well as the flat life of that particular city. It will therefore not be urban renewal in the truest sense as we know it, and as we have accepted it to be, but will be a scheme of development which will become part of a city; in other words, of oity development. It will give tremendous advantages to the developer who may enrich himself considerably. It could be In the interest of the community, because it will take away land which has deteriorated into slum conditions or which has deteriorated generally or which has decayed with the passage of time. That is why I suggest that all with which we are left, is the hope that it will ultimately be in the interest of the community.

Therefore we would rather prefer the provisions of this Bill not to be an amendment of the Community Development Act. For that reason we believe it is important that before the Second Reading of this Bill is agreed to, before any principle is accepted, particularly the detail in the title, the Bill should be considered by a select committee. We accept, as the hon. members rightly said, the principle of permitting a private developer into this field. We believe that where there is a holding out of just a small portion of an area which we consider is sufficiently broad to be regarded as a designated area, some provision should be made. It is a matter of the detail of such provision, the authority which should deal with the matter, which is at stake, and I believe this is very important.

When one looks at the details of the Bill, one is also disturbed by the suggested form of arbitration, which differs to some extent from the Expropriation Act, although an endeavour has been made to introduce the provisions which apply to compensation under the Expropriation Act into the Community Development Act, specifically for this purpose. However, it does not go far enough for two reasons. One is that it limits the actual compensation to the market value. It does not even provide room for negotiation. Once notice has been given, that is the end of the story in so far as the price is concerned. I think that must be a disturbing element in considering this matter. The second reason is that in terms of the Expropriation Act an owner can go to court.

He does not have to rely on choosing arbitrators, who are sometimes laymen and sometimes people who you only believe have some experience. The courts give a much wider opportunity for debating a matter of this nature, because proper legal principles can be discussed by a court which deals with these matters constantly. Costs, for instance, can be awarded on proper scales. There is a Supreme Court scale when the amount concerned is in excess of R10 000 and there is also the Magistrate’s Court scale where the amount is below R10 000. However in terms of the Community Development Act, it is confined to the Magistrate’s Court scales of costs only. I want to remind the hon. the Minister that where arbitration does take place at present under the Community Development Act, and if a private person wishes to appoint a leading counsel, a leading silk, because of his particular intimate knowledge of the subject, the costs which the department will permit, will only be R40 per day for that particular counsel who normally would charge anything from R150 to perhaps R250 per day, because be is a leading man with a tremendous practice and has specific knowledge in this particular field. We are not dealing with small properties. In the case of smaller properties we could make use of an arbitration court as suggested in the Bill itself. In the case of larger properties over a certain price the normal course of the Expropriation Act with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court should be followed. After all, we do not envisage the expropriation of little cottages here. We have to bear in mind that we may have large blocks of buildings involved, because most of this type of private development will take place close to a city. We have knowledge of only one particular scheme at the moment which in a sense has inspired this Bill and that is the one in Doornfontein. There has also been a suggestion in the Press of a similar scheme close to the House of Assembly in the Roeland Street, Hope Street and Buitekant Street area, about 200 yards from the House of Assembly. That is the sort of thing that happens. I want to go further and say that we believe that primarily the authority should be the local authority, because the local authority, which must seek the approval of the administrator in any event, has more intimate knowledge and is in closer contact with what is taking place in its own city. It has a complete perspective of its own city and merely to consult with it, in my view is not sufficient. It must be in agreement; it must give its approval to any such scheme I do not mind if the hon. the Minister, the administrator and the local authority confer as long as the local authority’s approval is obtained as well in the overall picture of town planning. I believe that this is an important factor, because the local authority is responsible to its citizens primarily. We had a very interesting case in the local authority of Sandton just recently where the entire council was voted out of power because it was developing high-rise buildings and large roads as part of a new town. The citizens of that particular town felt that this was not warranted and that it was contrary to the spirit in which that town have been established. There we have an example of the importance that a local authority should attach to the view of its citizens as to what is good and what is useful in the public interest.

Let me go further. The question of the procedure in the vesting of ownership has been touched upon, just as a further example of why this needs such careful consideration by a Select Committee. Clause 4 (b) provides for the deletion of section 43 (3) of the principal Act. This is a very important subsection, because in terms of this subsection as it stands, a certificate had to be provided to the registrar that all procedures described in sections 39 and 40 (1) (b) had been observed and that all amounts payable by the board had been paid. I for one believe that before ownership vests in a private developer or a private consortium which is a developer provision should be made for the payment of the full purchase price. Whether it is done partially in cash and partially by guarantee, does not matter. The detail does not matter, but the owner should be assured of his money. The owner should not have to loose one moment’s sleep or have one moments concern as to what will happen to his money. [Interjection.]

The bond holder too.

Yes, the bond holder too. He has to be considered; he does not want what he regards as the gilt edged security which covers his investment or his loan, to be disturbed in any way. Not all countries in the world lightly interfere with the private ownership of property. The United States, for example, does not have any law to that effect. I was told by a friend of mine who had been to Washington that the world bank has been erected on a block where there is a chasm between two wings of that building, a very narrow chasm of about 15 metres by about 30 or 40 metres in depth, in a building which I think is 45 to 50 storeys high. At the bottom of that chasm the owner of that particular piece of land carries on business as a purveyor of newspapers and paperbacks. Just recently a visitor from America was asked whether that man was still there. The answer was “Yes, he still carries on because he believes that he needs to do something and this is the way he wants to do it”. It is his own property and he does not want to sell it. He is not concerned if they offer him 50 million dollars; he is a happy man looking after his own business. That very often happens with people. That is the socio-section of the socio-economic problem that faces the person. The money does not become so important as the fact that he can do something. Let me give the hon. the Minister an example as regards this very case in Doornfontein. There is one person —I will not name him—the Minister will know his name—who has six or eight plots —I am not sure how many—all contiguous to each other and who submitted some plans not very long ago for the erection of a modern structure. It is a matter which certainly must be very carefully considered as to whether he should not have the right to integrate his particular scheme into the globular scheme. He happens in this extraordinary instance, to be on the perimeter of the scheme. Why he should not be able to retain his ownership and integrate his scheme into the overall scheme, is something which must be thought about. That is why we believe that we should not at this stage go so far as to accept any specific principle which would then tie the hands of any Select Committee which might consider any further details of the matter.

Then we find that there is a tie-up with the Community Development Act, in so far as affected properties and basic values are concerned. Who is concerned with the appreciation or depreciation advantages? The private developer? Why should he come into the picture? One can understand some of these provisions in regard to community development where the State has set up a board and an administration in the interests of a community, but there should not be a provision of this nature which would apply to a private developer, to look after his costs of administration, the board that he has established or the technical people that he employs in order to develop a scheme. There are many facets in this type of legislation which we believe are completely foreign to the spirit of the Bill.

Let me go further. This type of legislation is not entirely new in South Africa. In the Expropriation Act provision is made for the expropriation of immovable property by the State for the benefit of certain juristic persons. By that I imagine is meant public utility companies, perhaps State departments or some associated organization which is probably of a public nature and on behalf of which the State is entitled to expropriate. The State does that under the Expropriation Act and constitutes a very much wider and different field to that covered at this stage by this particular Bill.

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