Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned on Friday, I was quoting from the report of the Van Wyk Commission to indicate certain standpoints of the commission, particularly with regard to the importance of preventive measures as far as children were concerned. It is especially important in the sense that psychiatrists in general, and only with a few exceptions, agree that the origin of mental illness can virtually always be traced back to an incident in a patient’s childhood. Therefore, although it mainly is or seems to be a social problem, it is nevertheless necessary for us in the discussion of this Bill to pay attention to this extremely important matter. The Bill before this House makes no attempt to prescribe any arrangement with regard to preventive measures, and I presume that attention will be given to this matter at a high level or at another level on another occasion. To me, however, this is mainly an educational problem. In the first place it is an educational problem concerning children, particularly with regard to special education.

But there is also another aspect concerning education which is extremely important with regard to this matter, and that is the education of parents. Although the hereditary aspects of mental illness are extremely important, one must have regard to the fact that children suffering from mental defects, can benefit a great deal from effective, special education.

†This afternoon I should like to make a special appeal to all parents in regard to this important matter. I want to put it this way: Never ever give your children more attention when they are ill—within reasonable limits—because by so doing you are teaching a child to make one of the most vicious mental adjustments, which is probably foremost in the aetiology of mental disorder. They learn to get love and affection through illness, and that is the crux of the whole matter.

*Finally there is the question of hospital boards. I had the privilege to serve as chairman of such a hospital board for several years. This afternoon I should like to bring a matter to the attention of this House, seeing that we are discussing this Bill, which flows from the practical problems in connection with the handling of mental illness. It concerns the question of State President’s patients, as embodied in chapter IV of this Bill. This afternoon I want to make the allegation that there are many State President’s patients in institutions in South Africa who are being detained there although they have completely recovered from their mental illness. The main reason for this is that no proper facilities for after-care, which would make it possible to look after these people, are often not available. But there is also another important aspect and that is the question of the humane considerations of the hospital board. I think there are many patients in that category who are not recommended for release in terms of clauses 29 or 33 chapter IV, because if such a patient were to be released, he could be prosecuted again for his original crime, on the recommendation of the Attorney-General. I think this is a matter to which we shall have to take another look in the future. Perhaps it does not belong under this Bill, but while we are discussing this important matter, I think we should just take cognizance of it.

Seen as a whole, however, this Bill has been prepared very well. It rests on thorough research and it is based on certain sound grounds and principles. But most important, the old tried and tested principles which were embodied in the original Act, have been retained and are embodied in this legislation we have before us.

Mr. Speaker, it has been very interesting to listen to what the hon. member who has just sat down has had to say about the Bill. Obviously he is concerned with certain aspects of the Bill to which he thinks the Minister should give his attention. He feels that perhaps there are certain improvements which can be made in so far as the protection of the patient is concerned. I think it indicates immediately that whilst we all agree that this Bill is well-founded and that its framework is sound, it will nevertheless be the vehicle which is to turn this framework into a living, operative vehicle for dealing with mental illness that will be the cardinal factor in the success of the Bill as it has now been presented to us. There is no doubt that the report of the Van Wyk Commission, which followed on a previous commission of inquiry, namely the Rumpff Commission, indicates the importance of this whole matter to the public health of the country and, more particularly, to the interests and the protection of the citizens. I must agree with the hon. the Minister that the report of the Van Wyk Commission is not only an excellent report, but that it has many fascinating features. I should like to say that one of the important improvements that I see in the Bill, despite the fact that in the main it follows the Act of 1916, which has now been on the Statute Book for more than 50 years, is that the whole approach to mental health has now changed. We no longer talk of mental disorders; we no longer talk of idiots or imbeciles or mental defects. We now talk about people who are mentally ill. Sir, this is an important advance in the thinking of our community and, more particularly, in the thinking of the medical profession. One is now able to remove—and I think that is the whole objective here—the stigma which attaches to a person being dubbed a mental defective or a mentally disordered individual. It enables us to deal with people, who are in any way mentally affected, as if they were suffering from any other form of illness. Patients, both young and old, can therefore go with confidence to their medical practitioners, unfold their problems and seek advice. I think this is a very important advance in the whole concept of mental illness. With this new approach to the subject of mental illness, I believe that this Bill will give teeth to the old framework which provides for the machinery to do certain things. It is vital, Sir, that the confidence of the public should be sought in dealing with the mentally ill. We know that in the past there have been people who have kept mentally ill children at home, away from the public, away from their own families even, cooped up almost like the old man in the story of the man in the iron mask whom nobody ever saw. We have had cases where children have been chained to bed-posts and have been locked up in bedrooms over years because the parents have been afraid that a stigma might attach to the family because of the mental illness of the child. But with the development of psychiatric knowledge and the advance in medicine, there will obviously be an entirely new approach to the subject, and that is something for which we are very grateful.

I would like to go further and deal also with one other aspect to which the hon. member who has just sat down made some passing reference, and that is the extraordinary agreement between the views of the Van Wyk Commission and those of the Schumann Commission, both of whom regarded hospitalization, as presently administered by the provinces, as a very important feature in this new approach to mental illness. Both stress the importance of ensuring, as far as possible, that the mentally sick person is not divorced from the community; that he is not dealt with in complete isolation. I accept, Sir, that the policy of the Government is that the provincial hospitals should deal with the acute cases of mental illness. I am also aware of the fact that the definition of “institution” includes provincial hospitals. This indicates immediately that provincial hospitals will now be used also in cases of mental illness. There are of course, numbers of cases where people who are mentally ill need not be completely isolated. It is generally felt by medical practitioners today that mental illness should not be completely divorced from other illnesses or other infections of the body; that it should not be dealt with in vacuo. That is why many medical practitioners feel that people who are mentally ill, except in severe cases of mental disturbance, can be dealt with in provincial hospitals. But as I am not pleading for that at the moment; I am merely drawing the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that perhaps we will in due course, with the new approach to mental illness, permit the provincial hospitals to play an even bigger part than they have played hitherto in the treatment of these cases. I may say that it has also been pointed out to me by a psychiatrist that in many cases where people consult a psychiatrist, the psychiatrist feels that the patient could quite easily be treated in a nursing home. Clause 2 of the Bill states—

Clause 62 then provides for penalties for failure to comply with the provisions of the Act. In view of these provisions, it is possible that some medical men may have some misgivings as to how they should treat a patient who need not necessarily be put into an institution but could be treated in a nursing home. This would apply, for example, to a person who is mentally depressed. I should like to know what the Minister’s view is with regard to this particular aspect.

Then, Sir, I would like to go further and deal with the place in the community of the clinical psychologist and the psychiatric social worker. I do not think that in the past we have placed sufficient emphasis on the value of the services of these two particular categories of assistants in the treatment of the mentally ill. It has been pointed out that we are woefully short of psychiatrists. I do not think the hon. the Minister will gainsay the fact that psychiatry has advanced to such an extent in the field of mental illness that we should do everything in our power to encourage and to motivate medical practitioners to graduate in the field of psychiatry. With only 128 psychiatrists in South Africa, the commission itself points out that we compare favourably with the rest of Africa, but that we are woefully short of psychiatrists in comparison with the well-developed countries of the world. I think the Minister will agree that something should be done to encourage more people to qualify as psychiatrists. I feel, too, that the Minister and his officials should do everything in their power to encourage the training of people as clinical psychologists. I know that at our universities today there are many young students who are very interested in this type of work and who are graduating as clinical psychologists. I know that in the United States this is a well advanced profession. In dealing with shortages of staff, the Van Wyk Commission also deals specifically with these two categories, i.e. the clinical psychologists and the psychiatric social workers. I am sure that with the necessary encouragement from the Government a great deal can be done in this field, not only for the patient who is mentally ill, but also in the field of after-care, which I feel is a very important aspect of mental health, once the treatment of the patient has been completed.

Sir, before I leave this subject, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to have a look at the definition of the word “patient”. A patient is described in the definition as meaning a person who is mentally ill to such a degree that it is necessary that he be detained, supervised, controlled and treated. I notice that in some quarters it is believed that the patient must be detained, supervised, controlled or treated, but the definition says “and treated”. In other words, unless the person concerned requires treatment, he does not fall under this Act as a person who is mentally ill. I would like the hon. the Minister to clarify that a little more fully.

Then, whilst I do feel that there has been a big advance in the provision of better accommodation for the housing of the mentally ill who are being treated in institutions—State and private institutions and provincial hospitals—I feel that greater stress must be laid today on the inadequacy of accommodation in the country. I am almost sure the hon. the Minister is well aware of this but I do feel that in a country like South Africa where we have advanced so tremendously in the field of science, and where our name in the medical world ranks very high indeed, we can set a new pace with regard to the adequacy of accommodation for the mentally ill. I think its importance lies in the fact that we will be able to encourage the disclosure of cases more easily, and that we will be able to get on top of the problem without any fear on the part of the patient. I strongly recommend that the hon. the Minister gives some thought to this particular aspect.

In 20 years, according to figures we have received from the Commissioner for Mental Hygiene, the number of known patients in the country increased by nearly 50%, from 17 500 to 25 500. I believe the figure is now nearly 27 000 but one wonders, if one really begins to discover all the cases in all sections and national groups in this country, whether the figure will not virtually double itself and whether we will not find ourselves with nearly 50 000 cases in the country. It has been pointed out by the hon. member for Rosettenville how vital it is and how important it is that when we find ourselves in that position, there will not be a lack of properly trained and properly equipped persons who can give treatment and deal with these cases satisfactorily.

There are a couple of other aspects which I think are very important. One is the question that the hon. the Minister raised under clause 13, with regard to the possibility of a loss of confidence in so far as the medical officer is concerned, when the medical officer may find himself obliged, if he finds that a person is mentally ill to such an extent that he should be treated, to lay a report before the magistrate if he finds that this person is dangerous to others. Some psychiatrists are under the impression that this may lead to a breach of the ethics and I wonder whether in the regulations something cannot be done about this particular aspect. Quite often there are weekend cases, that come to the day hospitals where the psychiatrists is available, of people who have consumed too much liquor and beat up their wives and in a sense become potentially dangerous to others. The danger is mainly to the family circle, where some form of treatment may to a certain extent allay the acuteness of the condition of the patient. There the psychiatrist finds himself in the position that if he believes that that person can be dangerous to others and “others” may include even the immediate members of the family, he would be in an awkward position in that if he reports the case to the magistrate, patients will no longer come and consult the day hospitals or the out-patient clinics for treatment. That is a matter which should be taken note of.

I would now like to exchange a few thoughts with the hon. the Minister in regard to certain amendments we on this side of the House would like to move to this Bill, amendments which we regard as important for the protection of the patient. The hon. the Minister may recall that the hon. member who spoke before me, the hon. member for Newcastle, dealt with one or two aspects which he said were important for the protection of the patient. I should just like to run through these amendments very quickly so that the hon. the Minister can be aware of what we intend to do. In clause 4(2) we find that the superintendent shall within seven days after the admission of a patient forward to the magistrate of the district a copy of the relevant application and a report on the condition of the patient. That is where a patient submits himself voluntarily for attention in an institution. I should like to suggest that when that report is made to the magistrate, the report should also be made to the Secretary so that officially the matter is before the department which, after all, is in charge of mental health.

Subsection (3) reads—

1. (a) informally visit the patient concerned;
2. (b) at any time investigate the circumstances …

We should like to have paragraph (c) amended to read—

1. (c) but he shall report his findings … to the Secretary.

The subsection, as it reads at the moment, gives him a permissive right to do so, but we believe that the magistrate shall be obliged, should he visit the patient and go into the circumstances, to send his report to the Secretary. We do not want to leave it as a permissive right.

A problem occurs in the mind of certain medical officers in connection with clause 25, which deals with a patient who is detained in an institution and who has been fully certified. The clause provides that a report has to be transmitted from time to time to the secretary. In terms of the clause the report shall be transmitted annually for the first three years, thereafter in the 5th year and then every five years. We feel that this report should be submitted annually. Although this is an exact replica of the provision in the 1916 Act we are of the opinion, as has been pointed out to me by someone, that one would not like to find forgotten men or women in the country. If it were an annual report, it could even in some cases be merely a formal report since the conditions would not have changed radically, but it would at least give confidence to the public and to the family of the patient that that patient has been seen annually. We shall deal with this aspect further in the course of the Committee Stage.

I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to another important aspect and that is the factor which the hon. member for Newcastle mentioned in regard to hospital boards. We believe that a board of three members is inadequate. That is also the figure used in the 1916 Act. We suggest that it should be five. We think the qualifications for instance of at least two, namely a medical officer and a legal man, should be retained, but we think there should be at least five members on the board because of other incidents that happen far more often in one’s very much busier life today than in 1916. This will warrant a slightly larger number of people on the board. Further, instead of the board just meeting when it is necessary, it would be better if they met not only when necessary, but at least once a month so that the board can be in full touch with what is taking place in the hospital.

There is another very important aspect to which I think the hon. the Minister should give a certain amount to thought. I refer to clause 53, which deals with the question of the board’s action as regards the release of patients. The clause provides that the board may by resolution, after proper inquiry, conditionally or unconditionally release a patient who has been detained. The clause further provides that if the report of the superintendent is contrary to the board’s decision, no action can be taken unless the decision of the board is unanimous. Thereafter it says that if there has been a decision which has been in conflict with the board’s decision, the reasons therefore shall be supplied to the Minister, but in the meantime the action has already been taken. Our wish is that if this decision be taken, but there is a conflict with the superintendent, no action shall be taken until the reasons have been submitted to the hon. the Minister for his decision and that his decision shall be final. Otherwise you can land yourself in all sorts of difficulties because if the board takes action that is in conflict with the superintendent’s point of view and thereafter reasons are submitted, it may already be too late and one may not know what has happened to the patient. In any case it may not be a good thing for the community that there should be action of this nature without the fullest support of the Minister, especially where there is conflict with the superintendent. That clashes furthermore with clause 54, which states—

Therefore it becomes all the more important that it be dealt with from that point of view. That, amongst others are some of the amendments which we wish to move in regard to this Bill. Apart from that, we find that the Bill is acceptable, as I have already said.

In closing, the point I would particularly like to stress is that if we can continue to administer this legislation in the light of the new approach to the whole field of psychiatry, in a manner which will provide greater confidence for the community, and if we make use of the machinery in a more operative manner, a manner which is more in sympathy with the circumstances in our country today, I think we will have made a very great advance in the field of mental health, and I would like to wish the hon. the Minister and his department every success in the administration of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker, my colleague from Jeppes, has indicated that it is the intention of the United Party to support this Bill, but I still believe it is only right that we should highlight needs and any shortcomings which we notice, and if possible suggest improvements when we believe them to be necessary in the interest of mental health. It is quite apparent from the hon. the Minister’s remarks and from the debate that there are no fundamental changes in this Bill which do not meet with the support of most of the interested parties.

The hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech, if I remember correctly, said that 32 copies of the Bill had been circulated to interested parties. By way of interjection, I mentioned the term “scientologists”. The hon. the Minister did not react particularly to that remark, but I would like to ask him if he could indicate in reply whether the body to which he referred, which noted opposition and criticism of the Bill was in fact the Church of Scientology. I feel that this gives the House an opportunity to assess the actual importance, the merits of the criticism which may have been delivered against this Bill. I believe that we must accept that the Bill will not effect an overnight change in the position in so far as mental health in this country is concerned. I think one can base that statement on the examination of reports of the Commissioner for Mental Health in previous years. I would like to refer briefly to the report for 1968-’69. It was stated in this report that there were 31 500 outpatients who were requiring some form of treatment. It also said, and this I think is rather depressing, that nearly half the medical and nursing posts were vacant or were filled by temporary personnel. Then the report emphasized the effect of mental illness on the manpower issue. The report claimed that the vast majority of patients were craftsmen, production workers and labourers, or people without gainful occupation. This particular reference concluded with this important remark—

The 1969 report of the Commission on Mental Health is, I believe, more encouraging because it indicated that there had been an increase in admissions, which clearly showed, it said, that the prejudice against mental hospitals had been largely overcome. It put down as one of the main reasons for the break down in prejudice, the high standard of treatment offered and the improved facilities that had been provided. However, it made two noteworthy remarks. Firstly, it emphasized that there was limited accommodation available in institutions for mental defectives and, secondly, also drew attention to what it considered “the urgent need for increased facilities for care and treatment of geriatric, psychiatric patients”. In conclusion this report stated, and I quote—

I think the phrase “integrated with other medical services” deserves close consideration because this remark came from the Commissioner for Mental Health. I appreciate that this post no longer exists, but at the time he was representative of this particular field as an adjunct of the Department of Health.

On the other hand, we have the remarks recorded in the Van Wyk Commission’s report and I would like, too, to record my appreciation for the comprehensive nature of this particular report. It says something which I think is rather significant—

The Van Wyk Commission’s report went further and quoted from the Rumpff Commission’s report. It referred to what the Rumpff Commission had said about a memorandum from the Transvaal provincial hospitals which in effect stated that the three-tier division of health services tends to hamper the control of psychiatric illnesses and services due, mainly, to the duplication of services, the reduction in the efficiency of those services and, thirdly, to increased costs. The Commissioner for Mental Health is also quoted as having suggested in evidence to the Rumpff Commission a re-organization of control of mental hospitals. Reference is made to the fragmentation between hospitals run privately and those run by the central Government. Psychiatrist in mental hospitals were drawn away to the general hospitals because conditions of work and employment in general were more attractive in the general hospitals. He claimed too that this had the effect of leading to a deterioration of treatment of difficult cases due to a shortage of psychiatrists.

My colleague, the hon. member for Jeppes, has already referred to the definition of an institution, which states quite clearly that an institution is a State psychiatric hospital or a provincial hospital, or half-way houses, etc. So, it seems that this Bill provides a means to overcome unnecessary overlapping and to provide the best possible service and to make maximum use of our resources. When it comes to our resources, particularly in regard to the number of psychiatrists in South Africa, this has already been referred to but I wish to make a further point. The Van Wyk Commission’s report gives the number of psychiatrists in 1970 as 125. From a breakdown it is quite clear that 110 of these psychiatrists are practising or operating in the seven main cities or areas in South Africa: Johannesburg, Cape Town and its suburbs, Pretoria, Durban, Pietermaritzburg, Port Elizabeth and Bloemfontein. The balance are there to serve virtually the vast area of the rest of the Republic. The report also indicated that there were State hospitals at which there were no psychiatrists. It mentioned specifically that at Mafeking, the State hospital at Port Alfred, the Umgeni Hospital in Natal and Witrand at Potchefstroom. It also disclosed a further very significant and disturbing fact, namely that in the whole of South-West Africa there was only one psychiatrist situated in Windhoek. This is an unhealthy position in the field of mental health.

I want to deal briefly with the question of expenditure, because this matter was also dealt with in the annexure to the Van Wyk Commission’s report. A summary was published of the capital and loan funds expended on mental hospital buildings in the 20 years from 1948 to 1968. It is interesting to note that in the four years from 1948 to 1952 there was no expenditure whatsoever on the building of mental institutions. Thereafter I calculate that the total expenditure from loan account on hospital buildings, etc., amounted to R6 872 000. I think most members in this Chamber will agree with me that that amount represents a fraction only of the cost of building a general hospital today. R6 872 000 was spent in providing the basic facilities for mental health over a period of 20 years and if one wants to work it out in expenditure per year …

Is that relevant to the Bill under discussion?

I just wish to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that he is off to a bad start through no fault of his own. This amount was spent to cater for 31 000 psychiatric patients, over 20 000 of whom are non-Whites. It is gratifying to know by those of us who were fortunate enough to visit the Mission hospitals during the recess through the kindness of the Department of Health, that the Government has realized this and at Thaba Moopho has created in a matter of six months by private building enterprise accommodation for 1 000 patients.

I will not deal with all the various clauses of the Bill because I think my colleague for Jeppes has done so adequately and has given the hon. the Minister a very good idea of our requests, which I trust he will consider sympathetically. In conclusion I want to say that I believe the Bill provides a groundwork for the provision of a sound mental health service. If this hon. Minister can influence the Minister of Finance to provide from Revenue and Loan Account sufficient funds, the Minister of National Education to provide through the universities, under his control a sufficient flow of psychiatrists of all races and the Minister of the Interior can see to it that the personnel required to carry out the terms of this Bill in the interest of mental health are provided with adequate salaries, then I say that a new milestone will have been reached in the sphere of mental health in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to thank hon. members on the opposite side, especially the member for Rosettenville, for accepting the broad principles of this Bill. I think it is a new start, and. I am glad that we can start with the acceptance of these principles by both sides. Actually, these principles are really old; we have only adapted them to the present conditions. I took due cognizance of the various matters and problems raised by members. I am not unaware of many of the problems, I can assure them, although I have had this portfolio for only about five or six months.

The scarcity of psychiatrists is something which perturbs me just as much as it does hon. members on the other side. We have a backlog in accommodation. I think we are all agreed on that. We all agree that we should do our utmost to try to see what can be done about this backlog. There is the question of finance, accommodation, personnel, etc. All these various problems or bottlenecks which increasingly confronted us during the years, have been mentioned by hon. members.

The hon. member for Rosettenville mentioned something about Valkenberg. By way of example, I just want to tell him that at Valkenberg we are at present considering improvements. The institution is being given priority attention by us and by the Department of Public Works. Some old, obsolete parts of buildings are being replaced. Some parts will be renovated, for which special capital funds have been provided.

I think the hon. member for Berea also mentioned the shortage of accommodation. The training of psychiatrists was mentioned by the hon. member for Rosettenville, as well as by some other members opposite. I want to clarify the position for them. The academic training of psychiatrists is not a function of the Department of Health; at the moment it is the function of the university and of the provinces. The introduction of such training will always depend upon demand as well as on the material available. I am sorry to say that as yet we might have the material available, but it has not come to the fore. We do not find them. However, I am unaware of any obstacle in the way of the Natal Provincial Administration to see that they have proper training facilities for Bantu psychiatrists. There is nothing really placed in their way as far as I know, but the Department of Health would gladly assist any provincial administration who comes to us with a good case and where we can be of assistance to help them in training psychiatrists, because it is a very important matter with us. So, if the hon. member wants to make representations, I suggest that it could possibly be of much help to direct his representations to the Natal Provincial Administration, although I take cognizance of what he has said here, and I am not going to forget about it. I am aware that general hospitals are at present treating some cases of mental deviations, although not the certified types. But lately there has been a Cabinet decision on what we are going to do with psychiatric cases. As the member may probably recollect, last year my predecessor issued a Press statement to the effect that all services are going to be taken over by the Department of Health, including all psychiatrists. I have looked very carefully into the matter, and the Cabinet decided some weeks ago there will have to be a slight change in this approach. We really want to integrate the provinces, the universities and the Department of Health. We want the personnel, the academic persons, the professors, all these people to be concerned with all psychiatric cases, not just cases in the general hospitals. The Cabinet has therefore decided upon a new approach, and although it does not differ a great deal from the old position, hon. members will gather that we are going to approach these matters in a new way. I am speaking of the treatment of psychiatric cases and also the overall approach to the problem of people mentally disordered or defective, or even with a deviationist trend.

*The previous recommendations in the White Paper which were accepted by the Cabinet, were as follows: Mental patients remain the full responsibility of the Department of Health, but provision will also be made for acute mental patients in general hospitals. Secondly, all full-time and part-time psychiatrists employed by State institutions and general hospitals shall be on the establishment of the Department of Health, but in general hospitals they shall be seconded to the authority of the hospital in question. At training hospitals the principle of joint appointments by the university concerned and the State—we have this in Pretoria—whether on a fulltime or part-time basis, already applies where circumstances require it. But we have experienced problems in the application of this principle. One cannot simply take over the provinces’ psychiatrists indiscriminately. There is perhaps an element of autocracy in this as well. I felt that we should seek co-operation where we are able to find this. After talks with the administrators I arrived at the following decision, and the Cabinet accepted it like this: For the present part-time psychiatrists who are at present on the establishment of provincial administrations will not be taken over. They will be able to appoint their own part-time psychiatrists. Instead of all full-time psychiatrists merely being appointed to the establishment of the Department of Health and then being seconded, they will be appointed to a joint establishment of the Department of Health, the provincial administrations and the universities. This means that the provincial administrations and the universities will have an equal say in the appointment, and so, too, in any subsequent dismissal. On the basis of the Cabinet’s decision the financial responsibility for these posts is in fact still entrusted to the Department of Health.

†From that hon. members will gather that I am really moving towards a better integration of services, because the old concept of mental hospitals was that they should be isolated places where people lived apart, and that is why previously the psychiatric and mental patients were under the Department of the Interior. We do not want that isolation, that gulf, to become bigger. We want these people to be integrated in an overall service, because nowadays we have modem concepts for the treating of psychiatric patients. One should have all the academic know-how and knowledge applied to neurotic and psychotic patients, and to all the other abnormal cases which we have so frequently, including patients suffering from schizophrenia and the other more serious diseases, even psychopaths and State President cases. I had discussions recently with the administrators and they subscribed to this approach. I think that from now on we can really look forward to better co-operation with the provinces. That in turn will mean not only that we will have a better psychiatric service, but also that as far as personnel and the academic training of psychiatrists is concerned, we will have much better cooperation between the Department of Health, academic institutions and the provinces. From that I think hon. members should realize that we are really on to a quite new approach, a new footing, as far as this matter is concerned.

*Mr. Speaker, I have now tried to explain this matter as well as I was able. I tried to indicate in what direction we were moving as far as this matter is concerned. Quite a number of other problems were raised. I know that there are deficiencies in the treatment of psychiatric patients and that as far as community services for psychiatric patients are concerned, and not necessarily patients who are mentally disordered but patients who are perhaps mentally deficient or mentally ill, they should not merely be treated in hospitals and then left. We must have after-care services, and these after-care services are becoming extremely important. For that reason I am pleased that some hon. members returned frequently to the question of out-patient services. These services have recently undergone tremendous expansion. I have taken cognizance of the fact that matters are not at all satisfactory in Natal, but it will be possible to solve this problem if we are able to achieve better co-operation among the various levels of government, namely the local authorities, the provinces, the universities and the Government departments.

The hon. member for Brentwood raised a few interesting points. I was particularly impressed by his fine exposition and also by his view that one should regard any psychological deviation in a person in the same light as one regards a disease of the body, which may be cured with the surgeon’s scalpel. If this view is held it removes the stigma from psychological deviation. Quite a number of members pointed out that it is important that we should remove the stigma which attaches to a person who has been treated in an institution or by a psychiatrist. That is something of the past. Just as we today have chemical substances which can keep a person, as far as his mental state is concerned, normal for 20 to 30 years and can make him productive in society, while we did not have this in the past, so we have on the other hand, in the field more of physical medicine, treated diabetes for example with insulin and other new substances, and no stigma attached to such a person. We also have the treatment of heart diseases with digitalis and other medicines, and no stigma attaches to this. I therefore think that we are moving away from the stigma which previously attached to mental diseases, and I think that the integration of the general hospitals with these other hospitals will also contribute to lessening that stigma gradually and removing it altogether. I am pleased the hon. member mentioned this point in particular, for it seemed to me it meets with general approval that we are emphasizing this in our discussion here.

The availability of psychologists is of course an important matter, for these people will have a greater part to play in future, since we have to utilize our manpower to the best of our ability. Unfortunately we have very few psychologists and social workers with psychiatric training; in fact, there are only a few available as yet.

The hon. member for Brentwood pointed out a language problem to me. He feels that the word which we use here, “removal” of a patient from one place to another, should be replaced with the word “transfer”. My department and the legal experts will look into this and see what we can do in this connection.

†I also listened with attention to what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City said about mental disease and the problem that confronts him in his constituency where he has two mental hospitals, in Pietermaritzburg. Like all psychiatric services, these two mental hospitals pose a problem at the moment, but in any case I am glad that the hon. member is so interested in these cases because I think he will be able to help us in the formulation of our future policy as regards the treatment of psychiatric cases in Natal.

*Sir, I did not see what appeared in the Natal Mercury; of course I cannot read all the newspapers and I therefore do not know what appeared there in regard to those psychiatric patients. I have already remarked that the services there are not all they should be.

Then the hon. member for Newcastle gave a very interesting chronological account of the history of psychiatry. He pointed out that a person who in the distant past became mentally ill was regarded as a leper who was simply isolated, and for whom there was no treatment. These people were simply pushed aside and forgotten, as is indicated in this report. The interesting suggestion was made here that the period of five years should be reduced and that a report should not be made only every five years but more frequently. To tell the truth, I myself made a note of this. This is proof of how the public regarded these people and even of how the families of these people suffered as a result of these confusions and the stigma which the public attached in the past to this kind of disease, frequently even thinking it was hereditary, which is in many cases not true. I think the hon. member raised a few very interesting points in regard to deficiencies in our after-care services. I think this is something which is improving at a tremendous rate. I was particularly please that he emphasized the necessity for us, as far as our children are concerned, to remember that in child psychology and in our approach to child psychiatry, we cannot place enough emphasis on the development of the child in its very earliest years, and on how sensitive the child is at that stage. In our child clinics this is of course a matter which is receiving a great deal of attention today. Sir, I do not think there is much more to say, except this.

†The hon. member for Jeppes mentioned quite a few clauses in the Bill that they would like to see changed. I think we might be ad idem in respect to some of those clauses but I will have to have a look at that. I am not sure, having had only a short space of time to look at it, whether I agree with him fully, but there are merits in some of the things he suggested and I think we can have a look at that. I can assure him that it is so that as far as the provincial hospitals are concerned, they will definitely play a bigger part in future in psychiatric services. There is no doubt about that. We have come to this new agreement, and “hulle sal hulle kant bring van nou af”, as we say in the North-Western Cape.

The hon. member for Berea again mentioned the fact that the other day he made an interjection about scientology. Now, the scientology report is being studied at the moment. I therefore do not want to say anything about it now, but actually it was not necessary for me to tell him at that time that I had the scientology movement in mind because we had this newspaper proof of what these people are doing. They are really trying to raise a public outcry against this law, as they call it, although it is not a law at the moment; it is still a Bill. In any case, the way these people go about things here gives ample reason for me to mention it in Parliament that we do not think this is the right way to approach the matter. If they had any doubts there was ample time for them to approach the department. But now they begin like this—

I just want to say this, that if these people just had the elementary intellectual capacity or fairness to go and read the old Act they would have seen that these same provisions have been in the old Act for many years. Why they did not do that, I do not know. I think it is grossly unfair now to come and say that this new Bill contains these provisions whilst they should have known that these provisions were already contained in the old Act for years. I will leave it at that.

*Sir, I think I have replied to most of the hon. members. I am very pleased about this approach and the balanced discussion we had. I am amazed that hon. members seemed to have gone through the Bill quite thoroughly and studied it carefully, for it is quite a bulky Bill. I am very grateful for their contributions.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The nine properties in the division of Oudtshoorn, which the proposed legislation is about, are at present owned and cultivated or are being claimed, as far as can be determined, by about 40 persons. The claims of some are for portions of more than one of the properties. According to the deeds office registers, title deeds were issued to the original owners in respect of those farms in the previous century, between the years 1820 and 1841. The problem is, however, that the majority of the present claimants do not have title deeds to the land or undivided shares in the land which they are claiming. This unhealthy state of affairs largely arose as a result of the fact that ancestral heirs did not take transfer from the estates of their testators, and as a result of further bequests, sales and exchanges, a situation developed in which only a few could succeed in obtaining transfer of undivided shares of the lands concerned.

The farms Roodewal, Uitdrift, Napiers Gift, Douw Steynskraal and the remainder of Nieuwe Drift, which are situated in the Schoemanshoek Valley to the north of Oudtshoorn, are at present occupied by 26 persons. They claim they are the only owners and have, in fact, divided up the land, had it surveyed and they possess approved maps. The large portion of these lands is along the Grobbelaars River, and is very valuable arable land with perennial water. Certain portions of the lands are very mountainous and can only be used for grazing. Some of the occupiers do have registered titles to a defined share or shares in one or more of the properties. Those who are not registered owners, base their claim on hereditary succession or purchases, exchanges or agreements that have been concluded, throughout the years, between various claimants.

The other four farms, i.e. Olyfkraal, Oorsprong van Kana, Uitvlug and De Stefanis Kloof are also mountainous and are largely used as grazing land. These farms are also owned by several persons in undivided shares, some of whom have registered titles of such undivided shares and others who do not. Because the farms are mountainous, there are only a few who utilize the land. Segmentation is not envisaged in respect of these four farms, but the persons who do not have titles are very anxious to obtain them in respect of their undivided shares.

Several attempts have already been made over the years by the heirs and other claimants to obtain transfer of the land, and considerable cost has been incurred in investigation and research in trying to make out a case for the Supreme Court. No progress is being made.

As will be grasped, there are considerable disadvantages involved in an owner not having the title deed to his land. Not only does it considerably hamper the sale of the land, but it prevents the person who has claim to it from negotiating a mortgage loan or obtaining State assistance in connection with, inter alia, the erection of soil conservation or water works. In addition there are water problems that could only be solved if an irrigation board were to be established, and there are insurmountable problems involved in this as long as there is still some uncertainty about the claimants’ rights of possession. The situation is deteriorating progressively as a result of the increase in the number of persons entitled to shares in the land, and to prevent the problem from becoming even more complicated, at the request of the claimants, it has been decided by the authorities to establish machinery, by way of hybrid legislation, that can be used to put the matter to rights.

The Bill now before you therefore has, as its purpose, to make provision for a Land Division Committee consisting of three members with the power to determine which persons are entitled to registration as owners in undivided shares in, or defined portions of, the land in question and to allocate and transfer such undivided shares or defined portions to the thus determined persons after they have paid their pro rata share of the relevant expenses in connection with the undertaking.

The first task of the Land Division Committee will be to determine who the persons are who are entitled to a share in specific properties, and to what share in those properties each person is entitled. The interests of minors must be borne in mind by the committee even though such a minor does not apply according to provisions. Transfer to a cessionary will be subject to existing rights—for example a mortgage bond or usufruct or fidei-commissum. Provision is also made for the recording of objections to any application for allocation and transfer of land or an undivided share in it from a specific alleged claimant. An applicant will be able to ask the committee to reconsider a specific allocation if he is not satisfied with the initial findings of the committee, and special provision is being made for the hearing of evidence. The final ruling of the committee will, however, be conclusive and for the purposes of transfer to the cessionaries, the committee will be regarded as being the owner.

All the expenses the committee shall incur in connection with the allocation and transfer of the land will be paid from funds voted by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, but in fact on a recoverable basis. In other words, each claimant will have to pay his rightful share of the costs incurred to the said department for payment into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Transfer will not take place before the costs have been paid or satisfactory arrangements for their payment have been made, and for this reason provision is also made for the committee to sell a share or defined portion which it has allocated if the person, to which it has allocated it, neglects to pay his pro rata share of the costs. The balance, after subtraction of the costs, will then be paid to the owner.

Bearing in mind the private rights involved here, the Bill was dealt with as a hybrid measure. In other words, the intention of introducing the Bill was made known in advance by means of the Government Gazette and local newspapers. In terested parties, whose names and addresses could be obtained, were also notified of the Bill by registered post. The Bill as such was lodged at the magistrate’s office, Oudtshoorn, the Divisional Council, Oudtshoorn, and the Cape Provincial Secretary for perusal. In conclusion it can just be mentioned again that the main object of the legislation is to establish machinery to identify the cessionaries and to give them transfer of their rightful claim. All claimants will, therefore, eventually have the opportunity of proving their alleged claims.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this side of the House we want to notify the hon. the Minister that we shall not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. The simple reason is that we are dealing here with a situation which began to develop for the first time more than a century ago. Because the subdivision of this land is apparently causing many problems to the present owners or those who have an undivided share in it, we feel that the hon. the Minister is quite correct in coming along with this legislation, so that the position can be put right. If I am not mistaken, we had similar legislation a year or so ago in connection with certain land in the division of George. In that case more or less the same steps were taken. Provision was also made there, inter alia, for a Land Division Committee. I hope the hon. the Minister can tell us in his reply how things have worked out thus far in that case; our information is that things are apparently going well so far and that the hon. gentleman is in a position to give the real share to each farmer or to whoever wants to take possession of it.

However, there is one point about which some members on this side of the House, myself not least, are concerned. Although more than 10 000 ha of land are involved, and as the hon. the Minister mentioned to us about 40 owners as well, I think it is of importance for the hon. gentleman to ensure that when that land is subdivided it will not be subdivided into so-called uneconomic units. I can understand, and I think the whole House can understand, that when a farmer cannot obtain a title deed it affects his credit-worthiness. It is difficult to raise a mortgage bond and it is also difficult to obtain credit on an overdraft unless one can at least offer certain security. Therefore it is essential for these people to know exactly what their property is, because the moment they know what their property is they can farm much more beneficially, in my opinion. Therefore we on this side of the House are not opposed to the passing of the Second Reading of this Bill. I also think that the establishment of a Land Division Committee, which consists of a judge, or a magistrate and other members, is a good thing because those people are perhaps pre-eminently suited to judge whether justice will be done to every applicant. I think that in this case it is a good principle that is being accepted, i.e. that since such land is at stake, and since future ownership of that land is at stake, the investigation will be carried out by such a committee consisting of people who firstly know local conditions and secondly people who will also ensure that justice is done to the rightful claim of an owner of someone who has a share, because people may have a legal claim which arose as far back as a hundred years or more ago, and this is not something that can be judged by any official. In this case, since this is being done by a magistrate or a judge, I think the first step should surely be to see that justice will be done to such applicants. In other words, our only proviso is that the hon. gentleman will ensure that in spite of the fact that it is grazing land, it will not be divided up into uneconomic units.

What is an uneconomic unit?

An uneconomic unit is determined by the norms which the Minister and his department apply at this stage. He knows exactly what that land is and in what part of the country it is situated. Everyone knows that that area is tremendously mountainous and that it can therefore be used for hardly anything except grazing land. Therefore we ask that the hon. the Minister should, in fact, bear this well in mind when it comes to the subdivision of that land.

Mr. Speaker, because this Bill most closely affects a portion of my constituency, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words. From the nature of the case I shall not be able to reply to the points which the hon. member for Newton Park put forward. The hon. the Minister will do so. I can, however, give the hon. member the assurance that in the Oudtshoorn constituency all units are economic ones and that things are going very well there as far as we are concerned.

The area this Bill deals with is described in the schedule and has already been explained by the hon. the Minister, i.e. the lovely and fertile valley between Oudtshoorn and the very well-known Cango Caves. It is today called Schoemanshoek. It is called Schoemanshoek and indeed there are many Schoemans living there, but there is no connection between this place and its inhabitants and the present Minister of Agriculture. The people who live in this fertile valley have had a very big problem throughout the years, i.e. that they could not obtain registered title deeds for their properties. I do not want hon. members to be under the impression that these people simply took the first and best opportunity and ran to the Minister to put their affairs in order. On the contrary; throughout the years these people have made many attempts to solve this question, these efforts have also entailed great expense for these owners, but to date they have been unsuccessful in all these efforts, in spite of the expense. Therefore I should today, on behalf of those people, express my heart-felt thanks to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and his department. I want to thank them very much for the kindness with which they approached this matter, for their kind assistance and, in particular, for their willingness to undertake this big task. I am assured of the fact that a great deal of work has already been done and that a great deal more work will have to be done by the department in the future. Therefore our heart-felt appreciation. I should like to mention that a full year has not yet passed since we had the first interview with the hon. the Minister, who was then still Deputy Minister. Since then there has been only briskness and thoroughness on his part. Since our Government departments are sometimes criticized, I want to take this opportunity of expressing our thanks for the absolutely brisk service that has been furnished. I also believe that the passing of this Bill and the conclusion of the matter by the proposed Land Division Committee will not only iron out problems and solve the conflict these people are faced with, but I am also certain, as the hon. member for Newton Park said too, that this will open new doors for these people and that new development will inevitably take place. I have confidence in the fact that the owners will make use of the opportunity, not only in their own interests, but also in the interests of the constituency and in the general interest of the whole of South Africa. Therefore we are deeply grateful for this Bill and I should like to give the measure my full support.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the hon. member for Newton Park that we are glad to see that he is concerned about uneconomic units. Where there is, in fact, an uneconomic unit, we cannot do anything but let the subdivision go through. If one has a title deed one qualifies for consolidation and assistance from the Department of Agricultural Credit. However, this will not result in further uneconomic units being created. Our survey of this specific area indicates that these are all independent farmers who have already made a success of the land on which they are farming because the irrigation portion of the land is very fertile. As far as the mountainous areas are concerned, they are going to obtain title deeds, but undivided shares in the four mountainous parts. The hon. member knows how far we have progressed as far as George is concerned. It was difficult to get the committee formed, because there is payment involved, and the payment was too little. We eventually got the right persons, inter alia, an ex-magistrate, the committee is in its stride and things are going well in the George area. We feel things will go equally well in the Schoemanshoek area.

The hon. member for Oudtshoorn did his best to expedite the matter and I also thank him for this thanks. He says the people there in Schoemanshoek are no relations of mine. I am very sorry, because there are well-bred people living there.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The principle object of this Bill is the protection of the national air carrier and foreign air carriers serving South Africa in terms of air agreements against the actions of pseudo travel agencies. Such actions are creating a difficult problem in the form of advertisements in newspapers or of another kind, to the effect that cheap flights can be provided.

It is undoubtedly the case that the public is sometimes being duped in this way and is, in fact, suffering losses. I refer to recent Press reports of unfortunate victims who were greatly embarrassed in this way. It has been found that certain unscrupulous persons and agencies are exploiting the public to such an extent that flight tickets are being sold to them in respect of dubious or even imaginary air transportation. These actions are especially detrimental to scheduled air transportation services, and strong representations in this connection have been addressed to my department.

I want to emphasize that it is not the intention to compel all travel agencies to acquire written authorization from the National Transport Commission, but this measure is aimed at placing a prohibition on unauthorized travel agencies in terms of which they will have to obtain permission from the National Transport Commission. A similar statutory provision is contained in section 9(5) of the Motor Carrier Transportation Act, 1930, viz. that no person may without written authorization make known generally that he or any other person is willing to undertake the conveyance of any person or goods by means of a motor vehicle, unless he is the holder of a certificate of exemption in terms of the said Act, which authorizes such conveyance, or is the authorized agent of such holder. If the envisaged prohibition is applied systematically it will be possible to nip this kind of practice and resultant exploitation in the bud.

In addition a penal provision for any contravention of the proposed prohibition is being inserted.

The drawing up of this Bill has afforded an opportunity to devote attention to other matters in the principle Act which require amendments as a result of changing circumstances, so as to facilitate their application. The amendments in question relating to decimalization are self-explanatory, and I need not elaborate on them. Such amendments are contained in clauses 1, 6, 7 and 12.

I should like to deal with the remaining clauses point by point.

The envisaged amendment in clause 1 is aimed at extending the power of exclusion from the provision that an aircraft may not be used for providing an air service without a licence, to or in respect of visiting aircraft of states which are not contracting states, i.e. to the Chicago Convention. In terms of this the provision in question may also be made applicable to certain neighbouring African States.

Provision is being made in clause 3 for a penal provision in the case of failure on the part of a person to comply with an order or direction of the National Transport Commission. In terms of section 3(1)(d) of the principle Act the Commission is empowered to issue such order or direction, but no penal provision in respect of such failure is at present contained in the principle Act.

Clause 4 provides that the nature of the particulars which have to be furnished in regard to applications for licences shall be prescribed by regulation. In this manner the application of the principle Act and the regulations made in terms of it will definitely be facilitated.

In terms of clause 5 the nature of the particulars of applications which have to be published shall be prescribed by regulation. Here, too, the application of the principle Act and the regulations will definitely be facilitated.

The envisaged amendment in clause 8, in terms of which further particulars which licences have to furnish may be prescribed by regulation, will facilitate the issuing and examination of licences.

In terms of clause 9 the existing provision that the National Transport Commission shall communicate to the applicant its decision on an application for renewal not later than 12 months prior to the date of submission of such an application, provided the application is submitted not less than 18 months prior to expiry, is being deleted. It was found that applicants never availed themselves of this privilege. For the sake of uniformity, i.e. publication of particulars of renewal and arrangements for the hearing of such applications, only a single provision that an application for renewal shall be submitted not later than 12 months prior to the date of expiration of the licence is required. The proposed deletion of the said provision will consequently be conducive to better administration and will in fact, according to representations made to my department, be preferred by the private sector.

In clause 10 provision is being made for the payment of application and licence fees which are prescribed by regulation. At present no fees are payable upon application, and the present fees which are prescribed in respect of the various types of licences are purely nominal. In view of the fact that licences remain in force for a number of years, as for example in the case of a scheduled air transportation service in respect of which an amount of R10-50 is payable for their particular licence, the revision and supplementation of such fees is completely justified. Considerable time and work is given to the recording, publication and hearing of applications as well as to the issuing and examining of licences. With the necessary Treasury approval it will be possible to prescribed realistic application, licence and other fees. However, I want to give the assurance that the proposed revised fees will not be excessively high.

In clause 11 provision is being made on the one hand for notification of the National Transport Commission by the holder of a licence of a provisional order for the sequestration of the estate of the holder, or, where the holder is a company, for the winding-up of the company or of a judicial management order, and on the other hand for a provision that a licence shall automatically lapse upon the issue of a final order for a sequestration or winding-up.

It has been found that there is sometimes a tremendous time-lapse between such provisional order and the final order for sequestration or winding-up of the estate of the holder of a licence, with the result that the National Transport Commission in the meantime is not acquainted with the situation of the licence holder concerned. In such circumstances a matter is obscured by an application for transfer of the licence of the holder to another person or an application by the holder for an extension of his licence, obviously with a view to preventing the consequences of sequestration or winding-up.

In terms of clause 13 provision is being made for the making of regulations with regard to (a) the manner in which a request for authorization in terms of the proposed section 2A shall be addressed to the National Transport Commission; and (b) extended authorization to charge fees in respect of applications, the issuing of licences, copies of applications for licences, and the reasons of the National Transport Commission for the refusal, variation, cancellation or suspension of licences.

In terms of modern usage and as has also been done in the Aviation Act, 1962, provision is being made in clause 14 for any reference in the Afrikaans text of the principle Act to a “vliegtuig” and to “vliegtuie” to be construed as a reference to “lugvaartuig” and “lugvaartuie” respectively.

Clause 15 makes provision for a short title and date of commencement.

Mr. Speaker, if hon. members desire any further information, I shall of course be glad to furnish it.

Mr. Speaker, taken at face value, and as motivated by the hon. the Deputy Minister this afternoon, this is an innocent measure with which we all agree in principle. No one is going to dispute the fact that there are people who have been taken for a ride in the figurative rather than in the literal sense by pseudo travel agencies. Thinking they have purchased a ride on an aeroplane, they find that it is another kind of ride for which they have been taken. We agree that this is an evil which should be stopped, but as usual the Government comes along and takes a sledge-hammer to kill a gnat. The provision in this Bill which deals with this issue goes far beyond what the hon. the Deputy Minister said was the purpose. Surely it is a simple matter to protect people against exploitation by pseudo travel agents. As has been done in other instances, this can be done by asking for guarantees in the licensing of such agencies. It is quite simple; there can be either a cash guarantee or a bank guarantee which would cover losses sustained by any person using such an agency. But what the Minister has done in this Bill is to prohibit any person or any organization whatsoever from advertising any type of special flight. Take for example the Durban Chamber of Commerce, which at least twice a year organizes flights overseas in connection with trade missions, exhibitions, and so on. There is also the Natal Clothing Institute which does this. In fact, I received a circular only today from them regarding a planned flight to the International Textile Machinery Exhibition in Cologne. In the case of my own business I have taken some trouble to get all the details required to arrange a flight to take customers to an international exhibition.

This Bill means that any organization which wants to arrange such a charter flight may no longer circularize even its own members in its own domestic newsletter and say: “Look, we are considering a flight to go to such and such a place or for such and such an exhibition. We want to know who is interested.” They would first have to go to the commission before they could even find out if they had enough members interested in such a charter flight.

This would also affect any society. I think it is the 1820 Settlers who are arranging a Christmas flight. They have advertised it in their magazine. So one can go on. All sorts of organizations from time to time want to assist their members with charter flights at lower rates.

Even the law society.

Yes, even the law society, as the hon. member points out. They, I think, investigated the legal side of wine tasting in France at one stage.

No, those were the farmers.

Oh, I am told that those were the farmers. I have had reports on the law society visit as well.

This is a serious matter because behind this is the principle that this provision will make it possible to deny to South Africans the privilege of low-cost overseas flights. This measure comes at a time when only in this weekend’s Press there were reports of the slashing of air fees by international carriers. I find, for instance, that on the London to New York run, it is now possible to get schedule-operated services for R90 return. At this rate, the fare between Johannesburg and London, for an equivalent distance, would be less than R200, whereas the cheapest scheduled flight today is R529. But there is one organization which will be banned under this, which at the moment is offering a flight at R395 instead of R529. There are other legitimate agencies which have offered similar, and sometimes even cheaper, flights. But, Sir, artificially the members of the pool flying to Jan Smuts today have a monopoly and are therefore making no apparent attempt to reduce the cost of South African flights. So while the rest of the world is benefiting, our people in South Africa who want to fly are forced to pay proportionately much higher fares than are available elsewhere. I read, for instance, that it is possible today to fly from London to Venice by scheduled flight for R100-odd; and on the non-scheduled flight, for R83, you can get a return ticket from London to Venice plus hotel accommodation with a private bathroom for 11 days, plus transport from hotel to airport, etc., all meals and tips, and a nanny to look after the children, whereas the equivalent distance in South Africa costs R94.

Sir, I give these as examples of the sort of flight that is not available to South African travellers and which is even less likely to be available in terms of clause 2 of the Bill before us, because quite obviously this Bill has a far wider motive than merely protection against pseudo-agencies. You could give people protection against them without barring all advertising of seats available in any form by any organization or person. This is, of course, quite a different thing from the provision in the Motor Carrier Transportation Act, which is designed to stop pirate taxis and hitch clubs, where people are given lifts for reward and so on. Here you are dealing with aircraft which in the first place cannot fly unless they have landing rights and unless they conform to the safety specifications, and in most cases they are South African Airways charters in any case. The Durban Chamber of Commerce, to mention an example, charters a South African Boeing; that is the usual practice; so the safety feature does not come into it. The aircraft is the standard aircraft which is licensed; the landing is controlled and the Minister can prevent any unsafe or undesirable flight from taking place. But, Sir, he is not trying to do that because he has all those powers. What he wants to do in this measure is to prevent anybody from advertising any cheap flight. He says this is not going to apply to all of them, but only to the unauthorized agents. But that is not what the Bill says; that is what the Deputy Minister says. The Bill says: “No person shall without the written authority of the commission”, which may be granted subject to certain conditions, advertise “unless he is the holder of a licence under this Act” or the “authorized agent of such a holder”. Therefore it is not just a question of being authorized. You must have a licence under the Act to convey people or be the agent of such a licensed airline. So it is not just authorized agencies; it is only the agencies of authorized airlines who will be exempt. Anyone else would fall under the provisions of this Bill. Any organization such as I have mentioned or any club or society wanting to arrange a trip for its members or any legitimate licensed travel agency, if they were not the agent of a licensed airline, would be prohibited. In other words, this would include the normal travel agents who today take bookings. Unless they are specifically the agent of a licensed airline they will fall under those proposed provisions. No agency could go to S.A. Airways and say they want to charter a Boeing 747 to take 300 people to the continent for such and such a period. They could not do it because they would be prohibited by this measure. They could not even inquire of their members as to whether there was sufficient interest to go to all the trouble of making an application to be licensed and to advertise.

Therefore we look beyond mere prevention and protection against pseudo agencies and we say we will give the hon. the Minister our full support if he will withdraw this clause as it stands and substitute a clause which would merely protect the public against fly-by-night pseudo agencies. That could be done quite easily by means of a guarantee required to be lodged, a guarantee which would cover any losses which might be incurred by the public and which would then be refunded to the public. That would give you full protection for the public but it would not interfere with the right of South African citizens to enjoy what people in other countries are able to enjoy. And it is not as though South African Airways are struggling to find passengers. We naturally on this side of the House—and let me put it on record very clearly—would support any measure to protect our own national carrier. We realize that our first responsibility and our first duty is to South African Airways and we would support, and do support, measures to protect our own carrier. But this is not the case here. This is not designed to protect S.A. Airways. In fact, S.A. Airways is usually the charter agency used by many of these organizations, and our own airlines are having to go so far as to hire aircraft from another firm on the basis, as I understand it from one report, of one a week. The old Trek Airways, Luxavia as they now are, run a weekly flight for S.A. Airways because S.A. Airways cannot handle all the traffic offering to it. So they themselves are chartering to handle their surplus capacity. Therefore this is not a measure to protect our airlines; it is a measure to prevent our South African citizens from benefiting from cheaper flights. We are doing it; our own airline is doing it in South Africa. There are now the new night flights from Cape Town to Johannesburg for R66 instead of R94. It shows that cheaper fares can be offered because I am quite sure S.A. Airways would not be offering that sort of fare if they were losing money on it. It is now R66 instead of R94. So they are able to run cheaper flights. There is the package tour which is now being offered, which offers accommodation thrown in for less than the normal flight from Johannesburg to Cape Town. So it is possible, but because there is a pool which has a complete monopoly and which works as an entity, that pool is able artificially to withhold from our own citizens the sort of airfare which enables the citizens of other countries of the world to travel more and more by air, particularly young people who cannot afford to pay R539 or R620-odd in season for a 45-day concession. They cannot afford to pay that sort of money, but they can afford to pay R200 or R300 to fly overseas. What young person has not set his or her heart on an overseas trip as early as he or she can? It is one of the things young people dream about, to get overseas and see something of the rest of the world. We are opposed to a measure which is going to make it more difficult for them, unless we can be satisfied that this is essential in the interests of safety, or in the interests of the protection of the public. We believe there is a much simpler way in which that protection can be given, as I have already outlined.

As far as the other provisions are concerned, we accept clause 1. We have no objection to that. It is technical and administrative. We do have some doubt about the proposed amendment brought about by clause 9. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that this was a provision which was not used. I should like him to give us the assurance that it is not used at all, or is it merely that it is not used very often? This gives a carrier an opportunity to plan his affairs a year in advance. He does not have to wait until the last minute before he knows whether his licence is going to be renewed. To me it seems a simple privilege which cannot cause a lot of difficulty, which cannot create a lot of administrative work and unless we can have some better explanation, we are also opposed to that clause.

The majority of the other clauses again follow a pattern which we find to an increasing extent in Government legislation. At the moment the Act lays down specifically the various conditions—I do not want to deal with them all; we could perhaps deal with them in Committee—the particulars which must be stated in an application, the particulars which must be published in order to advertise the application received, the particulars which must appear on the licence, and the fees which must be paid. These particulars are all laid down by law, there for any person concerned or affected to see. These are now all to be prescribed; they are all to be left to the whim of the Minister to prescribe as he will—what form the application shall take, what particulars shall be supplied, what he shall advertise, what he shall not advertise, what fees will be payable. In other words, it is the old concept: I am the Government; it is not Parliament that will determine these things; I am going to prescribe as I want to prescribe without reference to Parliament. These are not serious things which can affect the freedom of people or anything like that, but they affect the livelihood of people. There must be some better reason than that it is easier to prescribe, for removing what is now in the law. The law lays down quite clearly what an applicant must do. So, an applicant knows in advance what is required. A person who has been applying year after year and has been receiving a licence, does it in terms of this Act. Now, suddenly, the Minister could come with all sorts of conditions at his whim. Although we shall not oppose it, because obviously a certain amount of flexibility is necessary, I want to highlight simply the fact that this is a growing tendency in legislation to use the law itself less and less and regulations more and more, in providing for how that law will be carried out. For instance, the hon. the Deputy Minister has said he gives an assurance that the fees will not be excessive. Can he not tell us now what the increases are going to be so that Parliament will know, because those increases are going to affect the cost of the carrier and that again affects the fares which the passenger must pay. We are being asked to give to the hon. the Minister power to increase the fees at his own whim without any idea of what effect that could have on the cost to the person who has to pay in the end, who will be John Citizen, the passenger. The uncertainty is not necessary, even though we give the hon. the Minister the power to prescribe. Why does he not tell us what he has in mind, and what sort of fees he is going to charge, so that we can see immediately what the picture is going to be like? These, as I say, are not matters of principle. The principle to which we object is the provision which will bar the advertising of any organized flight, whether it be a charter by a group, by a society, by a travel agent or by an individual, advertising without the written authority of the commission. The hon. the Minister will, I am afraid, not satisfy us with an assurance that the commission will be reasonable and that it will not refuse such requests. The commission is an organization designed to run to very strict rules. Its whole approach is one of restricting to ensure that there is not excessive competition; in fact, one of the provisions is being changed in the Bill, the provision that one of the things which will be taken into account is undue competition, protection of the public and undue competition by too many certificates. In other words, the concept, the thinking of the commission must necessarily be restrictive. Our approach is: Do not restrict the opportunity for people to fly, more than is required by safety and by the financial stability of our own airline. Otherwise, where they are not affected, rather expand the opportunity to travel, give the people a chance to get out and see the world at the cheapest possible price, and not the approach that opportunity must be limited, prescribed and narrowed down by the decision of a commission from whom there is no appeal.

Therefore we will be obliged to oppose this Bill because it conflicts with our idea of placing flying within easier reach of the South African citizen, instead of making it more difficult for him. Therefore we shall vote against this measure.

Mr. Speaker, we can really say today that the hon. member for Durban Point is seeing spectres, spectres in very innocent legislation, legislation which is primarily aimed only at guaranteeing the safety and security of our public. He has now been raising very strong objections to clause 2, in which regulations are made in connection with the issuing of a permit, objections to the effect that these people will ostensibly no longer be able to advertise. The position is simply that if those people meet the reasonable requirements that will be set by the commission, they will in fact be able to advertise. The first thing which any responsible firm will do, will be to ensure that it meets those minimum requirements. Once it has done that, it can advertise. I really cannot see why the Opposition should object to that. The hon. member sees his way clear to dispose of this matter by way of a guarantee. It is not so easy to control this kind of malpractice. We must have proper regulations and conditions must be imposed on for any such travel agency in order to ensure that the advertisement they place is not misleading. We are living in a time of tremendous expansion in the air-service industry and we have a strong organization in the South African Airways. They have to compete with other forms of transport. They also have to compete with other airways. Therefore they have concluded an agreement with IATA, the international organization, and the pool agreement is of great value to the South African Airways. It makes very severe demands on all the various airlines making use of the routes to South Africa. It is essential that there should be strict control over these people.

Where in this Bill is that changed?

It is necessary to protect the public. We have heard about malpractices which had to be eliminated.

That has nothing to do with IATA.

The South African Airways must also guarantee a regular service. It is much easier and cheaper to make just one journey without retaining all the necessary personnel in the various countries. Therefore it is a prerequisite for the South African Airways that they guarantee a regular air service. They must render the service at competitive prices. We have seen how air services have systematically expanded over the years. In 1971 there were 1 551 678 air journeys; in 1972 this expanded to 1 670 515, which is an increase of 7,6%. We see that the Springbok Airline has today increase its scheduled services from 17 to 18 per week: 10 to London, one to Vienna, one to Zurich, two to Athens, three to Frankfurt and one to Brussels. Then we also have the Wallaby Service to Australia, which is now being increased to four return services per week. In addition we have the jet service to North and South America. I say therefore that we are really rendering a service to the public. The South African Airways also makes use of chartered flights. On the average almost two chartered flights per week are undertaken, specifically to render a service to groups of people who wish to undertake tours such as those to which the hon. member for Durban Point referred. In this way 94 tours were undertaken by the South African Airways last year. However, these air journeys are also subject to the IATA. They cannot determine tariffs just any way they please. That strict code of service is maintained. A short while ago we saw in the Little Budget that the South African Airways had been fined because some of those strict rules had been infringed. I think that it is right that if standards are laid down, those who infringe them should be fined, because in this way we guarantee a good service to the public.

I want to say again that this legislation is being introduced to put a stop to exploitation of the public, because when such exploitation takes place, it prejudices the regular air service. Therefore our regular air service must also be protected. The object is not to prosecute certain companies. The Bill seeks to effect a measure of control and to protect the public. It is very simple for any travel agency or any agent of a travel agency to comply with those requirements. The other clauses of the Bill are to a large extent aimed at facilitating the application of the principal Act. I can therefore see no reason why this Bill should not be passed by the House.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Humansdorp has, I think, let the cat out of the bag when he said that one of the reasons for this legislation was to guarantee our local airline and other members of IATA and to protect them against competitive fares. That is what the hon. gentleman said. I think here we are coming to the very heart of this legislation, namely the new section 2A being inserted by clause 2 of the Bill. He believes that we are seeing ghosts that do not exist. I wonder if that hon. gentleman has bothered even to read clause 2 of this Bill properly. In fact, I was doubting when I listened to the hon. the Deputy Minister introducing the Bill whether he too had read clause 2 of the Bill. If he had, I am quite sure that he would have come to some of the conclusions we have come to about the actual implications of the clause. We all know he is new in his post and one would have expected him to be perhaps rather more thorough than usual when he comes with legislation. One expects that of any new broom. Coming back for a moment to the hon. member for Humansdorp, he said, apart from the slip he made about protecting the local airline against other airlines, unscheduled ones, that might offer more competitive fares, that the purpose of this clause is to guarantee safety and to protect the public. He said that this is a simple matter and that all that the people concerned have to do is to comply with the reasonable requirements of the National Transport Commission. Is it as simple as that? If he wants to protect the public, where are such provisions in the Bill? All they have provided for is that people must apply to the National Transport Commission for licences. How can he then argue that protection is being afforded by the Bill? He is simply passing it over to the National Transport Commission and that, I suggest, is highly inadequate. I want to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he cannot possibly go ahead with this legislation in its present form. The new proposed section 2A(1) provides that “no person shall without the written authority of the commission”, that is the National Transport Commission, “which may be granted subject to such conditions as the commission may deem fit (a) make known by any means that he or any person is willing to undertake the conveyance of any person in the performance of an air service … unless he is the holder of a licence under this Act …” “Air service” in the original Act means any service performed by means of an aircraft for reward and includes air transport service. We shall see immediately that there is no attempt to restrict the meaning of “air service” here to the Republic or South-West Africa or to flights originating or terminating in the Republic or South-West Africa. I think I am correct in saying this. In other words, we are now deliberately making the proposed new section 2A apply to all air services, other than scheduled national services and our domestic ones, anywhere in the world. The hon. the Deputy Minister smiles, but is that the position? It certainly would seem to be. When we look at legislation like this, we must obviously try to determine not only what the aim of the legislation is—here we were helped immeasurably by the hon. member for Humansdorp—but also how widely the net is being cast. It was when I tried to do that that I began to have serious doubts about how carefully the hon. the Deputy Minister had studied the Bill. You see, Sir, if one just gives this question a little thought, one sees that the net of this Bill—more precisely the ambit of the proposed new section 2A—is cast very widely indeed, to prevent any publicity of any sort being given to non-scheduled air services unless the National Transport Commission gives prior approval. Once again I want to come back to this point that nowhere is this restricted. This applies to non-scheduled services anywhere. I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister would indicate whether that is so. It certainly seems to be the clear meaning of the Bill. He does not seem to respond. I wonder if he knows whether this is the position.

I will reply; do not get perturbed.

Sir, he is being most unhelpful, because this is a very important point that we have to clear up. It is something, in fact, that he should have mentioned when he introduced this Bill. He should have dealt with the scope of the application of the Bill. Not only does the proposed new section 2A apply to promoters—it is obviously aimed at promoters, that is travel agents, or air service companies who wish to advertise or promote cheap air travel—but it applies to anybody who makes known by any means that any other person is willing to undertake unscheduled air services. Ah, the Deputy Minister nods at that. Now, in the first place, I want to put it to him that this in fact prohibits any publicity of any nature to do with unscheduled air services anywhere in the world, unless a permit is first obtained from the National Transport Commission. I wonder if he would nod to that too. This seems to be perfectly clear to me.

It is all very well for the hon. member for Humansdorp to say that everything should be left to the National Transport Commission, that they are the wise people who will make all the wise decisions. I think we are entitled to know what sort of criteria the National Transport Commission in any event would want to apply in this vast new field. You see, Sir, we are not at all satisfied that the National Transport Commission really judges all applications before it as, say, an independent court would judge, or even perhaps an independent body with only the interests of our own national carrier at heart. One has to look at one or two recent examples. One example, of course, was the application that was made to the National Transport Commission to fly certain mining machinery to Zambia after the closure of the border between Rhodesia and Zambia. This application was turned down. As far as I know, the reason given was that there already was a freight service in existence. But that obviously was a highly inadequate reason; because, as we see now, South African goods are being taken to Botswana and flown from Lobatsi to Zambia in a special service undertaken by an airline from Alaska. It seems as though the reason given by the National Transport Commission, or what we believe to be the reason anyway, was rather specious. In other words, it seems, too, that there was in fact merit in the application that was originally filed and refused.

What this new section 2A does in effect is to allow the National Transport Commission to decide whether it should even be made known to the South African public that cheap, non-scheduled air services exist anywhere in the world. It can decide whether our South African public should even be allowed to know about it. The practical difficulties presented by this new provision seem to me to be insurmountable. One asks immediately: What about newspapers and periodicals that publish reports, or perhaps advertisements or articles, about cheap non-scheduled services? These are often mentioned in newspapers, perhaps by way of agency reports from elsewhere in the world. They might be written by specialist air correspondents. They might originate from anywhere or be written locally. Some of them, of course, are treated as straightforward items of news. Some are debated by the specialist, the air correspondent. And, of course, some are featured in foreign newspapers and magazines. To start with overseas or foreign publications, what will the position be if at the Central News Agency, should this Bill become law, an overseas journal carries an article or an advertisement about a cheap, unscheduled air service, and the CNA, who will then be the publishers, have not gone to the National Transport Commission to get a permit? The hon. the Deputy Minister laughs, but this is not so funny, especially when you consider that the person who publishes or who makes this known stands to pay a fine of R1 000 on first conviction, and R2 000 for subsequent convictions. It is not so funny then. It seems to me as though, unless one goes through all the rigmarole of getting a permit well in advance, one could find oneself in trouble, and I do not think one can expect the National Transport Commission to give immediate, on-the-spot replies to what probably would be dozens of applications by newspapers for permits.

No, you will get an acknowledgment after six months.

Unless they were to move with the speed of lightning, our public in South Africa would really be deprived of very valuable and essential news. They want to know whether there are cheap flights, say, between Paris and New York or, as the hon. member for Durban Point mentioned, between London and Venice. They want to know the prices. They want to know what they will have thrown in with that flight. Now, before any of this is published, or even written about by an air correspondent, must he get a permit, a licence?

No, of course not.

Somebody over there says “No”. Who is that?

I shall reply to you shortly.

Now we hear “No”. I hope that hon. gentleman from Bellville is going to deal specifically with the actual meaning of the new section 2A.

You have read it wrongly.

No, I have not read it wrongly; I suggest you read it again. It seems to me that unless a South African journalist were to go through the process of getting a permit, he would not be able to report on developments in the world of travel outside. If he did not get his permit, he too would face a fine of R1 000 for his first conviction. In effect, what this legislation does is to place unscheduled air services in more or less the same position as far as the Press of South Africa is concerned, as lotteries. In the case of lotteries, of course, there can be no publication at all. There is virtually a total prohibition on publication. In the case of this Bill provision is certainly made for application to publish details, but it means that one has to apply for a licence first, which I suggest creates an intolerable situation. If the hon. member for Bellville is entering this debate, perhaps he could tell us quite early on whether he sees in this amendment, read with the original Act, any provision for exemptions from this requirement. I should like him to be very specific about this. There is certainly provision for exemption, but as far as I can see, exemptions are not provided for in the case of anybody who wants, for example, to publish an article on an unscheduled air service.

Sir, I suggest that this Bill is far too wide in its application. I suggest that even hon. members on that side of the House should reject it and say to the hon. the Minister: “Take it away and see if you cannot come back next time with something rather better.”

Mr. Speaker, it is not perfectly clear to me whether the hon. members of the Opposition who have taken part in this debate are concerned about the fact that we can no longer avail ourselves now of the so-called chartered flights of unscheduled companies, because part of their argument was in fact that as a result of the implementation of clause 2 of the Bill, it would not be possible to enlist chartered flights by unscheduled companies in South Africa in the future. I must concede that it is my impression that it is precisely that kind of chartered flight by unscheduled companies—in other words, those who are not members of IATA or do not belong to the so-called contracting states—which we wish to restrict, because they are, if one may use this term, “fly-by-nights” in a certain sense of the word. It is this kind of flight which has often left travellers in the lurch in the past and which has left people at places from which they could only return with great difficulty. If hon. members are pleading for these unscheduled flights which, for example, operate from outside our borders to Europe and back, then I say to them that I cannot go along with them. They do have other criticism which I think are well-founded, but I shall deal with them later. What must be done—and they fully realize this—is that in terms of this legislation chartered flights must be arranged within a framework of the scheduled flights from South Africa. After all, it is common knowledge that while an ordinary aeroplane ticket costs one between R600 and R700, one can travel to Europe in a group in an ordinary S.A.A. chartered aircraft, and that a ticket will then, sometimes, cost one about R400. I see no reason why this particular legislation should restrict this kind of undertaking. All that has to happen is that, for example, the law society want to arrange such a flight, they must go to the NTC beforehand and request permission for arranging their flight. Or, if the wine farmers want to undertake such a journey, it simply means a letter to the NTC. The NTC considers it, and in my humble opinion the NTC will easily grant this permission to approved bodies to arrange the necessary chartered flights. To my mind there is therefore no problem as far as this is concerned. All that is being done here is that the NTC acts as a kind of sieve which can keep people who do not have any substance away from this kind of undertaking. If the hon. member has a group of honourable people from Natal, such as the garments workers’ group to which he referred, then I believe that there will be no problem in obtaining the necessary permission from the NTC for the purpose of his flight. Honourable people, people of substance, people who are worth something, will find it easy to obtain this permission, but the intention is in fact to keep away those people who are exploiting the public. I think hon. members must accept that in this respect a certain guarantee to the general public is being built into this legislation in a certain way. I agree with this principle, because it is after all a principle which is already contained in other legislation of our country. May I refer hon. members in this connection to the legislation concerned, namely the Motor Carrier Transportation Act, No. 39 of 1930. A similar principle is contained in section 9(5) of that Act. I shall quote it to hon. members—

Hon. members can therefore see that the principle which is introduced in this Act, is precisely the same principle as that which obtains in that Act, and therefore it is not foreign to our legislation in South Africa.

I now come to the hon. member for Kensington and his problem with the CNA, which supposedly has a book or magazine from overseas on its shelves, in which there is an advertisement of an overseas journey which does not originate here and which is undertaken by airlines which do not operate to South Africa. Sir, I do not think that the hon. member has a problem in this connection. He has misread the Act. If he looks at the Act, he will see that the proposed new section 2A provides the following—

1. (a) make known by any means that he or any person is willing to undertake the conveyance of any person in the performance of an air service …

That is the first point—

1. (b) sell … any seating accommodation for the conveyance of any person in the performance of an air service …

Such a notice in an overseas magazine does not offer seating tickets.

Read the full clause.

Very well, the rest of this paragraph reads as follows—

What I read into this is the active promotion of the sale of seating accommodation or the offer of a flight for which people can write in and which they can then undertake.

Read the English too.

We shall come to that later on. My interpretation of this is that it is not as wide as that; that the point here is the active sale of tickets and active promotion here in this country of the flight in question, and therefore that it does not include a general discussion or comments or anything of that kind. I cannot see that the CNA, which by chance has this magazine on its shelves, has anything to do with the active promotion of these flights. After all, they did not put the magazine there on purpose in order to promote this particular flight; it is only by chance that it was included in that magazine. I feel that hon. members are going too far in thinking that this kind of comment and this kind of general notice, which does not actively promote a specific flight locally, is also included here.

What does “make known by any means” mean?

The hon. member should read further—

He may not make it known that he is prepared to undertake the conveyance. The hon. member may well take another look at the Bill and then we can argue about it again later on.

However, I want to agree to some extent with the hon. member for Kensington about one matter, and that is that nowhere in the Act do we find any description or an exposition of the conditions subject to which the National Transport Commission will grant this approval for advertisements. At present that is entirely within discretion of the National Transport Commission. My feeling is that the general public, which is concerned with this matter, or people who wish to undertake such flights, or the travel agents who wish to advertise such flights, should at least find a certain amount of guidance somewhere. Therefore I want to make this appeal to the hon. the Minister, namely that when this legislation is implemented, he will give a certain guideline to the general public in the regulations which will be published in terms of this legislation, as to the circumstances which will guide the National Transport Commission in approving an application or advertisement in terms of this clause. I think that this is a very reasonable request, because if, for example, I want to form a new travel group among my colleagues here, I would at least like to know what the conditions are under which the National Transport Commission would give favourable consideration to my application. I think that the criticism expressed by the hon. member for Kensignton is possibly something at which one can look again. I should say that it could be rectified very well and easily by way of a regulation published simultaneously with the promulgation of the Act.

I also want to say that hon. members are correct in the sense that this Bill affects almost all of the existing travel agencies which are operating in the country at present. I am grateful to have heard from the hon. the Minister that it was not his intention that travel agencies should be affected in this way. But it is my interpretation of the Bill that after the commencement of the Act all of them will in fact have to obtain the necessary permission from the National Transport Commission for advertising their journeys in terms of this legislation. I therefore take it that the approval which will be granted to existing travel agencies will virtually be an automatic act. I take it that it will be easy for all existing groups that have already rendered service to the public in this regard and have been accepted in society to obtain their registration or approval in terms of this clause.

But may I point out further that if it were the hon. the Minister’s intention to restrict certain groups, so that they may not advertise journeys for which they have not been specifically licensed, then this legislation does not go far enough. If you read the clause concerned, Sir, you will see that in the second half this is stated: “unless he is the holder of a licence under this Act authorizing such conveyance or is the authorized agent of such a holder”. Now, the authorized agent of such a holder, once he is an authorized agent, or once he is the holder of a licence, is subject to no restriction on the kind of advertisement which he may place; and these people, in my humble opinion, may therefore still advertise this kind of unscheduled flight which starts outside our boundaries, in spite of the intention of this clause. It is my criticism that this clause possibly does not go far enough in this respect. I should be glad if the hon. Minister would have another look at that with his legal advisers.

May I just return for a moment to this question of automatic registration or the automatic approval which will have to be granted to existing travel agencies in terms of this Bill. May I point out that this Act will come into effect on a specific date and that the moment it comes into effect these travel agencies will be committing an offence if on the next day they should place an advertisement and promote a journey. One wants to assume that no prosecution will take place in such a case, but technically this could nevertheless be an offence. It is my feeling that there should be a kind of proviso in this legislation in terms of which these travel agencies will have a period of grace within which the necessary application may be submitted in order to request the general consent which must be given to them. I feel that this is necessary for the good order of matters in this connection.

Apart from this clause there is nothing further in this legislation which is contentious, and I feel that through polishing and reviewing this clause to a certain extent it will be possible to reach the goal which we want to reach, namely to restrict flights which encroach unnecessarily on the recognized flights and which unnecessarily create problems for our people, and also to restrict travel agencies which appear and disappear overnight.

In conclusion, however, may I point out another aspect which will be the result of this legislation. I refer to the fact that in future no travel agency may be formed in this country unless such a group or undertaking has first obtained the approval of the National Transport Commission. It is well-known how travel agencies are formed. They begin to work, they begin to sell tickets, but of course they are not allowed to take any commission before they are licensed by IATA. IATA does not license them before they have reached a certain annual turnover. That usually means that in order to establish such an undertaking, one must invest about R30 000. These are loses which accumulate over a period of two to four years before IATA grants the necessary authorization. I take it that once such an undertaking has obtained the approval of IATA, the National Transport Commission will also recognize it as a substantial travel agency. I think therefore that it will then obtain the necessary permission. Until that stage, however, the travel agency must operate without the protection of IATA, and it must therefore, before it can start its business or even before it can announce its invention to operate as a travel agency, it must first obtain the necessary permission from the National Transport Commission I should say that on the one hand this is a good thing, because it will restrict many of these quasi-travel agencies, these people who just want to exploit, but on the other hand it is still a violation of the freedom of an individual to carry on whatever business he pleases. I just mention this in conclusion.

Mr. Speaker, the more we deal with this legislation the more difficult it becomes to understand. The hon. member for Bellville delivered with a long plea and, as the English says, “created confusion worse confounded”. He first made a few remarks about what the hon. member for Kensington had to say and then he agreed with him. When he had finished agreeing with the hon. member, he turned to the hon. the Deputy Minister and suggested about 20 improvements to be effected in this Bill. [Interjections.] That is precisely what we are doing. There is no such thing as a licensed carrier who may carry if he does not have a travel agency which sells seats for him. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows this as well as I do. He cannot do so and therefore this legislation is aimed at the travel agencies themselves in the first place. The hon. member for Bellville said, however, that travel agencies would no longer be able to register in the future. Surely that is utter nonsense. Of course they will be able to register, subject to the condition that the seats they sell belong to a carrier who is licensed with the National Transport Commission. I am amazed at the hon. the Deputy Minister. What this is concerned with is largely travel agencies, which as a rule, when there are unscheduled charter flights, sell to touring groups or to touring parties. They cannot guarantee at that stage that the flight will be fully booked.

The hon. member for Humansdorp thinks that this legislation deals with the safety and security of the air passenger, and that is of course nonsence. No aircraft may leave the ground unless it has an airworthy certificate. When we still chartered Constellation and D.C. 4 aircraft to the world’s charter companies, it was a profitable thing to do, and those objections did not exist. Obviously those aircraft were, of course, all airworthy. All chartered aircraft which come here, from Luxembourg, from England or from Italy, are all airworthy aircraft. If an aircraft breaks down at a certain airport and cannot take its passengers any further, that is also something which applies to a scheduled air service. How often has it not happened in recent times that an aircraft has broken down at Nairobi or some such place? This has even happened to our own services. Then the passengers are stranded there under the most difficult circumstances. Whether it is a chartered aircraft or a scheduled aircraft, has nothing to do with the matter as such. Those aircraft which are chartered aircraft, must all have airworthy certificates before they may leave the ground. Therefore there is no argument with regard to the safety and the security of the passengers. This obviously has to do with travel agencies. Hon. members know that the hon. Deputy Minister who introduced the Bill and I were co-directors of a travel agency prior to his promotion. He knows that we sold groups tours and that often we could not execute them because we could not complete the group. Then, as an honourable agency, one had to refund the money. Even now one often sees advertisements for tours. Rapport advertised no fewer than four tours organized by agencies. Can the hon. the Minister tell us now whether they will all meet with success or not, and whether this is an honest operation or not, and whether it is an honest travel agency which uses them for its own ends, or not. He knows the situation from within as well as I do. He knows that the company to which I refer has a share in Trek aircraft which fly the world over on charter flights at lower tariffs than those of scheduled airlines.

I find it strange that this legislation can obviously not be applied to chartered aircraft which fly here from other countries and which, without any advertising—because after this legislation has been passed, no one will do this—will take the people on board here and fly them away from here. Then we have the situation that chartered flights by the dozens will be possible from other countries. After all it does not help to say that we shall refuse them landing rights, if we should perhaps want to go that far. After all you cannot refuse them landing rights because they will simply land in one of South Africa’s neighbouring States, and that will have the same effect. They will then, in other words, be in a position to advertise in the various countries from which they depart and they do it as much as they like. It will not be possible to advertise the flights of the chartered aircraft which must depart from this country if they are not licensed. It will be even less possible for the travel agencies to do this. I repeat that, after all, no chartered flights can operate without travel agencies. Then, surely, the travel agencies are the culprits in the first instance because they have to sell the tickets. In other words, this is aimed to a great extent at the travel agencies, for if the travel agencies are unable to advertise and give publicity to them, there will be no chartered flights. There can be no chartered flights and how will people then be aware of them? in other words, this measure is aimed primarily at the travel agencies. Travel agencies and companies which have not been licensed by the Transport Commission are not allowed to advertise their flights. If there is another company which is licensed and offers chartered flights from this country, it is allowed to advertise and there is nothing to stop it. The whole situation as it has now been defined there, remains a farce to us. I want to agree with the hon. member for Durban Point who said that the hon. the Minister must alter it by not giving the Transport Commission the sole say in the matter, for how does one know when a chartered flight and a company which offers it such a reliable firm that it may be licensed? Is it only certain reliable firms which can give a guarantee which are to be licensed? How must they be licensed? What standards, what criterions are there to indicate whether they should be licensed or not? There are chartered flights to all corners of the globe. The hon. member for Humansdorp has just indicated how many depart from this country. If one can travel to another country for half the price, of course one will do it. That applies particularly to young people and students. Often these are also used by groups, whether it is a group of wine farmers or horse farmers or what have you. They take chartered flights to all points of the compass. Recently a group of them went to the East on a chartered flight. If an agency charges R800 or R1 000 for a ticket its flight will not be fully booked, but if it is able to supply the same facilities and use the same reliable aircraft and only charge R550 or R600, people will gladly accept such an offer. The flight is organized by the South African agencies or the other agencies which charter aircraft from other companies, from the Lichtenburg group or wherever they are able to obtain an aircraft. We have made a thorough study of this Bill and I am sorry, but if it remains as it is, we cannot give it our approval. Then we shall have to oppose it. I think that the hon. the Minister will himself discover, in the course of this debate or perhaps at a later stage, that it would perhaps be better if he amended clause 2.

Mr. Speaker, I see that the Government speakers have dried up. Listening to the arguments raised by hon. members on the other side on this Bill, it has become quite evident to me that they have not read the Bill for otherwise they would not have used the arguments they did. First of all we heard from our friend, the hon. member for Humansdorp, and then from the hon. member for Bellville. Looking at measures like the Bill in front of us, we are confronted with the anomaly that the Department of Transport is trying to make regulations or laws to apply to the Railways Air Services. They are the ones who are looking for the passengers, not the Department of Transport. Arguments have been raised that the fact that in terms of the Motor Carrier Transportation Act transport certificates have to be used to protect the Railways, is a parallel to what is happening here. However, that is not the case. The position is that, as far as the certificates for the carrying of passengers or users on the roads are concerned, this is an internal matter. There again that has not proved, the best way either; it has not worked out as planned. Instead of protecting the Railways, we find it becoming a protection for the licensed users. So do not let us use that particular argument.

The Department of Transport, in trying to protect the Airways, is not helping anybody. We must remember that it is the right of the air traveller to select the best service to suit his pocket in view of the competition that exists today. I cannot understand why the South African Airways, who must have induced the Minister of Transport to come forward with this Bill, is frightened of competition. These Bills which we introduce such as the present one are becoming a bit of a joke because we are a very small country. What is the effect going to be on international airways? Our planes are flying all over the world. They are flying charter services all over the world. What is going to happen is that the international airways operators will say: “It is the South African Airways organization that will not give us any freedom as far as the charter business in South Africa is concerned.” They are going to want to know whether they are being victimized. We cannot localize this matter, it is an international matter. The hon. the Minister is not after local transport with this Bill; he is after the international passenger carrier. After all, they have complete control as far as internal passenger flights are concerned. There is no competition; South African Airways have a complete monopoly. Business is always built up on sound competition and I cannot understand why we are running away from it. All over the world new airlines are coming into being; more aircraft are being built; faster aircraft are being built. What is more, to make an airline pay you have to keep those aircraft in the air. The South African Airways will be faced with this competition of keeping aircraft in the air and will have to look for more business. How are they going to do it? Are they going to do it by means of this restrictive practice of making everybody apply for a licence if they wish to arrange a tour? As was pointed out quite rightly by the hon. member for Kensington, this particular clause goes very far, very much further than many people think. I do not know whether hon. members, for instance, the hon. member for Bellville, have really read it because it does apply as far as advertising is concerned. Quite often one picks up a magazine like Time in which one reads of tours organized to this country all over the place. They are not organized by scheduled airlines, but are collective tours organized by various types of airways all over the world to make them attractive to passengers.

Let us take the example of the present service which has been inaugurated to Hong Kong and the Far East. Originally it was organized by SATS flights, but today it has become a scheduled flight of South African Airways and BOAC. That is how these tours and these airlines are built up. The South African Airways should not be frightened of competition. It should be their ambition to keep their aircraft in the air. By passing a Bill containing a provision such as the proposed new section 2A we are going to restrict our airways. I am fairly certain it is going to have its effect overseas, because they will say: “Here is an airline that is restricting us.” It has happened before where we have had difficulties with landing rights, etc. As far as safety is concerned, the position has been outlined here. We know that today whether unscheduled or scheduled, or whether on charter or not, airlines and aircraft are in very good shape, otherwise they would not be allowed to take off or land at the airports, whether they be French, Belgian, German or any other lines. I therefore think that argument falls away. As far as protecting the public against themselves is concerned, I also think there should be some protection. I am fairly certain that most first-class agencies are licensed. What the Minister should do is to make sure not that the airlines or the scheduled flights are licensed, but that the agents are licensed. There are a lot of agents that are not licensed and they may be the fly-by-nights, the fellow that takes the money and disappears. The aircraft or the safety of the aircraft is not involved. I would like to support my colleagues on this side. We do not like clause 2 and I am going to prevail upon the hon. the Deputy Minister who has introduced this Bill, which is his first measure, to take it home tonight, to think about it and to amend or withdraw this particular clause.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point started by saying that I am using a sledge-hammer to kill a gnat. May I ask him: What do you use to make a shadow minister resign? Do you use a sledge-hammer or something similar? I have been blamed by hon. members on the other side of never having read the Bill, but it is obvious to me now that if that accusation were true, I am not the only one who did not read the Bill. The hon. member for Salt River, for example, is another one who did not read the Bill.

Let me indicate to members what sort of problems we are faced with, what we have in mind and against whom this is aimed. I just want to quote from a few newspaper clippings.

*The first is from Rapport of 19th November, 1972, from a report entitled “Complainers had to turn back at her shop” (translation)—

I deliberately do not mention the name of the hotel. A lady came to lodge a complaint with the Police. The report goes on to say (translation)—

Sir, to cut a long story short—the doors of this travel bureau were closed, there were quite a number of tickets inside the office, but this lady had simply disappeared and people had lost their money. Here is another example. The Star of 7th December, 1972, says—

Then The Star goes on to say—

I am going to read you some more examples, Sir, of letters received in connection with this matter. The Star of 7th December, 1972, says—

Here is another example of a person from Randburg who paid 747 Travel Consultants in Loveday Street R425 for a return flight to London via Nairobi. The agent was supposed to meet him at Nairobi. Sir, I can go on quoting numerous examples from the newspapers of travel agencies which take deposits, which go further and buy tickets, and which do a great deal of damage to people. Now I ask hon. members at once: Do they not think that I have a duty to that sector of the public that has been horribly misled in this way by means of advertisements, articles in the newspapers and all kinds of sweet-sounding publications, to put an end to this kind of practice?

But is this the way to do it?

We have a great problem in this respect that these people simply disappear. Sir, you just do not get hold of him again. If he does not disappear from the country, he disappears in such a way, in any case, that the police cannot trace him. What else are we to do than to prevent these people from selling tickets to the public, to prevent them from advertising that they are going to do something of the kind, and to restrict them completely and destroy them at the earliest possible opportunity? Sir, this is the primary object of the particular clause to which hon. members on the other side object.

Can you not merely demand a deposit from such people?

Or a licence fee of R30 000?

The hon. member for East London City says that he would make them pay a licence fee of R30 000. That is his affair. He is a rich man. We know his history. I am not going to argue with him about the amount. I am concerned with the principle here.

†Mr. Speaker, I must give the hon. member for Durban Point full points. He succeeds in getting emotional about all sorts of things, even this innocent little Bill of mine. Sir, I distinctly heard him say no less than four times: “We are denying to South Africans the privilege of low-cost flights.” The hon. member nods; he agrees. He said that over and over again. When he realized that he was not making the necessary impression upon the House, he went even further and, said, “We are even denying young people the privilege of cheap flights.” But, Sir, this has nothing whatever to do with the Bill. The Bill before the House at the moment will not in any way stop people from having cheap flights to London or anywhere else. Sir, what is the position? The hon. member mentioned quite a number of chartered flights being organized by, amongst others, the Law Society, for example. But nothing forbids those members or their travel agents from applying for the written authority of the commission. There is nothing whatever to prevent them from doing so, because they would charter aircraft from the South African Airways, and any South African Airways aircraft is already excluded from the provisions of those two subsections, as the hon. member will see if he reads this section further. Only the agent who advertises, or who takes a deposit in an improper way, will find himself in difficulties under this Bill.

No, the Chamber of Commerce would have to get authority from the National Transport Commission.

Sir, would there be any objection if the Chamber of Commerce were required to write a letter to the National Transport Commission?

How much red tape do you want?

They can simply write a letter and ask the NTC for permission to organize a flight for their members.

And if they say “No”?

Would that be too much trouble; would it be unreasonable to require the Chamber of Commerce or the Law Society to write a letter to the National Transport Commission to ask permission to advertise such a flight?

Would they get that permission?

Sir, I am sure that it is not unreasonable. I am sure that that is not prohibiting cheap flying; I am sure that that is not barring them from chartering an aircraft either from the South African Airways or any of its pool partners or any other licensed charter company to fly them anywhere abroad. The only objection of the hon. member in this instance is that it is too much trouble for an organization like the Chamber of Commerce to write a letter to the secretary of the National Transport Commission to ask for permission; because what is required, Sir? All that is required is written authority for advertising such a flight. I can see no objection whatsoever to that. Once the regulations are promulgated they will make it very clear to whoever is interested what conditions would have to be complied with in order to obtain this authority. Hon. members opposite have asked what sort of regulations we will have in this regard. Sir, I think the answer came very clearly from the hon. member for Bellville, who said that this law would only come into operation once the regulations have been published. This measure and the regulations will be published at the same time, and those regulations will leave nobody in any doubt whatsoever; it will make the position perfectly clear.

In the meantime, do you want a blank cheque? We do not know what these regulations are going to be.

Sir, the hon. member for Kensington accuses me of not having read the Bill. He says, amongst other things, that machinery that was supposed to be flown to Zambia was stopped by the NTC. In any case, I cannot see what that has to do with the Bill, but let me deal with the position since he raised this matter. We have certain pool partners undertaking a specific service from Johannesburg to Zambia. Would he have preferred to have taken all that traffic away from our existing pool partners and to have given it to another charter company—to do exactly what is happening now? Would he have approved of that sort of thing? If we took all this traffic away from our existing pool partner and gave it to a fly-by-night charter company coming from Alaska or Iceland, would he approve of that?

But could our pool partner handle it?

Of course they can handle it. What would prevent them from handling all the traffic? They have large aircraft flying from Johannesburg to Zambia; they have a regular service. What would prevent them from handling the traffic? They have never complained to us that they could not handle the traffic. They never even indicated that they could not do it. But I am not going to pursue the point any further. It is a very delicate matter and I do not think I should pursue it any further.

Hon. members made a great point about charter flights. Should we accept the principle, are they in favour of the principle, of using more and more charter flights to the detriment of S.A. Airways and our pool partners? I do not claim for a moment that this is the purpose of the Bill. Not at all. But are they in favour of the principle that more and more charter flights should be allowed from South Africa in competition with our pool partners and S.A. Airways?

It will not be in competition.

The hon. member for Durban Point says it will not be in competition. We have a fixed number of passengers flying abroad from South Africa and people flying from all over the world back to South Africa. It is a limited number. We must accept that because we are a comparatively small country.

Limited by cost?

For goodness sake, if the hon. member would allow me to continue my argument perhaps he will get a little more knowledge about the subject. Sir, we have a limited number of passengers flying from Johannesburg to abroad and from abroad back to South Africa. We have a number of pool partners and S.A. Airways undertaking that service. They are at the moment flying a certain number of passengers. Should we, unlimited, allow additional charter flights to operate on the same routes and to draw passengers from that same pool of passengers? They want to cloud the issue.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether all those flights to which he refers are at, say, R600 and therefore they exclude tens of thousands of potential customers who cannot afford that fare?

Order! That is not a question.

With all due respect to the Chair, Sir, that has nothing to do with the Bill at all, nor has it anything to do with my argument. I do not think I have to reply to that.

But you take away passengers.

Order!

The hon. member for Bellville and the hon. member for Humansdorp on my side of the House have replied to quite a number of these arguments. Therefore I shall not try to reply to those arguments again. I just want to emphasize one of the most important arguments advanced by the hon. member for Bellville. The objection was raised by the other side of the House that it would not be clear what kind of licences or what kind of authority should be requested, or what would be required. Mr. Speaker, it is stated very clearly elsewhere in the Bill that regulations will be made which will lay down the requirements to be met by the applicant for that authority. I think the hon. member for Bellville advanced a very important argument when he said that when these regulations are published, it will be crystal-clear what the requirements will be for this authority in terms of clause 2(a).

The hon. member for East London City walked into exactly the same trap as the other hon. members. He advanced exactly the same kind of argument here. He goes a little further and says that regulations will be made and that the criterion will have to be made clear, if I understand the hon. member correctly. The same argument of the hon. member for Bellville which I have just quoted, holds good for him as well. That objection, his problem, is answered by that argument of the hon. member for Bellville.

Now I just want to come to a few of the other points made by hon. members.

†The hon. member for Kensington made certain statements here which I find rather ridiculous, particularly one of them, that the Central News Agency will now be compelled to get the necessary authority if they have on their shelves any publication from overseas advertising some or other chartered flight from South Africa or in the neighbourhood of South Africa. But that is utter nonsense, is it not? How on earth can he make that deduction from the Bill before the House?

Read it!

Surely this Bill authorizes the National Transport Commission to deal with this matter in a way that is set out clearly enough. How can one possibly infer from that that the Central News Agency will now have to have an authority for every publication on its shelves? I think it is the biggest lot of nonsense I have ever heard in this House.

But that is what the clause says.

Where is the clause limited?

I want to come back to another argument.

Why do you not answer the last argument?

The hon. member for Salt River put forward the argument that the National Transport Commission is the Railways’ protection society. Did I understand him correctly? First of all, I should like to know what the Railways has to do with this in any case. We are not talking about the Railways at all; we are talking about the Airways. I cannot possibly see what the Railways has to do with this. He then made the point: Are they frightened of competition? May I pose another question to the hon. member for Salt River: Is he in favour of absolute unlimited competition? Must I understand from his point of view and his argument that he is in favour of unlimited competition to the national carrier?

Mr. Speaker, may I reply to the hon. the Deputy Minister? [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member need only nod his head. The argument came from hon. members on the other side that we should encourage competition to the national carrier and our full partners. The hon. member for Salt River went so far as to say that the NTC is nothing more than the Railways’ protection society. That is most unfair to the NTC. On what occasion and under what circumstances did they act in such a manner as to justify this accusation against them?

If you would sit down, I should like to tell you.

But we shall have a Committee Stage. Then we can debate this fully; we shall go into all the implications. He says the South African Airways have a complete monopoly. Did I understand him correctly?

I said “internally”.

But nothing is further from the truth than just that. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is not even true in so far as our internal flights are concerned. He should know that we have internal scheduled flights. We have quite a number of such flights. I am not even talking about unscheduled chartered flights in South Africa. We have a large number of scheduled flights inside South Africa doing a magnificent service to the country. Why did he forget that when he raised that argument? He admitted a minute ago that that was exactly what he meant. He should be aware of the fact that there are various scheduled flights doing a magnificent service also to the South African Airways by linking up with SAA at various points throughout the country. What about those? [Interjections.] Surely, there is sufficient competition inside the country too.

Order! That is a different matter altogether. The hon. the Deputy Minister must come back to the Bill now.

Mr. Speaker, I shall end off with the hon. member for Durban Point, the hon. member with whom I started. He has a political knack which I sometimes envy him. He has the ability to make a tremendous noise, sweeping up tremendous emotion about something which is quite innocent. He tried to tell this House that we were now going to do a great injustice to South African air travellers and that young people who cannot afford the fares, will not be allowed to fly. He used that argument over and over. I am sorry, but I cannot accept all that. He should know, after he has heard the arguments put forward by the other side of the House, that his arguments are quite invalid. I think we can thresh out the matter further much better in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to inquire of the hon. the Minister whether the travel agencies were consulted in connection with this legislation and whether it meets with their approval.

Some travel agents have in fact requested that legislation of this nature be introduced.

The new section 2A(1)(a) refers to the performance of an “air service”. Will the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us whether this air service is any air service anywhere in the world?

Order! That is a matter that can be dealt with in the Committee Stage.

Question put and the House divided.

During the division.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is an hon. member allowed to move from his seat after the counting has started?

Order! Did an hon. member move?

Yes.

The hon. member must resume his seat.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I ask whether the vote of the hon. member for Etosha may be counted against the proposal as he moved from his place after the counting had started?

Order! Where did the hon. member sit? [Interjections.] The arrangement is merely that a row of benches should be left open in order to facilitate the counting for the tellers. As I understand it, the hon. member for Etosha moved from his seat in order to leave a row open. A row must be left open so that the tellers may count without making mistakes.

Division:

AYES—90: Badenhorst, P. J.; Bondenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, R. F.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, G. P. van den Berg, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

NOES—37: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cadman, R. M.; Cillié, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Timoney, H. M.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, as is obvious from the long title, the proposed amendments are concerned exclusively with administrative and domestic matters. In short, the amendments refer to the following:

Clause 1:

In the definition of “member of the Force” in the English text, the words “noncommissioned officer” were omitted by mistake. This matter is now being rectified.

Clause 2:

A new section 3A is being inserted in order to legalize established administrative procedure. In terms of the present provision all discharges of commissioned officers, including those on account of ill-health, shall first be submitted to the State President. This results in an unnecessary burden being imposed on the State President and the intention is that discharge on account of medical unfitness, shall in future be approved by the Commissioner, with the right of appeal to the Minister. If the proposed amendment should be accepted, it would legalize an administrative procedure which has already been followed for many years.

Clause 3:

A new subsection is being inserted which authorizes the Commissioner of Police to publish or cause to be published any sketch or photograph of a person if it is necessary in the performance of any functions of the police as prescribed by law. The publication of photographs of prisoners, without prior permission of the Commissioner of Prisons, is prohibited at present. This procedure is time-consuming and restricts the investigations of the police unnecessarily. Although escapees from detention are still prisoners under the Prisons Act, they are in point of fact being sought by the police for a new offence, viz. escaping. Such escapees are usually dangerous criminals and are often armed. It is in the public interest that the public should be alerted immediately. An additional problem being experienced by the police, is the publication of photographs of people who are not necessarily criminals, but who are important witnesses or who are missing.

Clause 4:

In section 9 of the principal Act, the jurisdiction of commissioned officers who preside at disciplinary hearings, is being extended to the imposition of a maximum fine of R30 instead of R10. The latter amount was fixed as long ago as 1912, and with regard to the present salaries it is inadequate to maintain proper discipline.

Clause 5 contains only the short title.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister has correctly stated that this is an administrative Bill, but it introduces some interesting new dimensions, if I may say so, with regard to staff control. First of all, I want to deal with clause 2 of the Bill which inserts a new section 3A in the principal Act. In this new section it is stated that an inquiry will be undertaken to determine whether a member of the Force is unfit to remain in the Force on account of ill-health “or will probably become unfit to remain in the Force”. I want to emphasize the words “or will probably become unfit”. As I have said, this is introducing a new dimension which is quite interesting, because I think it will revolutionize medical science if we are now able to have an investigation or an inquiry which will be able to say whether a person may become unfit for his duties in the Force. I want to emphasize this point. I think this expression is highly undesirable, because when is this to be determined, at what stage? Is it soon, or in the foreseeable future, or eventually or inevitably, that a person will become unfit? One must remind oneself that all of us inevitably through the passage of time will become unfit to perform certain duties, whatever our occupations may be. I do believe it is undesirable to legislate in this way. Whilst we appreciate that these inquiries are necessary, I do want to appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to give consideration to accepting an amendment which we will move at a later stage, namely to delete this indefinite aspect that a person “will probably become unfit to remain in the Force”. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will give consideration to that, and I merely want to mention at this stage that we will move such an amendment in the Committee Stage.

There is another aspect on which I merely wish to comment, namely that with the experience we have that things are becoming more and more expensive, I see that now in the Police Force the wages of sin are to be increased to a maximum of 200% above the fine which is at present leviable. I believe it should be accepted in the light of the other aspects of the cost of living today. We support the Bill at the Second Reading and will move that amendment in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this side of the House I should like to support this Bill and mention a few other aspects to supplement the matters mentioned by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I want to emphasize that this Bill contributes to making the work of the police more streamlined. In regard to the dismissal of a commissioned officer for reasons of health, the discretion is now being given to the Commissioner of Police. He is the person who more than any other knows what is in the interests of this excellent organization in our country and who also knows what is in the interests of that police officer. The hon. member for Green Point has a problem in regard to the working of the new section 3A. I think this is a matter which, should it be necessary, could be discussed in the Committee Stage. As far as I am concerned, I have no problems in that connection, because the whole matter is within the discretion of the Commissioner and moreover, there is in addition a right of appeal to the Minister, which the police officer did not have previously.

It is also interesting and significant in this Bill, that the Commissioner may, not only in cases referred to in section 5 of the Police Act, but also in cases where a member of the Force acts in the performance of a duty determined by the Commissioner—in other words at his own discretion—and in the interests of South Africa, cause these photographs to be published. I also appreciate it that the jurisdiction of these so-called disciplinary courts has been somewhat extended. At a first glance it may perhaps appear that it is unfair that an officer should try an ordinary policeman serving at the same police station, but I can testify from experience that these examinations take place with the greatest circumspection, fairness and justice and that they are done very thoroughly. Apart from that, there is an automatic review by the Divisional Commissioner, as well as a right of appeal to the Commissioner of Police. Concerning these disciplinary courts I want to point out that it is known law that if a person commits perjury before any of these courts, he is guilty of a crime. But if he should act in such a manner as to be guilty of contempt of this court, he cannot be found guilty of contempt of court. He can in fact be found guilty of committing a deed which is detrimental to the good order and discipline of the Force, but not of contempt of court. I want to refer the hon. the Deputy Minister to the case of the State vs. Motlobo (1969/3, South African Law Reports). Perhaps it would be preferable if the hon. the Deputy Minister would take a look at this case and give this disciplinary court greater dignity and also place it in the position where, if a person should commit a deed which would under normal circumstances be regarded as contempt of court, that person would in that case as well be guilty of contempt of court. Sir, with these words I gladly give my support to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Brakpan for his interesting exposition on the position of contempt of court in regard to disciplinary hearings. We shall definitely give this matter our attention.

†With regard to the hon. member for Green Point’s query about the phrase in the clause reading “he is unfit or will probably become unfit to remain in the Force”, I wish to say this clearly contemplates the possibility of the contraction of an incurable disease which deteriorates in time. In cases like that, the Commissioner must have the right to be able in certain circumstances to declare him unfit and then to get him out of the Force. But of course, there is this right of appeal to the Minister at all times. So I feel that I would not be able to accept an amendment on the lines indicated by the hon. member.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members are aware, the Arms and Ammunition Act of 1937 was repealed in its entirety by Act No. 75 of 1969. The main reasons for the new Act were to ensure proper control of arms and licences by, inter alia, making the Commissioner of the South African Police, instead of all the magistrates’ offices all over the country, responsible for the issuing of licences. In this way the issuing of licences as well as particulars of arms are centralized. The new Act is being administered by the Department of Police, and in order to enable the said department to make the necessary preparations for take-over from the Department of Justice, this could only come into operation on 1st February, 1972. During the past year the police have consequently, as one could expect, experienced certain less important problems in connection with the practical application of the statutory provisions which in some cases have also inconvenienced the public, and dealers in arms and ammunition gunsmiths. In the Bill which is under consideration now, an attempt is made to solve these problems.

Because the consideration of applications for new licences is in the hands of one central body, it obviously takes a long time before the applicant can receive his licence. This period of waiting is increased as a result of the fact that particulars of fire-arm licences have to be entered in identity documents by the Department of the Interior in terms of regulations made under the Population Registration Act of 1950 (Act No. 30 of 1950).

Everything possible is being done to expedite this procedure, but in view of the foregoing it will never be possible to issue a licence immediately. As the procedures improve and the backlog is made up, this should eventually not take longer than approximately 10 days.

However, provision has to be made for really pressing and urgent cases. The only logical solution is a temporary authorization which may be issued free of charge and for which provision is now being made in clause 2. The amendment in clause 1 is also connected with this matter.

The period for which such a temporary authorization shall be valid, will be prescribed by regulation—clause 7(a). The proposed temporary authorization will to a considerable extent contribute to facilitating matters for dealers and especially for enthusiastic marksmen.

Hon. members are also aware of the fact that in order to bring about effective control, a relicensing of all arms must take place. In section 4(1) of the Act a period of 12 months is laid down during which this relicensing was to have taken place. Since relicensing was commenced on 1st February, 1972, this task has appeared to be a far greater one than was expected. Amongst other things, unavoidable delays occurred in the Population Registration Office. These problems were gradually ironed out, and up to 31st December, 1972, 239 244 licences had already been issued.

It is expected that it will take another six months, approximately, to complete the relicensing. Provision is now being made in clause 3 for extending the prescribed period to 18 months, the Minister having the power to extend it further should this appear to be necessary.

In clause 4 provision is being made for an identification number to be stamped or engraved on the fire-arm in question should the Commissioner require this to be done. This provision is necessary since it has come to light in the course of the relicensing of fire-arms that there are numerous fire-arms bearing the same number.

Clause 5 amends section 19 so as to authorize the issuing of a trading licence for dealing in ammunition only, i.e. not in fire-arms as well. This amendment is being effected at he request of numerous dealers, especially in the rural areas, who have no demand for fire-arms but in fact for ammunition.

Section 19(7) of the Act has become redundant and is being deleted because all dealers’ licences have already been issued in terms of the 1969 Act by now.

Clause 6 links up with clause 5 and extends the existing provisions in respect of a licence for dealing in ammunition only.

In clause 7 the Minister’s powers are extended so that he may make regulations in respect of—

1. (a) the form of the authorization referred to in clause 2, and the period of validity of such authorization;
2. (b) the payment by gunsmiths of an annual registration fee which will be determined by the Minister in consultation with the Minister of Finance. This amendment is being effected at the request of bona fide gunsmiths themselves, who are of the opinion that the payment of a registration fee will prevent amateurs and dabblers, who do not have sufficient knowledge, from posing as gunsmiths;
3. (c) the storage of arms and ammunition. Such a provision existed in the repealed Act. This was unfortunately omitted in the new Act, with the result that a condition concerning safe storage now has to be attached to every licence.

In clause 8, which contains the short title, it is provided that the proposed Amendment Act shall be deemed to have come into operation on 1st February, 1973. This is necessary with a view to extending the period for relicensing for which provision is now being made in clause 3.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister in justifying this measure has made it quite clear that there seems to have been a lack of foresight in the introduction of certain procedures for licensing fire-arms, either lack of foresight in determining the procedure or some breakdown in the procedure laid down for this particular purpose. The first circumstance which is causing a considerable amount of difficulty—and I have had matters drawn to my attention by hon. members of this House—is the fact that magistrates or senior police officers, since the passing of the Act, are unable to issue registration certificates to the various persons who call to have a fire-arm registered.

It is the magistrate.

The Deputy Minister has provided in clause 2 of this Bill that the commissioner may in his discretion issue certain licences. If this is to be effective it must be a power which must be extended or delegated to magistrates throughout the country to handle the situation, otherwise one wonders what is to happen to a man in Bedford or Cathcart or Tzaneen who wishes to have a fire-arm licensed. It is impossible to go to the central registry because that is cluttered up at the present time; so where is he to go to have his fire-arm licensed? I believe it is desirable and essential that these fire-arms should be licensed, although there is now an extension of the amnesty for another six months, but they should be registered or there should be some certificate showing that a person is entitled to have a fire-arm in his possession. I trust that in the provisions of this particular clause the intention is to see that these are made available and can be issued at least by magistrates throughout the country.

Then we come to the second provision in this clause and that is the extension of the amnesty. Sir, one is getting a little tired of this particular provision being extended. Let me remind you what the position is. Originally this Act, the registration of firearms at the central registry, was to have come into operation on 1st February. 1972, but it was found that it was quite impossible to undertake this work. It is being undertaken by the Department of Police in conjunction with the Department of the Interior. I have personally been to see the mass of work that has to be done in the central registry. I do not think it was foreseen what was involved in getting the firearms registry linked with identity registration in the central office in Pretoria. We have already had one amendment extending the amnesty period for registration to the end of January, 1973, and now we are to have by this Bill another extension of six months, which shows us how uncertain the hon. the Deputy Minister is as to whether that is going to be effective, because he has now given himself another way out by providing that the Minister may extend this period again. He can extend the period of 18 months if he so finds it necessary. I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that unless something is done in regard to the correlation of the work between his department and the Department of the Interior in this registry office, he will need that power to extend this period even further to get these registrations finalized. I believe there is something which is clogging up the works as far as this aspect of identity documents is concerned. While I am on this subject, which is part of the identity documents, these fire-arm licences, one wonders to what extent applications are going forward to the central registry to be processed and computerized, which in themselves are not complete and then have to go back to this Deputy Minister’s department—I should say from his one hand to his other hand, because he is Deputy Minister of both Police and the Interior—and to the Department of Police to be clarified before they go back again to the Department of the Interior to be computerized and to be placed on record. I think this is a matter which needs investigation. I myself, as I say, when visiting this department saw what seemed to be droves of members of the Police Force in all sections of the building attending to the issue of these fire-arm licences. One wonders whether it cannot be looked into to see that when these documents come in, for processing and the computerization starts in the Department of the Interior, at least the documents are correct and they can go through the computer and be put into the book of life.

Then the hon. the Minister has referred to other amendments which are contained in this Bill. I believe that these are desirable and as such we will support them. That is in regard to the division of the business of dealing in fire-arms and ammunition. In other words, it will now be possible for a merchant to deal in fire-arms or ammunition and not necessarily in both fire-arms and ammunition.

The next point I want to come to is how it was possible, what has happened, in regard to this extraordinary omission from the Act, as it now stands, in connection with the question of the storage of arms and ammunition by licensed dealers and registered gunsmiths. Have there been no means whatsoever of controlling this storage over all this period of time that the Act has been in operation? It seems to me a most extraordinary position if registered gunsmiths and licensed dealers have been able to do what they pleased in so far as the storing and caring of these weapons are concerned in the country.

But we shall support the Bill. We feel it is a necessary one. We do hope that we shall find that the hon. the Deputy Minister and the department have so cleared up the backlog in registration of fire-arms that it will not be necessary for the Minister to use these permissive powers to extend this amnesty period for any longer than the period which is now provided for in the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point sounds concerned about the delays that occur and about the procedure that has to be followed for obtaining a fire-arm licence. My experience has been that those people who have already obtained their fire-arms licences, experienced no practical problems in obtaining them. In regard to the delay and the extension of time that has now been granted, my argument is that it is more important that we make sure that this arms register will be absolutely correct in every respect rather than to complete it in a hurry. The hon. member has made no mention of any facts which he has in his possession and which indicates that the delay is really attributable to negligence on the part of any person or can in any way be ascribed to ineffective action taken by the departments concerned.

But the delay exists.

This is a tremendously comprehensive and important task which the State has undertaken, and instead of criticism I think they much rather deserve praise for it.

This Bill contains provisions in respect of several aspects which, basically, can be divided into two parts. The one part contains provisions aimed at improving the service already being rendered to the public. These are the provisions aimed at granting more time for obtaining licences, the temporary authorization which now enables a person to take possession of a fire-arm which he purchases, even before his licence is issued, and the question in regard to ammunition, which will result in ammunition becoming more readily available to members of the public because there will probably be more applications now for licences to deal in ammunition only.

The second part of the Bill involves obligations. I should like to say a few special words about the obligation involved in expecting, under specific circumstances, an owner of a fire-arm to have a serial number stamped or engraved on the firearm in question at the request of the Commissioner. In 1969, when the principal Act, which is now being amended, was before this House, the necessity for the control of arms was explained by, inter alia, the Minister. According to col. 4876 of Hansard, Vol. 26, he said the following—

These facts are still present and the effective control of arms is an absolute necessity. In the first place, the effective control of arms is aimed at ensuring that only qualified persons may acquire a fire-arm, but, in the second place, it is aimed at ensuring that, when such a qualified person has acquired a fire-arm, he will exercise proper possession and will, in his possession of that fire-arm, act in a responsible manner in the spirit of the Act, namely that a fire-arm carries with it a responsibility for its owner. This amendment, which provides that a separate serial number must be stamped or engraved on a fire-arm in cases where there may possibly be confusing numbers, underlines afresh the responsibility of the fire-arm owner, namely that he must exercise possession of his firearm in a responsible manner. This can also be of decisive importance in criminal investigations for enabling one to determine beyond any doubt who the owner of a particular fire-arm is, because by tracing the fire-arm back to its registered owner it is definitely possible to determine in many cases by whom the crime was committed. Even if it should turn out not to be the owner himself, it may be a person from his immediate circle who could have had access to that fire-arm. I want to express the hope that the introduction of this Bill and especially the provision relating to the responsibility of the fire-arm owner, namely to exercise possession of his fire-arm in a responsible manner, will impress hon. members of the public and make them realize that in handling such fire-arms they should exercise the greatest care to ensure that such fire-arms will only remain in the authorized possession of persons who are really qualified under the Act to possess such fire-arms.

Mr. Speaker, I merely rise to reply to the questions put by the hon. member for Green Point. He asked me whether it would not still be possible for the magistrates to issue licences under delegation. The idea is actually that the whole matter of the issuing of licences should go over to the police, and if there is any delegation it will be to the relevant district commandants, divisional commissioners, and so forth. The issuing of licences is being taken away from the Department of Justice and taken over by the police. This is being done in order that there may be a total and continuous check. Hon. members will recall that even under the old set-up it was necessary, before the magistrate issued a licence, to obtain first a report from the police. That is now being eliminated completely. There are just as many police offices as there are magistrates’ offices, and now the work is only done once.

Mr. Speaker, will the hon. the Deputy Minister immediately, once this Bill has been passed, grant the police offices or the police district offices the delegation of the issuing of interim licences?

The interim licences are being authorized at the moment.

They are not doing it.

They can be issued under the Act.

We shall give you one.

We shall give the hon. member one in any case. The other question was why there had been delay and why a request was now being made for a period of six months and, later, with the approval of the Minister, for a further extension of time. As the hon. member knows—he paid a personal visit to the place where the population register is being kept in Pretoria—large-scale organization is in progress at the moment. As far as the police are concerned, we did our best to enter as soon as possible the particulars relating to the registration of a fire-arm in the book of life of the person concerned, but on the whole the issuing of the book of life has been delayed. They were given additional work to do, such as the general registration of voters. The result was that the police just could not finish their task. This was just not possible because not enough books of life had been issued. We are tied down by that—we cannot go any faster than the rate at which the book of life is issued by the population registration office. That is why it is necessary at this stage to ask for an additional six months or, if that period is not sufficient, for the Minister to be able to extend this period further by way of exercising his discretion. It is, as the hon. member for Vereeniging said, absolutely essential that all the correct data should in fact be entered in this book.

If I understood the hon. member correctly, he also asked why it was necessary to make at this stage a regulation prescribing the conditions of storage. Am I correct?

Yes.

In other words, the hon. member was under the impression that there had been a lacuna in the previous Act in that regard. I want to tell the hon. member that the legal draftsmen were of the opinion that, because there were so many possibilities as regards dealers in arms and ammunition and their premises, it would be better to make the conditions of storage a condition of the licence; in other words, that, when the licence is issued, the storage condition which is now being introduced in the regulation, be entered on the licence. But we have found that it is actually more of a bother on the licence and that it is better, after all, to regulate this matter by regulations. That is why this amendment is now being introduced.

I think this will most probably satisfy the hon. member.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the Bill as introduced, deals with certain amendments to the Population Registration Act, 1950.

The Bill does not contain any contentious provisions. The Bill is designed to facilitate certain procedures in the administration of the Act. It deals with four aspects of an administrative nature. The first of these aspects deals with the interpretation of the word “Secretary”, that is the Secretary for the Interior, in the Population Registration Act and his powers of delegation there under. It is known that Bantu are taken on register in the Bantu Reference Bureau and that the register so compiled in fact forms part of the population register of the Republic. To enable the head of the Bantu Reference Bureau and his personnel to compile the register in respect of Bantu, it has been necessary for the Secretary of the Interior to delegate his powers under the Population Registration Act to the said head of the Bantu Reference Bureau. The law advisers pointed out that it is not sufficient to delegate the powers under the Population Registration Act to the head of the Bantu Reference Bureau only. It was pointed out that the head of the Bantu Reference Bureau does not himself include the name of every Bantu person in the register but that this work is carried out by his officials. There is doubt whether this procedure is in order because the officials concerned do not work “under the control and direction of the Secretary for the Interior”, to use the words of the Act, but under the direction of the head of the Bantu Reference Bureau.

By clause 1(b) of the Bill it is proposed to amend the definition of “Secretary” in section 1 of the Population Registration Act, to include any person employed by the State or the holder of a post in the public service acting under a delegation from or under the control or direction of any person, such as the head of the Bantu Reference Bureau, who in turn acts under a delegation from the Secretary for the Interior. Since the Bantu Reference Bureau commenced its activities on 2nd July, 1953, the proposed amendment of the expression “Secretary” in section 1 of the Act is made of retrospective effect from this date by clause 6(2) of the Bill.

The second aspect of the Bill deals with the notification of change of residence and postal address as provided for in section 10 of the Population Registration Act. Section 10(1) of the Act provides that every person whose name is included in the Population Register shall within 14 days after any permanent change has taken place in his ordinary place of residence or postal address, notify the Secretary for the Interior of that change of residential or postal address. Subsections (2) and (3) of section 10 of the Act provide at present that the person who consents to such residence being taken up on any premises over which he has control, shall after the expiry of 14 days after such residence has been taken up, ascertain whether the new resident on his premises has advised the Secretary for the Interior of his change of residential address. If it is found that the new resident did not notify the Secretary for the Interior of his change of residential address then the person in control of such premises must advise the Secretary for the Interior of the change in the address of the new resident within 45 days from the date on which the new resident took up residence in his new address. These provisions contained in section 10 of the Act are measures of control to ensure that the Secretary for the Interior will be notified of changes of address. Thus hotel proprietors and managers and lessors of premises must check up on their lodgers and lessees whether they have given notice of their change of address.

Representatives of the Association of Chambers of Commerce in South Africa and of the Institute of Estate Agents of South Africa submitted representations to the department in regard to these provisions. They feel that the provisions will be difficult to apply in practice, and that the members of their associations should not be called upon to stand in for defaulting citizens who do not carry out the obligations under the laws of the country. They, however, pointed out that their members would prefer to give notification of all persons taking up permanent residence in premises controlled by them. By the proposed amendment of section 10 (2) of the Act as embodied in clause 2 of the Bill, it is provided that persons in control of premises may as an alternative advise the Secretary for the Interior of the prescribed particulars of all new residents on their premises within 14 days from the date on which such new residents took up residence on such premises. On receipt of this information it will still be possible for the Secretary for the Interior to check whether the new residents concerned have given notice of their change of address, and if it is found that they have not done so, the Secretary for the Interior will be able to institute the necessary inquiries. This amendment has, therefore, in fact been asked for by the organizations mentioned and effective control of changes of address by persons included in the population register will still be maintained.

Because it would place an unnecessary burden on for instance a private home owner who allows his adult daughter, an aunt, or friend to live with him permanently, or an employer who allows his employees to live on his premises like so many farm employees do, the present provisions of section 2 are maintained, namely that new residents may be asked whether they have given notice of their change of address. If such a home owner or employer finds that the new residents on his premises have given notice of their change of address, they need do no more. It is only when they find that this has not been done that they have to inform the Secretary for the Interior of the names and addresses of the new residents. This they must do within 28 days from the date on which the new residents took up residence on their premises. He need also not complete any forms, but merely has to write a letter to the Secretary for the Interior, giving the required details about the new residents, i.e. names and identity numbers. Because it is mainly private home owners and employers, such as farmers, who will follow the existing procedure, it is no longer necessary to allow the persons in control of premises 45 days as presently provided for in section 10(3) of the Act, in which to check up whether their new residents have notified their change of address to the Secretary for the Interior. This period is consequently shortened to 28 days. This is also done to keep track of those persons who frequently, sometimes monthly, change their residential address.

Clause 5 of the Bill contains similar amending provisions as regards the notification of change of address by persons residing or taking up residence in South-West Africa. By this clause it is sought to amend section 7 of the Identity Documents in South-West Africa Act, 1970, which is identical with section 10 of the Population Registration Act, 1950, in a similar way as the said section 10. In passing, I wish to add that the provisions of section 10 of the Population Registration Act and section 7 of the Identity Documents in South-West Africa Act have been suspended by the State President for an undetermined period. This was done so as not to place unnecessary burdens on landlords in the interim period and while only a small percentage of the population is registered in the new population Register.

*Mr. Speaker, the third aspect to the Bill I wish to deal with, concerns the seizure of identity documents which people have no right to possess.

Section 15(2)(a) of the Population Registration Act, 1950, provides that whenever it comes to the notice of a Bantu Affairs Commissioner or the Secretary for the Interior that any person is in possession of an identity document, such as a reference book, on which such person’s race is reflected as “Bantu” and if he is also in possession of another identity document on which his race is reflected as, for example, a Cape Coloured person, the identity document on which the race of the person in question is not reflected as Bantu may be seized forthwith. The law advisers pointed out that such a person had to be in physical possession of both identity documents before the document on which his race is not reflected as Bantu may be seized. It happens that Bantu who possess reference books subsequently gain illegal possession of identity documents describing them as Cape Coloureds, for example. Either they are no longer in possession of their reference books because they were destroyed or they are hidden away, and consequently the identity documents they are not entitled to have in their possession cannot be seized. In view of this it is proposed in clause 3 that section 15(2)(a) of the Population Registration Act be amended in such a way that, when seizing an identity document in cases where two identity documents have been issued to a person, it will no longer be necessary for such a person to be in physical possession of both documents before the identity document to which he is not entitled may be seized.

The last aspect of the Bill I wish to deal with, concerns notification to a person of his classification as Bantu, and the measure of doubt which has arisen in that respect. Clause 4 proposes the insertion of a new subsection in section 19 of the Population Registration Act, 1950. This new subsection seeks to establish beyond all doubt that a person to whom a reference book has been issued be deemed to have been classified as a Bantu and also be deemed to have become aware of his classification on the date upon which such reference book was issued to him. It is not the practice when reference books are issued to inform the person concerned of his classification by means of a separate document, and the indication of his classification in his reference book is deemed to be sufficient proof of his classification as a Bantu and of his classification having been made known to him. Attention has been drawn to the fact that it is doubtful whether the ordinary Bantu male realizes that the issuing of a reference book to him serves to inform him of his classification as a Bantu in terms of the Population Registration Act. Some Bantu are now trying, on the basis of this doubt, to raise objections to their classification which has been in force for many years. This may result in the question of their classification now having to be reopened. In this respect I just want to explain that up to 31st January, 1972, the identity cards of Bantu on which their classification was indicated were inserted in their reference books. With effect from 1st February, 1972, identity cards were no longer inserted in the reference books of Bantu but their personal particulars were inserted in their reference books in the place of identity cards. This is essential in order to comply with the proviso contained in section 13 of the Population Registration Act, in terms of which no identity documents are issued to a person to whom a certificate of citizenship has been issued in terms of the Bantu Homeland Citizenship Act, 1970. The position is, therefore, that the Bantu were not given any indication of their classification as Bantu when their reference books were issued to them because their identity cards were inserted in their reference books until a short time ago while at present particulars of the Bantu ethnic groups to which they belong are inserted in their reference books. In order to eliminate the doubt which exists in this matter and which people are now trying to exploit, the proposed new subsection to be inserted in section 19 is drafted in such a way that a person to whom a reference book has been issued is regarded as having been classified as a member of the ethnic group indicated in his reference book and that he is regarded as having been informed of his classification at the date on which the reference book was issued to him. In terms of clause 6(2) the proposed new subsection 19(1D) is being made with retrospective effect to 22nd June, 1956, that is, with effect from the date in terms of which a prescribed period for the submission of objections to classifications was laid down.

Mr. Speaker, I said at the beginning of my speech that the Bill before this House was not a contentious one, and is intended to improve and facilitate the administration of the Population Registration Act. It is therefore hoped that both sides of this House will see their way clear to giving this Bill their support.

Sir, may I rise immediately to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior that he is not going to be as fortunate as the hon. the Deputy Minister of Police. We intend opposing this Bill. We do not intend to support what he calls a purely administrative Bill. Sir, this Bill goes far beyond a purely administrative measure. I propose to deal with the arguments of the hon. the Deputy Minister and with the various clauses of the Bill.

The first point that I want to raise with the hon. the Deputy Minister is in regard to the identity documents which will be issued to Bantu and which will be regarded as identity documents under this new definition for the purposes of this Act, i.e. the reference book which is to be issued to a Bantu under the Bantu Abolition of Passes and Co-ordination of Documents Act of 1952. The hon. the Deputy Minister has stated that the Bantu register is proceeding apace. It forms part of the register under the control of the Department of the Interior. Powers are being delegated to the official in charge of the Bantu register and he himself has authorized other persons to act under him in the issue of these Bantu identity documents. Sir, under the law as it now stands the Bantu identity documents may well be issued to a person who also receives an identity document as a Coloured person, but before any action can be taken under section 15 of the Act as it stands now, that Bantu person must be found to be in possession of both his Bantu reference book and in possession of identity documents as a Coloured person. What the hon. the Deputy Minister is doing in what he calls a purely administrative measure is to continue to give this delegated authority to the officer in charge of the Bantu register and to make the mere issue of the Bantu reference book a sufficient justification for the withdrawal of any Coloured reference book issued to that Bantu individual. Sir, first of all, how are these Bantu reference books issued? Are they issued only on application, or are they issued in some other manner by the Bantu Affairs Department on whatever information is contained and collated in the Bantu register? Because if a Bantu reference book is issued, it is issued either because application has been made by the Bantu concerned, the application has been accepted and this has gone to the Bantu register, or the Bantu reference book is issued because the information concerning that person is taken up in the register and he is in fact a Bantu.

Then, Sir, let us look at the other side of the coin. If that man is in possession of a Coloured identity card, then he has that Coloured identity document only because he has applied for it and he has been found by the Department of the Interior to be entitled to an identity document as a Coloured person. Sir, the amendment here is far-reaching if we read clause 1 with clause 3 of the Bill before us. What can happen now is this: The Bantu register is compared with the Interior register, and the Secretary for the Interior can take out from that register in his department any identity documents referring to a man who also has a Bantu reference book, whether that Bantu is in possession of his reference book or not. It can be done purely as an administrative act, and this man can be told, “This book must be returned because you have been issued with a Bantu reference book.” This is going to lead to an awful lot of confusion and a great deal of hardship as far as Bantu people are concerned. It seems to me that the provisions as they are now were sufficiently strict to prevent any person masquerading as a Bantu and a Coloured at the same time. But at least he had to be shown to be in possession of both these documents, and not that one had been administratively issued to him, and on that his other documents would be withdrawn.

Others who will speak on this matter will deal more fully with this, but that brings me to the second point, and that is this extraordinary amendment to the definition of “Secretary” with retrospective effect over 20 years to 1953. It is a most extraordinary thing in this House that we should find now that apparently the Department of Bantu Administration or somebody has been acting for 20 years without legal authority for acting in the way they have been acting. One wonders how many Bantu have had their Coloured books withdrawn because they were supposed to be in possession of Bantu books which were illegal and were not worth the paper they were written on, and how many people have been prosecuted for perhaps not returning, under various laws, their Bantu reference books, when in fact those Bantu reference books were not of any value and were not worth the paper they were written on, as I have said. Now we are asked to approve this amendment. Again I ask: Why this amendment? Why must it be extended in the form that it is, that it is now to be the Secretary for the Interior or any person acting under a delegation from or under the direction of the Secretary for the Interior? In other words, included here is a person to whom the Secretary has delegated authority, a person who acts under the Secretary or under the direction of the Secretary or the person to whom authority has been delegated, or another person who has delegated authority and he himself gives directions to other people down to the office boys; they are all now regarded as being part of the Secretary for the Interior for purposes of the Population Registration Act. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister has lost sight of a very important matter, and that is that the powers and the responsibilities of the Secretary for the Interior in terms of the Population Registration Act are in the hands of the Secretary for the Interior and his interpretation, and I know that he is bound by the laws of the country, but how he himself comes to a conclusion can have far-reaching effects on families and on generations to come. I refer particularly to section 5(4)(c) of the Act, that is to the power to correct mistakes. Sir, that is one aspect, but what about the initial stages of an initial classification? Now the Minister wishes us to give this power virtually to any clerk operating in that department to whom these documents are submitted, to decide on the classification of an individual. If the Minister has this problem in regard to the work that has been done in regard to the Bantu reference books over the last 20 years, it is quite a simple matter to regularize what has been done by a simple clause saying that those books are not deemed to be invalid, and then to provide for some delegation for the future. But why must the whole machinery of race classification be brought under this because something has gone wrong in regard to the authority in the Bantu reference book section?

What is the difference …

Mr. Speaker, let me try to explain what I am getting at. The hon. the Deputy Minister has made out a case to us that there is need to validate the actions done in connection with the Bantu register, and that is that persons have been acting as though they had authority to do what they did, under delegation, and that books have been issued which in fact have turned out to be of no legal value whatsoever because they were not signed by a properly authorized person. Now the hon. the Deputy Minister says that we must say that the action of any person acting under a delegation from the person to whom originally the power was delegated, or acting under the direction of that person, should be validated back to 1953. He has made out a case for the Bantu register, but this is an amendment to the Population Registration. Act.

The hon. the Minister need only read Act No. 30 of 1950 to see the vast number of important and heavy responsibilities which are placed upon the Secretary for the Interior. This amendment as it now is means that the Secretary himself need not apply his mind to the discharge of those responsibilities in exercising those powers. That is why I suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that this is something which has been done before in legislation, that one validates back to an original date such actions as have been done by persons who believed that they had authority to act. But this is continuing. This is a provision now that has to stand in the Population Registration Act for the future, not only for Bantu purposes, but for the classification of Whites, Coloureds and the other groups which we have defined in the definition of the identity document. I should like to stress the point I am trying to make. If one looks at section 5(4) of the principal Act one reads—

Let us assume that there are reclassifications which are desired by certain persons. They know that there is in the department this wide delegation of powers. Everybody in the Department of the Interior acts under the direction of the Secretary, every employee in the department is acting under the direction of the Secretary as head of the department. A junior clerk may say to a person who wishes to have a reclassification that he is in a position to bring about such a reclassification. The junior clerk then changes the classification from one classification to another. This reclassification cannot be disputed because it is an administrative act done by a person who is now to be authorized in terms of this Bill to do so. The hon. the Deputy Minister must agree with me that every official in the Department of the Interior works legally under the direction of the Secretary for the Interior. I believe that this is an unnecessary amendment and certainly one which we cannot support.

I now come to clause 2, which amends section 10 of the principal Act. This, again, is rather like doing some shadow-boxing at the moment, because section 10 has not yet come into force. It is still not to come into force until some time to be determined in the future. Before it comes into force, we have now decided to amend what will happen when it does come into force some time in the future. The hon. the Deputy Minister will recall that when section 10 originally came before Parliament, we on this side of the House opposed it strenuously. The section comprises three subsections. The first subsection is not being amended at this stage, but in order to get the full picture, I want to point out that it throws the onus upon the individual himself to notify the department of any change of address. This is provided by section 10(1). Subsections (2) and (3), as they originally came before Parliament, throw the burden onto the landlord, the flat-owner, etc. We opposed it and as the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, the Chambers of Commerce have opposed it. The Association of Estate Agents have opposed it. He then says that they have said that this will be all right because this is in a new form. They have no option; the hon. the Deputy Minister has pointed out that the provisions of the Act are there. What he is trying to do is to facilitate in some way an obligation which we believe is an intolerable obligation in so far as property owners and their lessors are concerned. This matter was argued and debated fully in this House on a previous occasion. We then made our position clear and we cannot depart from that position. The question of registration and of keeping the authorities informed of changes of address is an obligation on the individual citizen himself and not on somebody else who happens to let him a property or give him a roof over his head. The trouble is that there has never been an attempt to force citizens to discharge their obligations particularly in regard to the electoral laws in this country. That is why our voters’ rolls get into such a mess. Nobody realizes that Parliament is serious when it says that a man shall do this, shall notify a change of address. The hon. the Deputy Minister is smiling. He is frightened to prosecute somebody if he does not register because he might lose his vote. The position is, however, that Parliament has seriously enacted that an individual must notify the department of a change of his address. There are other similar provisions in our laws in regard to the Receiver of Revenue, the Post Office, etc., which place an obligation on individuals to do certain things. People do those things because they know that that is for their convenience. As far as this provision is concerned it is just ignored. I believe it is wrong to try to shift that responsibility from the individual citizen and pass it over to somebody else to discharge it on his behalf. I believe it is quite impractical. The hon. the Deputy Minister has referred to it and the amendment refers to it that he shall furnish the Secretary with prescribed particulars. What are these prescribed particulars? Have they been prescribed yet? One wants to know what the hon. the Deputy Minister has in mind. If it is that he must supply the identity number of the person concerned, you might as well not amend this Act but leave it as it is because he still has to go to the individual and say: “Please produce your identity document; I want to see what your number is.” I do not know what these prescribed particulars are. If, on the other hand, the hon. the Minister merely expects the landlord to send a list saying: “Mr. Tom Jones has come into flat 2 and Mr. Bill Smith has gone out,” it will be all right, but how does that help anybody, how is that going to help the Department of the Interior? How is it going to help the Department of the Interior to trace that particular individual? I believe this is wrong and we shall oppose the imposition of this obligation. I believe it is wrong to continue with an obligation of this sort. Fortunately, and thank goodness as I have said, this is a section of the principal Act which is in suspended animation at the moment. One does not know when it is going to be applied, but I trust that the hon. the Deputy Minister will in due course take the necessary steps to have these subsections (2) and (3) deleted from section 10 of the Act. The obligation of complying with what is required of the person as a citizen of a country is an important matter. I believe that if this population register is going to be effective, the individuals must know that they have an obligation to discharge themselves, as individuals, to notify a change of address to the central register and if they have to be chased and if it is subsequently found that they have not done so, that they will be up for some penalty or other. I believe it must be done, otherwise we can scrap this register entirely right from the commencement up to the end and forget about it. All the electoral rolls for future elections in South Africa are to be based on this register. Hon. members are aware of it that the department is now able through this register, through this expansive and elaborate equipment, to be able to provide virtually at the press of a button a great deal of information on persons in various electoral divisions. All these millions of rand will have been spent for nothing unless that register is kept up to date. One only has to look again at what is happening when information comes into that office at the present time, information which is incomplete, to realize how useless the information can be that comes from the source other than the individual himself. At the present moment if an application comes in for an identity document there may be one or two omissions from that form, but it takes weeks and months to trace up that form from the individual himself. How much more is going to be involved in trying to collate a return from a landlord with the record in the register itself? One is aware of the difficulties involved in obtaining full details. A lot of people will say: Why must I give you my name? My father or my husband has signed the lease; we are the tenants; so what has it got to do with you whether the lady living with me is my wife or my girl-friend? What is then to happen? A landlord has to approach Mr. X, the tenant of the flat, and say: “Could I have the full names of your wife?” The tenant looks a little uncomfortable and replies: “I am not prepared to give you the full names of the lady who lives with me in this flat, nor am I prepared to say whether she is my wife, my cousin, my sister or any other relation of mine.” This then becomes absolutely worthless.

Look at what happens with the voters’ roll.

I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that I do think that he should realize that this is trying at any time. Let me put it this way: I hope that he will keep subsections (2) and (3), whether it is as it is now, or whether it is amended, in suspended animation permanently and will not try to apply them, because they will not work.

There are aspects I want to mention with regard to the application of the provisions of this Bill to South-West Africa. Again, as the main Population Registration Act does not apply to South-West Africa, it is really extraordinary that we must sit here and legislate in respect of matters which are ancillary to the existence of a register. As hon. members are aware, our population registration provisions, the definitions, and so on, which apply in the Republic do not apply in South-West Africa. I do not know why we are being asked to look at these provisions in respect of the pass laws as applying to South-West Africa, while the Act itself does not apply to South-West Africa. After what I have said, I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister will understand why I have said at the commencement that we are not prepared to support this measure but will oppose the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to limit myself to a discussion of the provisions of clause 2 and the similar clause which wants to apply it to South-West Africa. In passing I would like to mention that the hon. member for Green Point is really unnecessarily anxious, oppressed and afraid. Apparently he is looking for all kinds of sinister intentions behind the introduction of this Bill. Firstly, he was afraid as far as the question of delegation is concerned. He maintained that this is such a very drastic provision, but the Act, as it stands, already covers all instances of delegation to officials who work in the Department of the Interior. This delegation, which is now being introduced, does not refer, therefore, to officials who have already been engaged in the implementation of the Population Registration Act. As the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated, it only refers to the one branch, i.e. those who have not worked in the Department of the Interior. Secondly, the hon. member is worried about the presumption created in respect of the holder of a reference book, but that is still only a presumption that is being created. It can be refuted. It is also a completely valid presumption which may be created to the effect that if a person is supplied with a reference book, he will know from its contents he is now classified as a member of the race group mentioned in that reference book. It only places the onus on him to prove that this is not so.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to confine myself in particular to the remarks which the hon. member made regarding clause 2 in the Bill, namely the question of notice of change of address by the owner, too, of the dwelling in which someone takes up residence, over and above the notice which the person himself who has changed his address is bound to give. To start with I want to say that this provision does not differ materially from the provision which it seeks to amend. The principle still remains the same, namely that a home-owner has performed his duty if he determines from the person, who has taken up residence permanently, that he himself has given notice of his change of address. That was so under the section which is now to be amended, and the amendment which is now being recommended here does not change that principle. All that the home-owner need ask the dutiful newcomer to his house is “Have you given notice?” and if he gets the answer “Yes”, his duty has been done and he need do nothing further. If he were to get a non-dutiful newcomer in his house this clause places the onus on him to give notice. I wish to ask the opposite of what the hon. member for Green Point asked, i.e. whether this clause, as it stands here—and I ask this with the utmost respect because the hon. the Deputy Minister said he regards this Bill as non-contentious—is not going to have as little force with regard to action against home-owners as the old section. But the problem is still the same, i.e. that the home-owner need only ask and accept the answer he then receives. If, after six months, an inquiry is made he is under a tremendous onus of proof to prove whether he met his obligations under the Act. I want to ask for the consideration of the hon. the Deputy Minister, whether he does not want to give attention to the possibility of removing all doubt as far as the provision is concerned by in fact placing an obligation on the home-owner, besides the obligation which already rests on the person himself who has moved, to give notice anyway to the effect that the person has moved in with him and now resides there permanently.

In one breath the hon. member for Green Point underlined the importance of this population register and referred to the fact that this population register would ultimately be relied upon with regard to elections. But on the other hand he does not want an effective measure that ensures that the population register will be as near to being perfectly correct as possible. It is not such a new principle to place an obligation upon someone to give notice to the State of something that happens to someone else. We have that same principle in our hire-purchase legislation, i.e. that someone must give notice to the hire-purchase seller if someone moves in with him if he wishes to escape from certain provisions of the Act. It is a contradiction in terminis of the hon. member for Green Point to underline the tremendous importance of this population register in one breath, and in the following breath to say that the home-owner cannot accept this minor obligation. It is no problem for the big letting agents to institute a simple procedure to provide that when the agreement of tenancy is signed, a notice should also be signed simultaneously by the new tenant. That notice can then simply be posted by the letting agent of big estate agencies and the task of the home-owner and the person taking up residence is completed because it has been done for him. It is a minor administrative task which our estate agents and attorneys’ offices can take upon themselves to make their contribution.

The population register is also of great importance for other reasons. It is extremely important in respect of the question of arms, which we dealt with here a moment ago. It is important for the tracing of the next of kin of someone who has perhaps died in a car accident and who only has his identity document with him. If he had not given notice of his change of address, we would have struggled to trace him. I can go further and quote reams of examples why it is of vital importance for the Republic of South Africa, if we are to take well-ordered action, plan properly and take effective State action, that we have such a population register. And the hon. member endorses this. But now the hon. member wants to have a minor measure, which we are requesting, removed completely from the Statute Book. No, Sir, I very respectfully want to ask that this measure be made more effective, either by simply placing an obligation on the home-owner as well and forgetting about the question of optional inquiry, or alternatively by further qualifying the optional inquiry, i.e. that the home-owner, after he has in fact made an inquiry, as the section reads now, can go further and demand written proof from the new tenant to the effect that he has told him he has in fact reported. If he has to put pen to paper to say he has done something he has not in fact done, the newcomer will not easily tell a lie.

I think the hon. member for Green Point is unnecessarily concerned by the obligation on home-owners because it is not such a heavy obligation. With proper organization it can be converted into a service to the country, a service I am sure all home-owners will be willing to render.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vereeniging objects to our seeing what he calls, “sinister intentions” behind this Bill. We do not see any sinister intentions; we see total chaos and impracticability in the application of the proposals which are included in clause 2. Hon. members get excited when I say “total chaos”. I do not know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister was Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde, but in the last Bill before us he asked and obtained from the House, permission to postpone a measure because the paperwork could not be handled by his department. Now Mr. Hyde comes along, ten minutes later, and says: “Now I want to add to the records a few million bits of paper which will come pouring in because now he must have a paper from all residents or, if he does not get it from them, from the owner or landlord. At the moment he cannot handle applications from only those who are looking for weapon licences. He has appealed to the public—and the Government has appealed to them not to apply for the book of life. He admits that it is impossible to handle the volume of work. And I am not blaming the department. My information is that the volume of work that has come in and the mistakes made by applicants in the applications make it a physical impossibility to handle it all. Now what is going to happen, I ask, to the bit of paper that comes in from the landlord of the tree house in the Caprivi Zipfel, saying that somebody has moved from this tree-top to that tree-top, when it reaches the department? But let us take a block of flats in Cape Town. Somebody moves from one block to another. Sir, the department has not yet dealt with that person’s application for the book of life. It now gets a notification that he has moved from block So-and-so to block So-and-so. But it has nothing to which to tie that. The department now has to find out first whether it has already computerized the existence of that person in the book of life; because unless that person’s name has gone into the computer, you cannot change what is not there. You cannot change an address if that address is not already on the tape. And then hon. members laugh when I say there will be total chaos. Of course there will be chaos if you are feeding in information to correct a register which does not yet exist. Therefore we are not seeing spooks. We are not seeing sinister motives. We see that this measure which we are being asked to support, is impractical. It cannot be applied until the basic machinery is ready to receive information.

Then we come to our objection as to who is being asked to supply the information.