Mr. Speaker, there is really very little for me to reply to. The two Opposition speakers merely repeated what had been said in previous stages of this Bill. Of course, there was the old complaint that I had not replied to all the points raised by the Opposition. Sir, I usually reply very courteously and very comprehensively to all matters raised that are worth replying to. Obviously, when stupid and nonsensical remarks are made I cannot waste my time replying to them. The hon. member for Durban Point said that I shrugged off their proposals. Of course, Mr. Speaker, if Ido not accept their proposals, they say I shrug them off. As a matter of fact, I replied extensively to those proposals contained in their amendment. I dealt extensively with the reasons why I could not accept their proposal for the institution of a pensionable allowance. I agreed with them that it is absolutely necessary to replenish the Rates Equalization Fund.

You did not deal with the principle of wages keeping up with the cost of living.

No, there is no principle involved. It is a question of introducing a pensionable cost-of-living allowance which will be adjusted periodically; that was the suggestion of the hon. members.

With regard to the Rates Equalization Fund I agreed with hon. members that it is necessary to replenish that fund, and I said that it could only be done out of surpluses. One hon. member spoke about planning. To that I replied that it was no use allocating a certain amount from revenue to be paid into the Rates Equalization Fund, because if, as a result of that, I have a deficit at the end of the year, I must exhaust the fund again.

I dealt with the other matters that were raised very extensively including the subsidization of non-economic rates. So, instead of shrugging off hon. members’ proposals, I gave my reasons and my arguments as to why I could not accept those suggestions. I think my attitude must have been clear. As a matter of fact, I repeated some of my arguments in the Committee Stage, and then the same accusation was made that I did not reply to all their points. I am certainly not going to repeat them at this stage. If hon. members want to know what I said, they can read Hansard.

The hon. member for Durban Point said that 30% of the railway servants do not have the benefit of housing. That is so; approximately 30% of the White servants do not have the benefit of housing, either under the House Ownership Scheme or departmental housing. But, Sir, the Railways are under no obligation to provide every railwayman with a house. There are local authorities, and there is the Department of Community Development who also have a duty in that regard. I do, however, provide as many houses as I possibly can, with the limited funds at my disposal. As a matter of fact, this year I am allocating almost £9 million for housing under the House Ownership Scheme and in respect of departmental housing.

Where do you get the “pounds” from?

I am sorry; I meant R9 million. I think that I really am a model employer in that regard. I do not think there are many other employers with staff complement as large as the one I have on the Railways who come near to the South African Railways in regard to the provision of housing for their staff.

My point was that that 30% needs it most, and not the 70% who do get it.

No; you find that most of the unskilled workers, the railworkers, live in departmental houses, and they pay a very low rental. It is mainly the lower paid workers who have the benefit of departmental housing, and even the rail-workers have the right to participate in the House Ownership Scheme. There is nothing to prevent them from doing so. As a matter of fact, I am even introducing a scheme now for Coloured workers, as the hon. member heard in my Budget speech. As I have said, I allocate as much as I can with the limited funds at my disposal.

Then the hon. member spoke about the excessive overtime. He wanted to know whether I had instructed the Management to conduct an investigation into excessive overtime. My reply is “No”; I gave no such instruction. What did happen was that a study was made of the effects of overtime on drivers and their families in Germiston during 1971-’72. This was carried out by officers of the department’s vocational section, with the approval of the Staff Association concerned. This study was conducted for purely departmental purposes and the findings are confidential.

The hon. member complained about the points system for allocating housing.

Are you not prepared to give us any more information about that study?

No, I am not prepared to give any more information in regard to that study.

So we are right !

No, you are all wrong.

Well, then tell us. If you will not tell us, you must be wrong.

I do not know what the hon. member is worried about. It is quite true that research was undertaken on that question. That is the only respect in which the hon. member is correct. I did not, however, give instructions.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister why such an inquiry was launched if there was not concern about the effects of overtime on the personnel?

Mr. Speaker, of course there is concern when excessive overtime is worked. I have always admitted that. I do not like my men to work excessive overtime. I have worked 15 and 16 hours a day in my time and I do not like them to do that if it is at all possible. We want to know what the effects are, especially on their families. We want to know what the psychological effects are when they work these long hours of overtime, and that was the purpose of this research.

And you won’t tell us?

No, it has nothing to do with the hon. member.

You make us work overtime, too.

I am afraid we won’t even be able to sit our normal hours in this House during the next few days.

The hon. member was dissatisfied about the points system used for the allocation of housing. This is done in collaboration with the staff. This is the only way which they regard as fair for the allocation of houses. Some of them may not agree with that, but if they do not agree, then they must complain to their own representatives on the housing boards.

That was not my complaint. My complaint was that the longer you wait the lower you get on the list.

The hon. member must complain to the staff concerned because their representatives serve on these housing committees.

The hon. member spoke about disciplinary procedure. He must remember that there are always two sides to every case, and obviously when a man complains to a member of Parliament, he puts his side of the case in the best light he possibly can. But there are two sides to the case. The hon. member can never form a fair judgment unless he has heard the other side, too. The railwaymen have an appeal procedure that no other civil servant has. They have the right to appeal to the General Manager and the Minister and the Railway Board, but they also have the right to appeal to the disciplinary appeal board on which they are represented. Is the hon. member suggesting that the railwaymen have no faith and no confidence in the disciplinary appeal board on which they themselves are represented?

The lower grades do not.

Have they no faith in their own board on which they are represented?

That is right.

They are even allowed to have a railwayman there to represent them at the hearing.

You just ask them.

I have asked them. Mr. Speaker, I come in contact with all the staff associations, and when they have complaints they come to me. Even the lower-paid workers have a staff association with whom I periodically have discussions.

And what do they tell you?

They have not complained at all. They know that this is the only possible way, the only fair way. There is no doubt about it. They go through these different channels; they appeal to the General Manager, then they appeal to the Railway Board and the Minister, and all these cases are decided on their merits. After all, we do not want to be unjust to these people deliberately. If they have a case, they usually get the benefit of the doubt. The fact that so few appeals are upheld shows how right the disciplinary officers are in finding them guilty and meting out punishment. That is why their appeals are not upheld. I wonder if the hon. member has ever made inquiries to find out how many appeals are dismissed by the courts of law. The hon. member will find that almost as many are dismissed by the courts as are dismissed in the railway service under this disciplinary procedure. In any case, Sir, I must say that disciplinary procedure is a matter for the staff and not for United Party politicians.

The hon. member for Salt River said that I had no interest in the Western Cape. He said that I must consider the Western Cape when I establish big works. But, Sir, I do; I have always considered the Western Cape. As a matter of fact, there is an extensive programme at the present time to enlarge the Cape Town docks, a programme costing millions of rands. That is in the interests of Cape Town. The hon. member can rest assured that the Western Cape is very close to my heart and that I have always considered its interests.

I hope so.

Then I come lastly to the hon. member for Simonstown, who spoke about the jarring and jolting of trains. I have now been informed by the Management that to a large extent this is due to the fact that the second motor coach is not well synchronized with the driving motor coach. I believe that 25% of these coaches have already been rectified and that the synchronization has taken place. I have also been informed that once that has been done, the jolting and jarring will be eliminated completely.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

I move—

Agreed to.

Message, as follows, transmitted to the Senate:

The House of Assembly, having considered the versional correction notified by the Honourable the Senate, namely:

has agreed to the same and now desires the concurrence therein of the Honourable the Senate.

House of Assembly, 19th March, 1973.

Sir, during the Second Reading debate I raised the question of the last bird which is named in the definition of “sea bird”, namely a sheath-bill of the Chionidae family. You will find, Sir, that it is exactly the same in the Afrikaans text. I indicated then that I had never heard of this bird and that no reference was made to it either in Roberts’ Birds in South Africa, which is the authority for amateur ornithologists or amateur birdwatchers in this country. It appears that in the second edition of Roberts, as opposed to the latest edition, he refers to a Marion sheathbill. He refers there to Jack Vincent’s A Check List of Birds in South Africa, in which reference is made to a Chionardus Marionensis. It now appears on subsequent investigation that this sheathbill is found in the Marion Islands only. The hon. the Deputy Minister indicated that the definition of “sea bird” included a Sheathbill because such a bird was mentioned in the earlier Cape legislation. Well, Sir, it is not found in the Republic at all; it is found in three different species on the Marion Islands, or so it is said. It is a bird which apparently neither flies nor swims. Perhaps it did exist here, but it no longer exists here now. However, it does exist on the Marion Islands, and because the Marion Islands are part of South Africa, it seems that this definition should remain as it is, although not for the reasons which the hon. the Deputy Minister gave at the Second Reading.

Mr. Chairman, I said that I would explain the position in the Committee Stage because I did not have the information at the time. The hon. member is perfectly correct. This is a species that is found on Marion Island. This Bill covers that island as well and that is the reason for the inclusion of the sheathbill in this definition.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, clause 2 lays down that the Minister shall exercise control over seals as well as cause seals to be captured or killed. I wonder how many hon. members of this House know what havoc is caused to the fishing industry by seals. I wonder how many of them know what a wasteful eater the seal is. I went into this question and I was told by fishing experts that a seal can only just exist on 5 lbs. of fish per day; that is evidently the breadline diet for seals.

The poverty datum line.

I believe that on an average they consume 15 lbs. of fish per day. It has also been found that because of the wasteful way in which they eat, a very large proportion of the fish they catch goes to waste. I believe that a seal usually takes a couple of bites out of the soft under-belly of a fish and that the rest of the fish simply goes to waste. People who know tell me that for every 15 lbs. of fish eaten by seals, they waste about 25 lbs.; in other words, they kill 40 lbs. of fish per day to satisfy their appetites.

The Minister told us the other day that it was estimated that there are 800 000 seals around our coasts. I have made a little calculation and have found that 800 000 seals will consume 32 million pounds of fish, or 16 000 tons a day. Multiply that by 365 days and we come to 5 840 000 tons of fish a year consumed by seals. So you can imagine what one can do with a quota for that amount of fish-meal. The point I am trying to make is this. Is the Department sure that 800 000 seals around our coasts are not too many? Are they sure that they are not causing too much damage to the fishing industry? Those of us who do go out fishing know that, like human beings, these seals hang around the fishing boats where they can get their food the easiest way, and as soon as you get a fish on the line they come along and snatch it away. Many of them are of course killed by the fishermen. I was just wondering whether, if this figure the hon. the Minister gave us is correct, his department is satisfied that there are not too many seals around our coasts, and if so, is it the intention to reduce the numbers, and by how many?

I want to say at once that the information the hon. member for North Rand has just given to this House, was, in all sincerity, given much more effectively and scientifically to this House by the hon. member for Omaruru, an authority in this field. In fact, the figures just quoted by the hon. member were given to us by the hon. member for Omaruru in his Second Reading speech. At that stage I indicated that approximately 70 000 young seals are killed every year for their pelts. I further indicated that approximately 5 000 bulls are also killed every year. I further indicated that the natural mortality of young cubs is also about 70 000 per year. I further indicated that regarding this particular measure there are two considerations and aims which must be reconciled with each other. The first is the conservation aim and the second is the needs of man, because of the fact that in his attempts to find food he has had to move from the land to the sea to find the food supplies which are present in marine life. I tried to indicate that regarding the conservation aim, which has to be reconciled with the economic considerations, i.e. food considerations, we are trying on a scientific basis not to upset the balance of nature or the balance of marine life. In the past man’s exploitation of nature, the use of nature to benefit man, was to a great extent dependent on instinct or intuition, but now we try to serve the conservation and economical aims in a much more scientific manner. I want to say at once that as far as the hon. member’s standpoint is concerned, we shall, as regards to the numbers to be destroyed, perform this function from time to time on a scientific basis, having due regard to the economic consideration for which he pleaded.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, we welcome the amendment which the hon. the Deputy Minister has just moved. We shall support it. At the same time I should like to take the opportunity of thanking the hon. the Deputy Minister for his kind references last week to our colleague, the hon. member for South Coast.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This is a rather short but very necessary measure under the present changed conditions. I shall deal with the different clauses very shortly.

Clause 1: Section 145 of the Defence Act makes the provisions of the War Pensions Acts applicable to all members of the South African Defence Force and the Reserve, except members of the Permanent Force, in regard to death or disablement caused by military service or training. In peace time a member of the Permanent Force is only entitled to the benefits provided for by the Government Service Pensions Act and/or the Workmen’s Compensation Act, because for the purposes of the Defence Act he is an employee of the Defence Force. However, should such a member render service in defence of the Republic, the War Pensions Act will be applicable to him. The traditional definition of war as a conflict between the armed forces of nations is no longer operative when operations have to be mounted against terrorists, because they are dealt with as individuals. The dangers to and the implications for our armed forces, however, remain the same. Although the War Pensions Act will not necessarily be more beneficial in all respects for those concerned, it is more flexible and furthermore it is no more than fair and equitable that all members of the South African Defence Force who are disabled or killed should be treated in exactly the same way. To achieve this object, the definition of “service in defence of the Republic” is amplified to include combating of terrorism by specific members of the Defence Force. Only designated members will be affected.

Clause 2: Clause 2 deals with selection boards. At present only the Minister is authorized to appoint selection boards to assist in the selection of national servicemen. When the system was launched in 1968, it was necessary that the Minister handle this matter personally, but with the experience since gained by senior members of the South African Defence Force, this necessity no longer exists. A senior officer, under the Minister’s directions and after a policy has been laid down, is capable of performing this task and it is unnecessary that the Minister devotes his personal attention to each appointment. Sometimes you find that vacancies occur and then a senior member should be able to deal with it. The amendment therefore makes provision for delegating this authority.

Clause 3: This clause is an amendment to the Moratorium Act. Under the former system the initial period of continuous service for members of the commandos was relatively short and it would have served no purpose to extend the protection afforded by the Moratorium Act to them. As a result of an amendment passed last year, the period of continuous service of commando national servicemen has been extended and is now more or less the equivalent to that required of the Citizen Force. It is, therefore, only fair and just that the protection afforded by the Moratorium Act should be extended to national servicemen of the commandos.

I hope hon. members will co-operate in bringing these improvements about.

Mr. Speaker, we support the principle of this Bill and we shall vote in favour of it at the Second Reading. There are a few points I should like to raise. The first due concerns the designation of certain members of the Defence Force, which will result in their also being regarded as involved in “service in defence of the Republic”. Firstly, I want to ask the hon. the Minister why it is necessary for this to be limited to “a person expressly designated by the Minister for the purpose”. Why must a person be expressly designated before he is regarded, in terms of the provision of this clause, as on “service in defence of the Republic” while he is engaged in fighting or operating against terrorists? Take, for example, the position of a pilot. He is not specifically engaged in combating terrorism, but he is in fact involved in combating terrorism under circumstances which differ from those prevailing in the Republic under normal circumstances. If that person should lose his life as a result of either an accident or enemy action, he must first be expressly designated before falling under the provisions of this clause. Would it not be better to stipulate the service and not the individual member of the Defence Force? I can see that this is going to mean a mass of administrative work if every single member must be individually designated as involved in this kind of work.

†We are naturally very pleased to see this extension. The hon. the Minister will remember that last year I specifically raised the question of compensation in respect of persons serving on the border, and specifically asked that attention be given to the whole question of compensation. This is a step in the right direction. I submit that it still does not meet with our request in that it will still provide for an inadequate, even though slightly improved, form of compensation. We believe that this compensation is totally inadequate where a man loses his life serving his country, in defence of the safety of our people. It will now apply the War Pensions Act to members of the Permanent Force but the hon. the Minister will know what the provisions are and what the scale of compensation is for persons who suffer injury or loss of life. Unless a person who suffers injury, which could permanently disable him, is a breadwinner, he receives what I believe is a totally inadequate compensation for such service. Whilst this is a step in the right direction and we will support it, we believe that as a country we should go much further in providing realistic protection and cover for every South African soldier serving on the border whether he be a commando, a member of the Citizen’s Force or of the Permanent Force, whether he be a pilot simply ferrying supplies or whether he be a soldier on the ground. Any man in the Defence Force or the Police who risks his life in defence of his country, should be adequately protected, in keeping with the service he is providing, against the loss of his life and against injury or permanent disablement. Whilst this Bill spreads the benefit, I believe it does not yet go far enough. I hope therefore that the hon. the Minister will have another look at this and will come back to this House with a form of compensation— naturally it would have to be in the form of an amendment to the War Pensions Act and not to this legislation—of which we as South Africans could be proud and which we believe should justly be applied to those who serve us and make it possible for us to sleep in safety. This applies not only in respect of the pensions but also in respect of compensation for injury. I do not think you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to take this matter any further. I have explained our attitude and we shall support this clause in the Bill in particular because of the advance it makes in the right direction.

Turning to the second provision, in principle we have no objection to the hon. the Minister delegating his authority. But as the hon. the Minister himself explained when he introduced the Bill initially, they still had to find out how this would work and therefore the Minister himself had to have the authority. When the Bill which amended the Defence Act passed through this House, the hon. the Minister told us that it was his intention in the appointment of selection boards to make use the cadet officers or the principals of schools, who could give information about their boys due to be interviewed and considered by specific selection boards. He also said that it was his intention to make use of local labour and employment organizations—the Department of Labour, the Chamber of Industries, and so on. Thereby these selection boards would become representative and would be able to select not only with a clear knowledge of the capabilities and abilities and the potential of the boys who were being selected, but also with knowledge of the effect which their call up would have on the economic situation of an area. In practice this has of course not happened. In practice the hon. the Minister when he exercised this power appointed only Permanent Force officers to these boards. When I last asked him a question in this regard he indicated that on no board had any person other than an officer of the S.A. Defence Force been appointed. In other words, these selection boards did not make use of cadet officers or principals, employer or labour organizations. The situation since the amendment of the Act in 1967 has been that the boards appointed directly by the Minister have to my mind not fulfilled the purpose for which they were originally designed and which we understood was the intention. In other words, they have not brought to bear the knowledge available to the Minister and his department in making selections.

All of us in this House, Government and Opposition, know of many cases where boys are allocated without regard to their potential, their background or their particular abilities. Boys with a naval background, for example, whose fathers and grandfathers served in the Navy, or boys who have been at sea with Safmarine in the Merchant Navy were put into the infantry or the commandos. Trained sailors are put into infantry units instead of being selected for the service for which they are already trained or for which their background, history or tradition suits them. This is the sort of thing that is likely to happen if use is not made of outside information and knowledge and I hope that when this amendment is passed, the person delegated to appoint these boards will be instructed by the hon. the Minister to make them broader based and to try to make them function with a greater efficiency and effectiveness by making better use of the abilities and the potential of the boys who are interviewed.

In regard to the third clause we of course agree with the extension of the moratorium to the commandos. This is consequential upon the extension of commando training to the same period as for Citizen Force trainees. The more we introduce this sort of amendment the more I wonder why we still differentiate between Citizen Force and Commando in every field under the Act, because the Commandos are more and more being treated in exactly the same way as the Citizen Force. Their period of service, their type of training, the weapons in which they are trained are exactly the same and thus are in fact part of our Citizen Force. I am wondering if the time is not approaching when we should consider them not as a separate arm of the Force, but as part of the Citizen Force itself. With these qualifying comments I am pleased to say that we will support the Second Reading of this Bill and hope that it will bring about some of the improvements which I have mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point was so kind as to say that they support this Bill in principle. I thank him for it.

He referred to the expression “or a person expressly designated by the Minister for the purpose” in clause 2. I think the only object there is to use the proper legal terms, and not exclude any persons. The Bill was only drawn up in this manner to clarify the object and to indicate that persons have to be designated for that particular purpose, so as to prevent abuses, misunderstandings or confusion. If the hon. member wants to move an amendment as an improvement, we can consider it in the Committee Stage; but I can find no fault with the present wording. I do not think it can in any way affect persons who would otherwise have done that work.

Will no one be excluded?

No.

In regard to the compensation which people may receive, I have quite a number of examples I could mention. Let us take only one or two. Benefits payable under the Government Service Pensions Act, the Permanent Force Pension Fund and the Government Service Widows’ Pension Fund to, for example, a sergeant in the Permanent Force or his dependents, will be as follows: If he is 30 years old, has completed 10 years pensionable service, and has received an average annual income of R3 900 during his last three years of service, and if this benefit were to be paid together with those in paragraph (1)—viz. as a result of death in service—his dependents receive a gratuity under the old dispensation of R7 097, and R106 per month. As a result of the improvement of the pension scales, these amounts are, with effect from 1st April, being increased to R8 161 and R122 respectively. There has therefore been an improvement. Let me take the example of the person who is 50% medically unfit. Under the old dispensation the gratuity was R3 384 and the monthly compensation R94. With effect from 1st April this is being increased to R3 892 and R108 respectively. The hon. member can therefore see that considerable improvements have been made.

There is still considerable room for improvement.

This is a matter of policy for the Government to decide on in view of the amount which is available for pensions. I do not think the hon. member should expect me to give any undertakings, seeing that, in the first place, I do not administer the pension laws, and in the second place, I am not able to judge today whether our pension funds will be able to carry it. Therefore I think we should leave the matter at that.

Then the hon. member referred to the composition of the selection boards. It is true that we tried to learn as we went along. In fact, I think we are still learning with regard to the system of compulsory military service. I can tell the hon. member that there is a continuous process of investigation into this matter in progress. In fact, at the moment another investigation is taking place, under the chairmanship of a very senior officer, into the whole question of compulsory military service, with the object of effecting improvement and trying to solve problems. In other words, we did not come to a standstill and say, “This is the law of the Medes and Persians, and it must be complied with.” We are continually making adjustments in an effort to improve the system. I think I held out the prospect of this being done when the compulsory military service scheme was originally introduced, concerning the constitution of the selection boards, our original aim was to recruit more people locally, for example people in commerce and members of the local citizenry, and to have them appointed to these selection boards. But it very soon became clear to us that, by the time the selection board has to start functioning after it has been constituted, it finds itself in the position that half of its members are unable to serve on it for reasons of their own. We decided that we would, to an increasing extent, have to make use of officers who had been appointed to serve on these boards. Such a person is then able to make a thorough study of his subject in advance, so that he can furnish those who appear before him with the answers. In addition to that our selection boards are, to an increasing extent co-operating with the division of Psychological Services, which falls under the Surgeon-General. The complaint which the hon. member was quite justified in raising viz. that classification is still taking place which results in young men who have an aptitude in a particular field or had received training in that particular field, find themselves in the wrong unit, is quite true; such cases still occur. One of the reasons for this happening is because the wrong information is furnished in the original completion of forms. There are some of our young men who, when they have to fill in the original questionnaire, do not do so properly or furnish the wrong information. You must also appreciate, Sir, that we are also making far more use of computers. Those computers are used to cause the designation to units to take place, and those computers are fed with certain information. That is why it is so essential that the original forms should be filled in very accurately and that the correct answers should be supplied. But the hon. member will know that where an incorrect posting has taken place, it is usually corrected in great haste after it has come to the attention of the authorities. With that I do not want to imply that the system is perfect, but attempts are made to make it as near-perfect as possible. Nevertheless, I want to thank the hon. member for his support. I think these amendments will bring about improvements.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill which I shall deal with here this afternoon, is not contentious.

You said that last time.

I said at the time that it was not very long; now I am saying that this Bill is not contentious.

As the short title of the Bill indicates, it relates to the provinces. It is periodically necessary to regulate matters, which relate to the provinces, by means of legislation. The powers and functions of the provinces are for the most part regulated by the Constitution Act and the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1945. This Bill seeks to extend the provisions of the latter Act.

Mr. Speaker, I shall deal firstly with the insertion of paragraph (cA) in section 18(1) of the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, for which provision is being made in clause 1 of the Bill.

The Provincial Administration of the Cape of Good Hope has announced that in accordance with a resolution adopted by the Executive Committee on 6th September, 1967, merit bursaires of R200 per annum, valid for three years, are to be paid to all candidates who obtained a first-class pass in the Senior Certificate examination with an aggregate of 80% or more, on condition that such persons continue their studies as fulltime students at any university or training college in any field of study (and not necessarily in order to enter the service of the province).

It now appears that a province cannot apply money from the provincial revenue fund for the training of persons at places of higher education, except in specific cases as set out in section 18 of the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, for example for the training for teachers, nurses, etc., who are in the service of a province or who will enter the service of a province. These merit bursaries have been awarded for the past 45 years, and have already become traditional in the Cape of Good Hope. The amount of the bursaries and the conditions of award have been amended from time to time.

Clause 1 of the Bill seeks to authorize the expenditure incurred by the Cape of Good Hope in regard to the awarding of these merit bursaries, and to validate similar expenditure incurred by the province in the past.

No similar merit bursary system exists in the other three provinces.

Mr. Speaker, the second clause of the Bill provides for the insertion of a new section 19C in the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act.

It happens from time to time that the provinces have to be represented at ceremonies at which their representative are of course expected in their official capacities to lay a wreath on behalf of their respective provinces, or that these provinces may be expected to send a wreath to the funeral of a dignitary. The question of what authority the provinces have to pay for such wreaths has arisen. The Law Advisers of the Transvaal and Natal Provincial Administrations have indicated that they are of the opinion that the provinces have no authority to purchase wreaths for this purpose. The Government Law Advisers confirmed this opinion and indicated that the matter could not be declared to be a matter of national interest under the provisions of section 19A of the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act either (whereupon the provinces would then have been authorized to incur expenditure of the above-mentioned nature).

In terms of section 2 of the Financial Relations Further Amendment Act, 1965 (Act 58 of 1965) a provincial council may provide for the payment from the provincial revenue fund of contributions towards the cost incurred in connection with the celebration of Republic Day (as defined in the Public Holidays Act, No. 5 of 1952).

The new section 19C to be inserted in the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act by clause 2 of the Bill seeks to authorize the provinces to purchase wreaths for an amount not exceeding R50 for ceremonies in connection with the celebration of Settlers’ Day, Kruger Day and the Day of the Covenant, and in connection with the days known as Van Riebeeck Day, Delville Wood Day and Remembrance Day, or for the funerals, or similar rites in connection with the demise, of dignitaries. Subclause 2(2) of the Bill validates the expenditure incurred by provinces on such occasions in the past.

Mr. Speaker, before I elucidate clause 3 of the Bill, I should like to explain that the Second Schedule to the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act contains a list of legislative powers which may, in terms of section 13 of the Act, be entrusted by the State President to a province by proclamation with the concurrence of the executive committee concerned.

Clause 3(1)(a) of the Bill deals with the payment of improvement levies by local authorities.

In 1969 a new section 35ter was inserted in the Townships Ordinance, 1934, of the Cape of Good Hope which provided that when the Administrator approves variations to a town-planning scheme of a local authority, and such variation has the effect of increasing the value of a property or properties, the Administrator may at the same time require the owner of such land to pay a betterment levy to the local authority concerned. The Administrator in Executive Committee of the Cape of Good Hope accepted as policy that this betterment levy shall be a maximum of 50% of the increase in the market value of the properties concerned as a result of the variation of the town-planning scheme in question.

A number of cases are pending against the Administrator of the province of the Cape of Good Hope and the local authorities concerned in the Supreme Court, alleging, inter alia, that the above-mentioned section 35ter of the Ordinance in question was not valid in law, and that the said betterment levies in terms of such section were for that reason not valid either.

A legal opinion was obtained by the above-mentioned province which indicated that a test case on the validity in law of the above-mentioned section 35ter of the Ordinance in question could possibly, but not necessarily, be decided by the Supreme Court against the Administrator and the local authorities concerned.

In a decided case the Transvaal Supreme Court found that a similar provision in a Transvaal Ordinance which provided for development contributions, fell within the jurisdiction of the Transvaal Provincial Council and was consequently valid in law. However, attention must be drawn to the fact that the wording of the Transvaal and Cape provisions in question is not identical. It is clear that there is a serious measure of doubt in regard to the validity in law of provisions of this nature in provincial legislation.

It is in view of these circumstances that it is being proposed in clause 3(1)(a) of the Bill that paragraph 14 of the Second Schedule to the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act be extended to make provision for the payment of an amount or the transfer of land to a local authority by an owner of land, the value of which has been increased by a town-planning scheme or by the alteration or a substitution of any existing town-planning scheme.

By the proposed extension of paragraph 14 of the Second Schedule to the Act in question it is also sought to provide that where the value of land is decreased by a planning scheme or by the alteration or a town-planning scheme, or by the alteration or substitution of any existing town-planning scheme, i.e. the reverse of the previous situation, a payment of an amount or the transfer of land may be effected by a local authority to the owner of the land in question to compensate him for any possible losses suffered.

Paragraph 14 of the Second Schedule to the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1945, was originally added to the Second Schedule to Act 10 of 1913 by means of a statutory amendment in 1925. This statutory amendment came into operation on 1st April, 1925. It is in view of this that clause 3(2) of the Bill makes the proposed extension of paragraph 14 of the Second Schedule to the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act with retrospective effect as from 1st April, 1925.

One of the clauses in the Bill at present before the House in which the Minister of Planning and of the Environment has an interest, viz. clause 3(1)(b) of the Bill, has as its object the amendment of the Second Schedule of the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1945 (Act No. 38 of 1945) to enable the provincial administrations to pilot through the various provincial councils effective legislation against littering and other forms of environmental pollution insofar as this is done in their areas.

At a conference held this year between the Minister of Planning and of the Environment and the Administrators, the matter of conservation and the combating of pollution was one of the subjects to which serious attention was given, and the Administrators requested that the envisaged statutory amendments be effected rapidly. For that reason it is a privilege, on behalf of the Government, to comply in this way with the request of the Administrators.

Environmental pollution, as the hon. members are aware, is a problem of worldwide magnitude today. Only a short while ago a conference was held in Stockholm under the auspices of the United Nations to discuss this matter, at which South Africa was also present.

In this House various motions from members on both sides of the House have been discussed in which requests were made for urgent attention to be given to the serious problem of pollution. Some visible forms of pullution such as littering are repugnant to one’s aesthetic sense, while other such as atmospheric and water pollution are a threat to the general state of health. Various expressions of concern at the increasing pollution of residential areas, public places and the human environment in its entirely, have recently been voiced. The provinces are anxious to play their part in combating these evils, and want to make an immediate start by taking positive action against littering.

Wherever it is feasible the provinces are therefore considering (a) adjusting their legislation to make provision for taking purposeful action against littering and other forms of environmental pollution in public places; (b) introducing purposeful law enforcement against littering and other forms of environmental pollution; (c) taking steps to launch a country-wide campaign against littering and other forms of environmental pollution; and (d) referring to the Committee of Educational Heads for coordination the various aspects which may be dealt with on an educational level.

The South African Committee for Environmental Conservation, whose task it is to advise the Cabinet Committee on Environmental Conservation, has given serious attention to the problem of littering and has arrived, inter alia, at the following conclusions: (a) that combating littering is a matter of serious concern to virtually all local authorities, that they are already doing a great deal in this regard and that their co-operation may be relied upon; (b) that existing legislation to combat littering is in many respects obsolete and ought to be improved. For the most part fines are unrealisticly low and do not serve as a deterrent; there is also a considerable degree of duplication and lack of uniformity; (c) that it is desirable that staff which have to ensure that the provisions aimed at preventing littering are implemented should give constant attention to this matter and that provision should in all cases be made for spot fines to prevent the courts from being overburdened; and (d) that every possible opportunity be utilized to bring to the attention of the public the necessity for keeping our country clean. It is proposed that a suitable motto or a slogan should appear on all letters and packages handled by the Post Office, on the front pages of all newspapers, and on all containers which could cause pollution—something along the lines of “Keep South Africa Clean”.

There is no doubt that the provinces and local authorities who deal with pollution problems from day to day will best be able to combat these evils. The present legislation for the combating of littering and environmental pollution is fragmentary and has for the most part been included, out of context, in other legislation. A series of laws exists to control environmental contamination, the details of which I do not want to go into at present.

Here follows, Mr. Speaker, a brief synopsis of the legislation which exists at present. The names of the various Acts are as follows: The Public Health Act, No. 36 of 1919, and regulations made in terms of that Act; the Water Act, No. 54 of 1956; the Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act, No. 45 of 1965; the Animal Slaughter, Meat and Animal Products Hygiene Act, No. 87 of 1967, and standing regulation No. R3505 of 9th October, 1969; the Slums Act, as amended, and regulations made in terms of that Act; Rodent Regulation, No. 1411 of 1966, Police Offences Act No. 27 of 1882, which applies only in the Cape Province; and regulations made in terms of section 28 of the National Parks Act, No. 42 of 1962. In addition there is the only measure on a provincial level on the control of litter in the Transvaal, which is to be found in Transvaal Road Traffic, Ordinance, No. 21 of 1966. Finally there are various town planning ordinances and regulations. However, the legislation which exists at present is completely inadequate. I have indicated the reasons which led to the statutory amendment, and to the amendments which are being envisaged.

Before I leave this specific interesting theme, it may perhaps be of interest to mention an experience which we in this House could possibly consider with good consequences. On one of my overseas trips I was travelling in a bus with a group of people. In Germany, which is of course very strict in regard to the conservation of the beauty of that country, one of the tourists threw a piece of paper out of the bus window. The bus-driver, a German, stopped immediately and without saying a word walked all the way to where the piece of paper was lying, picked it up and brought it back, then threw it in the litter basket at the front of the bus, and drove on. Needless to say, no further pieces of paper were thrown out of the windows of that bus for the rest of the journey. This is the kind of thing to which one may well give consideration and which we could to good effect encourage in South Africa, our wonderful country whose beauty is so easily marred by all kinds of litterbugs who are from morning to night discarding empty cans and all kinds of other objects.

†I now turn to clause 3(1)(b) of the Bill which deals with environmental pollution. By this provision it is sought to add environmental pollution to the second schedule to the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, which schedule, as I have explained, contains those legislative powers which may be entrusted to a province by the State President with the concurrence of the Executive Committee concerned. I do not wish to say much more about this clause since my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Planning and the Environment, will deal with the clause more fully during the course of the debate or in the Committee Stage if necessary.

The last clause of the Bill which needs to be explained, is clause 4. This clause deals with the validation of the expropriation and donation of certain land in the Tiervlei Estate by the Administrator of the Cape of Good Hope and of expenditure incurred in connection therewith. The Cabinet decided during 1970 that the South African Medical Research Council should be moved to Cape Town. In the wake of this decision followed the decision by the Administrator-in-Executive Committee of the Cape of Good Hope during August, 1970, to make about three morgen of the terrain of the Tygerberg Hospital on the Tiervlei Estate available to the South African Medical Council by way of donation. The Administrator-in-Executive Committee also decided to expropriate certain erven in the neighbourhood of the hospital for transfer to the South African Medical Council at 50% of the expropriation costs. These decisions were duly put into effect. The costs of expropriation amounted to R650 000, half of which was to be borne by the South African Medical Council. The market value of the land that was made available to the council was estimated at R33 600. When doubt later arose whether the Administrator of the Cape of Good Hope had the necessary legal authority to expropriate the erven in question and to grant the land in question to the South African Medical Council, the State law advisers were consulted regarding the suggestion that the province concerned be granted the necessary legislative powers under existing parliamentary legislation to make ordinances concerning these matters. The State law advisers indicated that the matters in question could perhaps not be regarded as of a merely local or private nature in the province as provided for in section 84(1)(L) of the Constitution, neither could they be regarded as matters of national interest as provided for in section 19A of the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act. I may add that were it possible to bring these matters within the ambit of the legal provisions I have just mentioned, there would have been no necessity for the legislation that is now being proposed in clause 4 of this Bill. It is in these circumstances that it is sought in clause 4 of the Bill, in order to put the matter beyond all doubt, to regularize the expropriation of the erven in question as well as the donation of the land to the South African Medical Council. By the clause it is also sought to provide for the validation of the expenditure incurred in connection with the expropriation of the erven referred to. I may add that the Treasury concurs in the proposed legislation.

*I think that hon. members will agree that the Bill is essential legislation to rectify certain provincial matters and to regulate others. For that reason I trust that the proposed legislation will enjoy the support of hon. members. I have already stated at the outset that it is not contentious although it may perhaps be a little complicated.

Mr. Speaker, this particular measure was introduced to this House and had its First Reading on Thursday and reached the boxes of hon. members on Friday, 16th. As hon. members know, the House was in session from 10 a.m. until the afternoon at 6.30. The hon. the Minister has now introduced this Bill with a prologue saying that it is not really contentious. In brief, what he has said raises, I believe, important principles which are now to be endorsed by this House if this Bill were to be adopted.

First of all he referred to a bursary system which is being run by the Cape Provincial Administration, a system which is not run by any other provinces. In other words, it is an unique system to the Cape. I wonder whether it is desirable that one province should utilize funds for educational bursaries whereas another does not or has not found it necessary to do so.

He dealt with the question of the betterment levies under the town-planning scheme. We know that there are few subjects which are more contentious in provincial affairs, and I think the hon. member for Parow will agree with me on this, than the question of betterment charges, whether they should or should not be levied. It is all very well for the hon. the Minister to say that this is just a legal question he wants to put right but, if this House is now to adopt this measure, this House will be adopting the principle of betterment charges. This we are being asked to debate in this House today with the Bill having been put in our boxes, as I have said, on Friday, just before the weekend. I believe it is wrong that we should be asked to deal with this important matter at such short notice. There is an important matter concerning pollution and the control of the environment. What have we had, what has been done to co-ordinate environmental control instead of having a multitudinous group of authorities who can now delegate power to some other authorities to bring out legislation in regard to environmental control?

In the circumstances, I believe, the members of the House need time to consider this measure before it is debated in this House. Therefore I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Abattoir Commission is a statutory body which was established a few years ago in order to effect the co-ordination and rationalization of abattoir matters in general. However, a number of gaps in the Act have been brought to light in practice, and the aim of this Bill is chiefly to fill those gaps.

At present the Act provides for the expropriation of land required for the rection of abattoirs. Because of the nature of the slaughtering and distributive trade, it is desirable that the abattoir and trades connected with it, such as facilities of the wholesale trade, be established on adjoining properties. Land for this purpose is not always readily available. It is therefore proposed that the Commission be invested with additional powers in order that it may expropriate land for the said purposes and make it available to the bodies concerned.

Provision is also being made for the commission or any person authorized by it to enter upon premises in cases where the acquisition of land for abattoir or related purposes is required.

At present the Act limits the rate of the levy which the commission may, with the approval of the Minister, impose on the slaughtering of animals at abattoirs. As a result of the increase in the commission’s commitments, it is being deemed necessary to do away with the maximum limits of the levy, as has been done in the case of control boards in terms of the Marketing Act. This Bill therefore brings the Abattoir Commission Act into line with the Marketing Act in this respect. I want to emphasize that the rate of a levy is only determined with the approval of the Minister. In addition, certain adjustments are being envisaged in respect of those persons by whom the levy is payable.

The Bill also provides for the application of the Act in the territory of South-West Africa. The Territory is an important meat-producing area, and therefore abattoir facilities there should also receive the attention of the commission.

Mr. Speaker, as far as we are concerned, this Bill contains two very important principles. In the first instance there is the question of expropriation. The hon. the Minister now wants to grant the commission the power to expropriate land not only for itself—not only, for example, for a local government —but also for any other person. Because we would like to consider this Bill further before expressing an opinion on this matter, and because so much of importance is involved here and because we on this side of the House have only this morning had the officials of his department at our disposal to inform us concerning this legislation, and, furthermore, since we would like to obtain more information from outside as well, I would like to move at this stage—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In the main this year’s amendments to the Marketing Act seek to make provision for certain new approaches with regard to the system of control boards and to fill a few gaps in the Act.

Establishment of an agricultural reference board: In terms of the Marketing Act a control board shall be constituted from persons representing the various interest groups and sectors in an agricultural industry on that board. It is therefore understandable that persons nominated for appointment as members of a control board, are as a rule actively involved in the industry concerned. That results in members sometimes having to recuse themselves from a meeting of the board on the ground of their personal involvement in the matter under consideration. The phenomenon that control boards sometimes have so many recusals that a quorum for the consideration of a particular matter cannot be constituted, has been on the increase recently. Of course, the inability to constitute a quorum checkmates that control board in so far as that particular matter is concerned. It creates an untenable position not only for the control board but also for private individuals who may be involved, such as a person who has applied to the board for registration to deal with such a product in the course of trade.

The problem may possibly be bridged over most effectively by the creation of an independent board which may, in the above special circumstances, where a control board is not in a position to take a decision, consider and dispose of the matter concerned on behalf and as a deputy of that control board. The Bill consequently provides for the establishment of an Agricultural Reference Board which will consist of three permanent and two ad hoc members. The two ad hoc members will only be appointed on the ground of their special knowledge of the matter which has to be considered by the reference board.

Joint committees of control boards: From time to time it is necessary for two or more control boards to join forces in carrying out activities in which those boards have a common interest. Various attempts were made in the past to present such activities as a co-ordinated and integrated undertaking, but unfortunately the Act is not very clear in this respect. Nevertheless, it appears that the objectives in such circumstances may best be served by the appointment of a semi-independent committee consisting of representatives of all the control boards concerned for performing the envisaged activities on behalf of those boards. The Bill therefore makes provision for the establishment of such committees by way of agreement between control boards. Such an agreement will also make it possible to provide for the establishment of a special account in which the control boards concerned may deposit contributions and from which the performance of the joint undertaking may be financed.

Seasonal contracts for canning fruit: The Canning Fruit Board is experiencing problems with the provisions relating to the purchase of canning fruit by canners, and has requested me to propose the amendment in this connection set out in the Bill. In terms of the proposed amendment no seasonal contract for the sale of canning fruit to a canner shall be valid unless that contract has been approved by the board. It is also proposed that the grounds on which the board may refuse to approve the contracts concerned, be set out in the scheme.

Dates for consideration of applications for registration and permits: In respect of seasonal products it is necessary for marketing arrangements to be finalized early in the season. In the case of the Deciduous Fruit Board, however, distributors are free to apply to the board at any time of the year for the necessary registration or permit for the sale of deciduous fruit. However, late applications hamper the board’s arrangements, and it is felt that a control board should be empowered to determine that applications for registration or permits will only be considered during one or more specified months of a calendar year and that the consideration of all late applications may be postponed. The Bill authorizes such action.

Emblem of quality on inspected products: In conclusion, it is proposed that provision be made for the establishment and control of an emblem of quality on inspected agricultural products. The indications are that such an emblem will promote the marketing of quality products and will be welcomed throughout the trade.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that, as I did in the case of the previous piece of legislation introduced by the hon. the Deputy Minister, I must put it to the House that this side of the House has no intention whatever of acting as a rubber stamp. The hon. gentleman knows that we always support him at the Second Reading of legislation of a sound nature. However, since most members have only this morning had the opportunity to consider this legislation, since an important principle is contained in this Bill in view of the establishment of the Agricultural Reference Board, and in order to give us the opportunity to consider the matter properly and to act in the interests of agricultural marketing and of the industry as a whole, I want to move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I wish to thank you, Sir, for using your discretion and for regarding this measure as a public Bill. I also wish to thank the Leader of the House for allowing time for this Bill to pass through the House. There is nothing in this legislation that is not contained in any other Bill governing a university and I therefore recommend it to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 49—

Agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I should like to express my hearty thanks to you for taking the decision that this measure may be proceeded with as a public Bill. In the same way I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. the Leader of the House for the time that was made available for considering this measure. Thirdly, I should like to express my hearty thanks to the hon. the Minister for National Education for his friendly and sympathetic co-operation with a view to the introduction of this Bill.

In terms of section 8(1)(c) of the University of South Africa Act two principals of other universities are appointed to the council of the University of South Africa by the Committee of University Principals. The Bill now under consideration abolishes that representation.

The background history of how it came about that two representatives of other universities are serving on the Council of the University is briefly as follows:

In 1946 the Government of that time appointed a commission of inquiry under the chairmanship of Dr. Edgar Brookes to investigate the whole question of the future policy to be followed in respect of the University of South Africa and its then constituent colleges. The report of the commission appeared in 1947 and recommended that the university colleges (with certain exceptions) acquire university status as soon as possible and that the University of South Africa remain in existence for external students. Whereas the university was, up to 1946, by and large a supervisory and examining body, its task was to change after 1946 in that it would give instruction to external students through the medium of the written word.

Legislation was subsequently passed in 1951, in terms of which the University of South Africa was, as it were, reconstituted. Ample provision was made for the representation of other universities on the Senate and Council of the University of South Africa in order to ensure that proper standards of instruction and examination would be maintained.

As far as the Council was concerned, for example, provision was made initially for the nomination of, inter alia, the principal or rector of every other university to the Council of the University of South Africa. That shows how important the representation was which other universities initially enjoyed on the Council. By 1967 the staff position at the University of South Africa had already improved to such an extent that the need for control by other universities had really become redundant. It was then provided by way of legislation that representation by other universities would be limited to only two university principals appointed by the Committee of University Principals. Meanwhile the University of South Africa had grown and developed even further. Whereas in 1951 not one professor was attached to the staff of the university, there are now 106 professors and there are more than 483 other lecturers on the teaching staff. Today the University of South Africa can boast of lecturers ranking among our most highly qualified academics. The standard of instruction is high. Written lectures are supplemented by discussions with lecturers on a regular basis. Symposia and summer schools are arranged regularly, and a number of the 50 departments of the university are already making use of tape recordings to supplement the written lectures and so to keep abreast with the very latest methods of instruction. The university conducts examinations in no fewer than 742 centres throughout the Republic and in countries abroad, and has an enrolment of approximately 23 000 students, of whom more than 4 000 are non-Whites. During 1972 1 072 degrees and 415 diplomas were conferred by the university in respect of the 1971 academic year; a great achievement. The University of South Africa can therefore look back on a long history of outstanding service to all the ethnic groups of South Africa and even to students of other countries. In fact, 1973 is a special year for the university. A hundred years ago the university’s predecessor, the University of the Cape of Good Hope, was incorporated by an Act of the Cape Parliament. That the good hope cherished for the university has been repeatedly realized, can be attested to by thousands of grateful ex-students who in the pursuit of their careers need not take second place to those who obtained their qualifications at other institutions.

The university has reached a stage of development where representation for the Committee of University Principals on the Council of the University has become unnecessary—one could almost say it has become an appendix. In fact, the Executive Committee of University Principals itself recommended that this representation be abolished.

I therefore have no hesitation in requesting the support of hon. members for this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to indicate that we on this side of the House support this Bill. At one stage in the development of universities in South Africa there was a real need to have the principals of other universities on the council of the University of South Africa. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Wonderboom, there was a stage in South Africa where there were several institutions which were not fully-fledged universities but only university colleges. That was the situation during the latter part of the 1940s. As we know, during the 1950s, the White university colleges developed into fully autonomous universities, and therefore the need to have this representation on the council of the University of South Africa disappeared because, as you know, Sir, the University of South Africa acted as the examining body of these university colleges. Then in the 1960s we had the emergence of the non-White university colleges and, as we all know, today there are no longer non-White university colleges; they are all fully autonomous universities. For that reason there is in fact no need for this form of representation on the council of the University of South Africa. In any case, we have a committee, the Committee of University Principals, through which it is possible for the various universities to consult each other on the highest level. I think it is only fitting, since the University of South Africa is in fact the largest university in South Africa in terms of numbers of students, that it should have a council of its own, without representatives from other universities serving on it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 49—

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the Order Paper has collapsed …

So has the Government.

We should have work to do at this stage of the session. There has been good co-operation between the Leader of the House and the Whips, but it is quite obvious that some members of the Cabinet are not introducing their legislation fast enough. We have only reached the 32nd sitting day and yet there is virtually no work for Parliament to do, and I see no possibility of the situation altering tomorrow or on Wednesday. I think we will have early adjournments both tomorrow and on Wednesday. It is not in the interests of the country to bring members of Parliament down to Cape Town and then not to have sufficient legislation ready to keep them occupied. The hon. the Leader of the House was good enough at the beginning of the session to give us a long list of legislation and we were under the impression that the House would function as smoothly as it did last year. I think the hon. the Minister is entitled to expect the backing of his Cabinet; they should be told that they are letting Parliament down. We object to the adjournment and will ask for a division on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I must express my appreciation to the Opposition for having cooperated so well and for having said so little on the various Bills. It is for that reason that we have exhausted the Order Paper. If they are so satisfied with everything the Government does and with all the Bills we introduce, it is not my fault. They have been so accommodating that they have hardly said anything about these Bills. Well then, what am I to do? One, two, three and they are disposed of; we have disposed of 12 or 14 Bills this afternoon. And it is these same hon. members who asked just the other day for Parliament to sit all year long. What would happen if Parliament were to sit all year long and something like this were to happen? [Interjection.] I can only say that the Opposition has co-operated well and has worked fast. More legislation will be introduced, but at the moment there is nothing more on the Order Paper except what we shall deal with tomorrow, and therefore I cannot make work for the hon. members. Since there is no more work, Mr. Speaker, we have no choice but to adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the House has tried to dismiss this in a somewhat flippant way, but we have had notice and the country has had notice …

Order. The debate has been closed by the reply of the hon. the Leader of the House.