The business for next week will be as follows: On Monday the Minister of Finance will deliver his speech on the Part Appropriation Bill, the debate on which will be adjourned until Wednesday. The House will then proceed to the Third Reading of the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill, and then deal with the Orders of the Day as they appear on the Order Paper.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

The effect of this is to alter the definitions clause with respect to “unlawful carnal intercourse”. It is proposed to include in that definition the provision “carnal intercourse with a girl under the age of 16 years in contravention of section 14 of the Immorality Act, 1957”. We have had a good deal of discussion on this particular aspect of the Bill during the Second Reading debate and I made it very clear that I considered that the omission of this particular provision from this Bill—although included in the 1973 Bill which was sent to the Select Committee—was a serious omission. The omission worsens this Bill to a very considerable extent. I cannot understand how this House can put the case of a girl who is under the age of 16 years, on the same level as the case of a woman over the age of 16 years.

When we talk of “under the age of 16”, it can mean a girl of 15, 14 or even 12. Some girls mature very early. Indeed, I know of cases of 12-year-olds which have been referred to psychiatrists for abortion. I do not know whether the abortions were subsequently performed or not, but these cases were referred to psychiatrists to get their opinion as to whether or not an obstetrician would be entitled to procure an abortion on a girl who was actually 12 years of age. This has happened at one of our major hospitals. I am not talking about these little back-street abortionists. I am informed that 18 cases of girls of 16 years of age and under were referred to the psychiatric department of one of our well-known hospitals in one year, viz. last year. Nine of the cases were girls of 15 or under, and two of the cases were of girls of 12 years of age. We have had the most absurd reference to the fact that girls of 15 are now allowed to marry by our law without even the permission of the Minister. That law was amended two or three years ago and, if I remember correctly, a free vote was allowed on that particular Bill.

Indeed, one or two members on the other side—and I remember the hon. member for Waterkloof in particular—spoke very strongly against that Bill, though again if I remember correctly, he did not in fact vote; he walked out. The point is that a free vote was allowed on that. So much for the Government’s argument that free votes can never be allowed if a Government Bill is introduced. Here is a case regarding children. Surely nobody in this House will consider an individual aged 12 to be a fully-grown person, as a person who is in full control of her senses and her emotions and aware of the consequences of the act she is performing when she has carnal intercourse. I ask hon. members of this House, of whom many are fathers of daughters, to realize that this is something which can happen in most moral of households despite the strictest upbringing because circumstances occur over which parents have no control whatsoever. Do they honestly believe that a girl of 12, 13, 14 or 15 …

Or 16.

No, we have to draw the line somewhere as we do with our Children’s Act.

That is the point.

All right; this is the point. We have to draw the line somewhere but hon. members opposite are drawing it nowhere. They are not drawing it at the stage where a girl can fall pregnant and that can be from the age of 12. I want to point out that the Children’s Act gives protection up to the age of 18. If an individual is charged with a crime, except for certain specific exemptions under the security laws, that person is protected. For instance, the case is heard in a special court and the sentence differs materially from the sentence that would be passed on persons of 18 years and over. Why not in the case of carnal intercourse, to use a rather unattractive term?

I cannot understand the hon. members of this House voting for a measure like this. I cannot understand their lack of humanity and their lack of understanding. Surely they must give some dispensation to children under the age of 16, especially to young girls who fall pregnant. Why should they have to go through this whole rigmarole and, indeed, perhaps not even be able to obtain the abortion if two doctors plus the doctor who is to perform the abortion plus the superintendent of the hospital where the abortion has to be performed are not prepared to give a certificate to say either that the girl will suffer serious danger to her health or that she will incur permanent damage to her mental health?

It is quite possible that on neither of these two grounds doctors will be prepared to sign the necessary certificate. What I am asking is that the necessary certificate be produced from a magistrate saying that he has ascertained that the age is in fact under 16 and that the doctors who are going to perform the operation are prepared to do so. That is all. Is that unreasonable? Surely I can persuade hon. members of this House who are fathers of daughters, to show a little mercy, a little compassion, in this case. Let us not have any of the lewd jokes, in very poor taste, if I may say so, that we have already heard expressed about girls who rape easily and matrons who give glasses of lemon juice to wipe smiles off the faces of these girls. There was also the equally disgusting joke of the hon. member for Umlazi which I shall not even repeat. Let us rather think of the predicament …

He has his finger on the ground.

Yes, that sums up his intelligence: He has his finger on the ground when he talks about these Bills. Anyway, the point I want to make is that we should not be thinking in terms of lewd jokes when we consider this Bill, but about the dreadful predicament of the young girl who finds herself pregnant at that age. It may be a schoolgirl and we do not permit children to leave school before they are 16. We do, however, permit them to have babies despite the fact that they are themselves mere children. This is what I ask the House to contemplate when it decides on this definitions clause. This definition was included in the 1973 Bill. I have read the evidence given before the Select Committee and I cannot see any argument that was advanced for taking it out. It is true that Prof. Strauss, when he gave evidence, said that he thought that there should be no age limit mentioned, but he advanced no logical reasons whatever. It was just his own opinion. I ask this House to think very seriously of the predicament of the child of 12, 13 or 14 years of age. Surely, hon. members are not going to suggest that a girl of 15 who falls pregnant should be forced into marriage because she is unable to procure an abortion. Imagine that! A girl goes out for an evening and misbehaves herself. She may not even know what she is doing and may be utterly ignorant of the consequences of the act. Yet she falls pregnant and what is the answer of this House? The answer of this House is: “Get married.” She has to do this with a young man whom she may never have met in her life before. It is quite possible that that sort of circumstance can occur. I have never heard of anything so without feeling. It is really absurd for hon. members to take that attitude. I ask them most sincerely to leave party politics to one side on this terribly important issue and to vote for the amendment which I have put forward. It will only mean that a girl under the age of 16 is given the sort of protection she ought to be given because of her youthful ignorance, just as we give youngsters under the age of 18 a certain amount of protection against crimes which they may have committed.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I just want to speak briefly about my amendment. What I am proposing here is that the concept of “incest” be defined somewhat more closely. The reason why I propose this is because a strong feeling exists, for example, among the Zulus, that even when one marries someone with the same surname—among the Zulus the surname Dlamini, for example, is very common—that in fact constitutes incest. They deplore something like this among their own people. Therefore it may happen that Zulus who are not actually consanguine relatives marry each other but that they will think they are in terms of their tribal code of life. The other instance occurs among the Sotho, because among them it is accepted that a man usually marries his father’s sister’s daughter. That means that they always marry a cousin and this usually creates problems.

There can also be the case in our White community of a man marrying, for example, a woman who has had a number of divorces. Suppose that this woman has a daughter from a previous marriage. The man possibly does not know her and they do not stay together. The possibility exists of the daughter falling pregnant by her legal step-father. I believe that this definition must be defined more closely.

Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to say that the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper is substantially the same as the amendment which has just been moved by the hon. member for Houghton. The points in favour of the amendments are in fact substantially the same themselves. I would, however, say, to sum the matter up, that the present wording of the Bill in fact excludes a category of persons who I think very well merit inclusion in this Bill. To my mind a girl of 13 or 14 is in most cases not capable psychologically and certainly not mature enough to cope with childbirth. I think that births in this category are on the increase. Many of these births occur in the case of people who have not had any experience in contraception or in the consequences of their act. Childbirth at this age can have tremendous consequences for a young person. It can ruin the education of a 12 or 13 year old girl for instance. It could create a situation in which a young person of this sort becomes an outcast in her own society amongst people of her own age. It could have very longstanding effects on such a person herself.

Secondly, there is something that I have told and this is that physically a very young child does in many cases have difficulty in childbirth which is not experienced in an older person. You also have the damage that could well be caused to the baby being born to a person who is only 12 or 13 years of age. Such a person is hardly capable of giving mother-care to a child. Such a person is hardly capable of giving the mature consideration to motherhood. What happens very often is that such a child is left in the hands of other people, being grandparents or parents of the mother. Sometimes they are left in the care of friends and such children do not in many cases enjoy the proper homes that they should. While the amendments proposed do not force anybody who is under the age of 16 to obtain an abortion, they do create the opportunity, in certain circumstances, for an abortion to be obtained. I do believe that they should be supported.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened with great interest to the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Sandton in regard to this difficult problem. I believe that a case has been made that there should be the right to have an abortion where the child is very young and unaware of the consequences of the act, and the future of the child can be severely jeopardized. I use the word “child”, because in the legislation that has been passed by this hon. House, we have always endeavoured to protect the child.

For instance, we have passed the Childrens Act, in terms of which a child may be declared in need of care, and in that respect the age is under 18 years. In the case of the Immorality Act the age of consent, as far as carnal intercourse is concerned, is set at 16 years. We have had amending legislation, which was referred to by the hon. member for Houghton, in terms of which permission was required from the Minister of the Interior in the case of persons under 16. This age limit was subsequently lowered to 15 years. I believe that these are all important legislative steps to protect the child. I believe, too, that the welfare organizations have a severe problem particularly with teenage pregnancies. For instance. I was looking at last year’s report of the Durban Child Welfare Society. In this report it is indicated that their home for unmarried mothers is under tremendous pressure. I quote—

This is the point of view of a large welfare agency which handles a considerable number of cases and which has a special department which attends to the unmarried mother. In this department the young teenage pregnancy is one of their major problems.

The 1973 draft Bill was altered by the commission of inquiry which recommended that, in fact, that Bill should be dropped. Although the commission of inquiry in its report merely states that age should not be a factor, it does not in any way motivate that finding in its report. The hon. the Minister indicated in his reply to the Second Reading debate that one of the problems in setting an age limit is the position of the person who at the age of 15 is no longer required to obtain the necessary permission from the Minister of the Interior. Although I opposed that legislation, I believe that sufficient ground has already been covered in this debate to indicate that there should be a measure of agreement as far as the age factor is concerned to protect the child, particularly in these circumstances. I believe that that legislation is in a way related to the legislation we have to consider now and particularly to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton. I can see difficulties possibly arising where there is a difference in age from that in respect of which consent is required from the Minister of the Interior. Therefore I would like to move as an amendment—

I believe that this will meet the position as mentioned by both the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Sandton who spoke of the position with regard to 13 and 14 year old girls, girls who lack sex education because of the failure of the parents and of our society to provide them with proper sex education. Those two hon. members proposed that these young children should be given the opportunity to have a legal abortion when all the factors have been taken into account. We have seen that if a child is in need of care, the Children’s Act provides that she can appear before the Children’s court if she is in a state of physical or mental neglect. On this basis a child under the age of 18 can be declared to be in need of care. I feel that this important legislation should take cognizance of the young child who has erred but does require help and assistance. Consequently I have moved this amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton.

Mr. Chairman, as far as the amendment of the hon. member for Pinetown is concerned, I just want to point out that the commission was faced with the problem that a definition of “incest” existed in common law. So to give a second definition here which differs from the first, will create considerable chaos in our legal history, and for that reason the commission let the original definition suffice.

As far as the amendments of the other hon. members and especially those of the hon. member for Houghton are concerned. I want to say that I do not think that there is a single member of this House who does not have the greatest sympathy with children. The commission considered this Question of age very, very seriously, but there are as many facts available to indicate that there are numbers of prostitutes of 16 years and younger who are walking our streets. We have deep sympathy with this whole affair, but to write into a Bill and to say that people may carry on without restraint up to a certain age, is, I think, an extremely dangerous proposition. The basic promise of this entire Bill is the fact that the legislation cannot succeed unless we assume that the opinions of the medical practitioners which we shall obtain will be honest evidence, that they will be people on whom we can rely, and I am grateful to say that that is now I know my profession. Therefore, I believe that if the medical practitioners, the physicians, consider this matter, consider the age of a child, then we just have to be honest with each other. Everyone does not mature at the same rate; everyone does not reach a responsible age at the same rate. Therefore it is extremely difficult to set an age. If medical practitioners are satisfied, however, that a child’s health, mental or physical, may be permanently damaged by the continued pregnancy, then this Bill affords them the opportunity to take steps. As the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading Speech, this commission limited itself pre-eminently to not giving any single actual definition of or mentioning any mental or physical condition which had to exist before steps might be taken in terms of this Bill. The commission left it entirely in the hands of the medical practitioners, who are honourable people, to deal with this matter. All of us have the greatest sympathy with children, but my personal opinion is that to prescribe a specific age in this legislation will be wrong. If the hon. the Minister were to consider it, I think it would be wise on his part to say that such an abortion might only be procured with the permission of the Minister of Health.

Mr. Chairman. I wish to support the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton. I listened with interest to the reply of the hon. the Minister to the Second Reading debate on this Bill. It seems to me that he made two points in reply to the arguments advanced during the debate regarding children under the age of sixteen.

In the first instance, the hon. the Minister made the point that the marriage age had been reduced to the age of fifteen and secondly, that if a girl was capable of conception, she should be described as a woman and not as a child. Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept that kind of definition because all of us surely know that while a person may be physically mature, such a person may not necessarily be similarly mature spiritually or mentally. Despite all the sex education which is taking place in South Africa, despite all the literature which is available, it is a fact that there are many children—and I emphasize the word “children”—of the age of 13, 14 or 15 years who simply have no real understanding of what is happening, and whilst this may not be described as rape, it certainly is often a question of seduction of a child who is not fully able to understand what is at stake and what is involved. Therefore this House ought to give the maximum protection to children.

Sir, the hon, member for Moorreesburg makes the point—and I am sure he is correct; I do not have personal knowledge of this—that there are many prostitutes on our streets in South Africa who are aged 15 and 16 and so on. Surely, Sir, it is a fallacious argument that because there are prostitutes of these tender years on our streets, therefore children from many walks of life and from many different home backgrounds are to be penalized. Sir, we have to take cognizance of the fact that there are children who will be affected directly by this.

My last point is this: We have been told that the medical authorities, the psychiatrists, are able to examine the particular situation in terms of the physical or mental health of the child concerned, but as I tried to indicate in the Second Reading debate, the fact of the matter is that the clauses of this Bill tie the hands of the medical authorities in terms of the danger of permanent damage, and if they cannot say with integrity that this is the case, then obviously they cannot give the kind of help which I believe is necessary and right for a child of this age. Therefore, Sir, I hope very much that the hon. the Minister will heed the arguments as presented here and that he will accept this amendment.

I want to point out to the hon. member for Pinelands that our law, which has been tested over the centuries, and which we have not found necessary to amend, recognizes that a child over the age of seven years is accountable and responsible for his or her actions, and now the hon. member must not divorce the sexual act from these and see it purely as an action born out of emotion or irresponsibility. Mr. Chairman, each person over the age of seven years is regarded as being able to foresee the reasonable consequences of his or her actions. Our courts have taken up the standpoint that accountability should be considered from case to case, according to the circumstances in which the child has acted and according to the age of the child, but the fact remains that children over the age of seven years are deemed to be accountable. Sir, to extend the line and to extend it logically to this Bill, we have made provision in the Bill for the very child who is not accountable and who has the intellect of an idiot or of a mentally deficient person, and if it is reasonably predictable that the child to be born will be deformed, provision is made for the removal of the product of conception. Sir, the hon. member for Fauresmith in fact has an amendment in respect of sterilization which makes provision for the very case of the young child who cannot understand the consequences of her deeds, in other words, if she is mentally deficient we can still in that case extend the line quite logically and we cannot deviate from that line.

Then, in reply to the hon. member for Pinetown’s amendment, I should like to point out that here once again, if we were to accept his amendment, it would imply very clearly that abortion would be allowed only in those cases where there was direct consanguinity. But in that event the very cases forbidden by our Marriage Act would be left out of consideration and out of the scope of this Bill. The commission considered this matter for days on end and came to the conclusion that it would be completely contrary to the social conscience, to the social norms of South Africa if it were to happen that a father were to conceive a child by an adopted child of his, one who has grown up with him, and if that child were to be allowed to be born. Sir, take the case of a father and a stepdaughter, who would fall under this if the amendment of the hon. member for Pinetown was allowed. A father who sees the daughter growing up before him and then conceives a child by her, is something which runs absolutely counter to the social conscience and to our common law because the relationship between such persons is recognized as virtually being one of consanguinity. Therefore, and I conclude on this point, as far as consanguinity is concerned as opposed to affinity, we have to look at what the common law definition of incest is. Incest, Sir, is not only a crime which is committed between consanguine relatives; it is also a crime which can be committed between people related by adoption. Consequently, purely by extending this line logically, we have this Bill in its present form.

As far as the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton is concerned, she, as well as the hon. member for Pinelands, failed to answer this very important argument, viz. that in the case of a girl under the age of 16 years, it is possible for this Bill, as it is now and also later if it becomes law, to be made applicable to her and for her to procure an abortion on the grounds which we have mentioned. The hon. member for Pinelands argues that the child might not be in possession of all her faculties. But we had to draw a line and here we applied an objective test. The hon. members have not answered to this argument, viz. that we do not test this against what that child wants, not against what the person envisages or does not envisage, but against what the community wants. It is a subjective test which you want to apply while we apply an objective test with these provisions, viz. that which the community at large wants. As yet you have not told us today what your answer is to that argument of ours, viz. that a child of such an unhappy girl does have a place in the community. You have not yet answered that argument. Instead you have continued with a humanitarian, subjective approach.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein West impressed me with his legal knowledge of legalistic problems concerning abortion, but I think that this can degenerate into a situation where one’s obsession with legal scholasticism actually causes one to fail to see a social problem. The point which I am trying to make is that it is very improbable that a child of seven years can actually be held responsible in such a situation. It might perhaps be so in the legal system, but for this practical problem—if a child is eleven or twelve years old and falls pregnant, and one expects that child to have the responsibility of someone of the age, of, say, 25 or 30—it seems to me as if one is taking a legal point a bit too far. The hon. member asks what of the situation where the community demands that something like this must not take place? If one is led in all aspects by what the community demands, then no decisions can really be taken without the community being consulted on every point. That is the idea of the general will and the general welfare of the community. Surely it is a fact that decisions are taken here which give guidance to the community, which indicate to them against the background of available medical and social scientific evidence which would be a good direction for them to follow. This responsibility can surely not be evaded by legislators. In this specific case, i.e. the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton, which I support, I just want to say that I am aware of the point which the hon. member for Fauresmith raised. He said that the girl under the age of 16 years could also qualify in terms of this legislation, given the defined circumstances. We are pleading here, however, for a special case. We are arguing that there are social circumstances which the average child under the age of 16 faces, circumstances which can have a permanent influence on her future, her professional career, her family life, the person whom she may marry in the future, etc. These are special circumstances, circumstances besides those which apply in respect of the other categories which are covered by this legislation. In this respect I think that there are humanitarian reasons to consider when a girl of 16, 15 or 14 years, a girl who is quite probably still at school, ends in the unfortunate situation where she is pregnant. This may happen unknowingly or it may happen knowingly but without her having the ability to see the consequences of her deed. One can make provision for this because this will influence the sort of career which she will have later. She may be a bright child and because of her particular problem she may not be able to go to university as she may have to get married or look after the child. Subsequently she may no longer be able to establish normal heterosexual relationships or she may not be able to marry the person whom she loves because there is a stigma attached to her. These are particular circumstances which, from the nature of the case, cannot be covered by a legal point, the point that persons of seven years of age can be held responsible for their deeds.

Mr. Chairman, I feel at this stage we must state one matter very clearly. Although the commission did not consciously pay attention to this, none the less it was present in our subconscious throughout that we must make provision here for behaviour which one finds among sexually mature adults. The implication of this, seen from our premises, is that we do not accept that in general girls under the age of 16 years—12 year olds as the hon. member called them—will want abortions freely. What did we accept?—That our community of children is chaste and responsible. That is our basic premise. The implication of the standpoint of the Progressive Party, as opposed to this, is very clear and it is that we are dealing with a situation which occurs so often that we have to make provision for it. The example they use of the 12 year old is so absurd because it will be so singular in the future. The hon. members must not, in other words, argue on the grounds of their statistics that there are 200 000 abortions per year, as they have been doing throughout, and that consequently there must be abortion on demand. Secondly, the implication is very clear that they want to give a blank cheque to girls under the age of 16 years, because there would allegedly be so many similar cases. Our standpoint is, however, that this does not happen so often. Except for isolated statistics mentioned by the hon. member for Houghton, we have no statistics proving the contrary in any way. Furthermore we want to put on record once again that we on this side of the House believe that the solution to cases of that nature is not to be found in a blank cheque for abortion, but in preventive education.

Mr. Chairman, at this stage I want to say that many of the arguments which can be raised, have already been raised. In fact, I think we have already started repeating ourselves, although you. Mr. Chairman, must decide about that and not I.

I agree with the hon. the Minister.

I am glad that you agree, Mr. Chairman.

I listened very attentively to everything the hon. members said. If there is one impression which must disappear immediately, it is that there is not a feeling of the deepest reverence for and of special sympathy with the problems mentioned here. This does indeed exist because many of us still have young children. Whether we are young, middle-aged or old, it does not matter—this matter affects all of us. We must not become biased about it, not on political grounds either, although these can be more subtle. The hon. members for Fauresmith and Bloemfontein West mentioned the aspects which, in my opinion, weighed most heavily with us in taking decisions such as these, and in deciding to deviate from the original Bill. I want to say here that although I have to agree with the hon. member for Houghton that the original legislation was different in this respect, more broad in its provisions with regard to permitting abortion on children under 16, the mass of evidence which was before the commission indicated that the witnesses were absolutely against this on the basis of other reasons which came to the fore.

†It is important that we first have a look at what constitutes unlawful carnal intercourse. The hon. member for Bloemfontein West elaborated on that very capably. It merely boils down to intercourse out of wedlock. Take for instance a prostitute of under 16, and we know that there are many of them. Although I cannot question the statistics mentioned by the hon. member for Houghton and although I accept that it does not change the main principle underlying this. I feel that by condoning intercourse with children under 16—or under 15 in terms of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Umbilo—we also condone abortion on demand because we all know that a young woman over the age of 13 and under the age of 16 is capable of conception. Thousands of them consort from day to day with male companions and many pregnancies flow forth from this. Therefore, where we condone abortion on demand, we shall have many of these cases where there was a contravention of the Immorality Act of 1957. That cannot be accepted. It might eventually be done, but I do not think it will be the right thing. We cannot condone it and this is what the effect will be if we accept this amendment.

I am sorry, but I do not think I can accent the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton nor that of the hon. member for Sandton. I now want to come back to the amendment of the hon. member for Pinetown.

*That hon. member is not in the House at the moment, but I should like to explain in any case that “related to each other” also means “consanguin”. It means a person’s own family, family according to consanguinity; this has already been explained to the hon. member and consequently I do not have to do so again. In terms of section 82 of the Children’s Act “relationship” in fact means that when a person adopts a child it means that that person may not have intercourse or relations with that child. If there is no consanguine relationship between them, the person’s son may marry such an adopted daughter, but the father of the adopted child may not. That relationship must be recognized in terms of the Children’s Act and therefore this provision in the Bill is phrased as it is. I think the hon. member will understand now.

†Certain other arguments that I cannot ignore have been raised and I want to discuss them briefly. I think that the arguments raised by the hon. member for Pinelands were very aptly dealt with by the hon. member for Bloemfontein West, and I therefore do not think that I should elaborate on them any further.

*I am not quite sure whether I spoke Afrikaans yesterday when I dealt with this aspect. Therefore I do not know whether I had said precisely what the hon. member ascribed to me. It was a delicate moment in our debate and I want to make sure of what I said. When I have seen exactly what we were discussing at that moment, I shall be able to say what the intention behind it was. During the Third Reading debate I shall come back to that. I was quite moved by the argument of the hon. member for Rondebosch. He raised sound arguments. However, there is no point in saying that we are obsessed with legalistic aspects of legislation which affect a very delicate matter such as this with all its social problems and emotional involvement. I admit that this is so. However, we are here to make laws; we are not here simply as jurists. To a certain extent we are not just a body to decide law, but also what is right and fair. An Act, however, must give shape to what the public wants. We represent that public. This legislation gives shape to the laws of previous Governments here and elsewhere and also to the experiences which they have had. With the knowledge available to us, we have to give legislative shape to these aspects and we have to refer to existing Acts as a matter of necessity. After all we cannot do otherwise. The hon. member must not reproach us in any way for that, because I do not think it is fair. It may be that we over-emphasize the legalistic aspect when we say that a certain Act provides this or that. But we have no option. After all, we cannot remove the Act from the Statute Book. If the hon. member alleges, however, that humanitarian and emotional aspects are not emerging from the arguments, which can prove that these people are parents and responsible people and realize the broad aspect of this full well, the hon. member is not correct. The humanitarian aspect is present even when an abortion is allowed on an idiot or on someone who may suffer permanent mental damage. The humanitarian aspect is present even when a person’s physical health may suffer permanent damage. Hon. members will remember that there are religious denominations who have a higher regard for the life of the child than for that of the mother. The humanitarian aspect is strongly combined in this instance with the idea and the belief that the unborn child may not be murdered and that the mother should rather die. If you have read The Cardinal by Henry Morton Robinson, you would have seen that the story was that the Roman Catholic priest had to go so far as to let his own sister die when there was an opportunity to save her life at the expense of the life of the child.

The humanitarian aspect is present, but it cannot cut both ways. We have a greater duty than merely becoming dogmatic in one direction or another. I think I have replied to most of the arguments, and if there are others hon. members must raise them. At this stage I shall let this suffice and say that I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to appeal to the hon. the Minister, because I think he has not done his homework in relation to the specific amendment and in particular to the details of section 14 of the Immorality Act. There is a general feeling that because the hon. member for Houghton has linked this Bill with section 14 of the Immorality Act, hers is a plea for permissiveness. The Immorality Act is an Act specifically designed to prevent carnal intercourse with girls under the age of 16 years. That stands on the Statute Book whether this amendment is accepted or not. There is no attempt to repeal section 14 of the Immorality Act. That is the section which deals with permissiveness. What the amendment of the hon. member attempts to deal with is the unfortunate consequences of an unlawful act. One is not trying to repeal the Act, thus making carnal intercourse permissive with under sixteen year olds. When this is done in contravention of the law, there must be some way of remedying the unfortunate consequences of that particular act. It has nothing to do with permissiveness. It has to do with the consequences to the individual, the society and to the child as a result of that unlawful union. That is the first point.

If one reads section 14 of the Act carefully to which this amendment specifically refers, one notes that it says “Any male person who has or attempts to have unlawful carnal intercourse with a girl under the age of 16 years shall be guilty of an offence”. There are, however, certain specific acts which are excluded in spite of the fact that that child or that person is under the age of 16. The hon. member for Fauresmith says that there are many prostitutes under the age of 16. This may be so. The Act specifically says, however, that prostitutes are excluded. The Act says: “It shall be sufficient defence to any charge under this section of the Act if it may appear to the court that the girl at the time of the commission of the offence was a prostitute.” The hon. member for Houghton is not including the prostitute in her amendment for section 14 of the Act specifically excludes a prostitute.

Secondly, section 14 specifically excludes an act where the male is under the age of 16 years as well. Does one want a situation where children are to be reared by parents both of whom are under the age of 16 years? Can you imagine what will happen in those circumstances?

Thirdly, it excludes an act where the woman has deceived the male as to her age. In other words, if she has paraded her age as 16 years or more, then in fact the man shall not be guilty of an act of carnal intercourse. So this is very limited. It is carnal intercourse not with prostitutes, not with males under 16 years of age and not if the female has deceived the male as to her age. It deals specifically with a very limited group of people in regard to which the law and this House on previous occasions have said there is good reason to protect that particular female. Why does one have section 14 of the Immorality Act? Surely it is because this House in its wisdom believes that children of that age, in spite of their physical development, need some protection. Why do we have it? This is an admission by the hon. members of this House that there should be a penal sanction on a male who has intercourse with a female under the age of 16 years. It is an admission by this House that there is a need to protect the female in these circumstances because she is not necessarily able to use mature judgment as to whether she should commit that act or not.

There is a second point. It is no offence in law to have carnal intercourse with a person over the age of 16 years. In other words, it is not a question of condoning or not condoning such an act. The point is that section 14 of the Immorality Act is there to protect the female of less than 16 years not only against the act but also against the consequences of her act. There is a very clear indication that in fact section 14 of the Immorality Act not only holds that she should be protected against that act because she is perhaps unable to use her own judgment in these matters, but also that she should be protected against the consequences of that act, viz. that she may conceive a child. I want the hon. the Minister to have another look at that Act. I do not believe he has looked at section 14 of it. Surely the hon. member for Fauresmith could never have looked at it because otherwise he would not have raised the question of prostitutes since prostitutes are excluded from that Act. I think the hon. member for Fauresmith nevertheless came a little closer to the solution when, to my mind, he opened the door in this matter and said that it should perhaps be left finally to the discretion of the Minister. I would like to know whether the Minister is prepared to consider the suggestion made by the hon. member for Fauresmith. Let us get it quite clear that this amendment has nothing to do with permissiveness since that is covered by section 14 of the Immorality Act. What is important is that this amendment by the hon. member will bring this Bill in line with section 14 of the Immorality Act which protects the young female under the age of 16 both from the male in relation to this act and also from the consequences of the act. If the hon. members on the other side, who always want to be “konsekwent”, want to be “konsekwent” in this particular instance, they must introduce this proposal for giving the young immature female protection from the consequences of an act which they themselves say is unlawful. I believe the hon. the Minister should seriously reconsider his attitude and should accept the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton.

Mr. Chairman, I would like simply to add one or two words to the excellent argument which has just been advanced by the hon. member for Sea Point.

What is excellent about it?

It is an excellent argument because the hon. member for Bloemfontein West…

He has got no reply.

… was completely out of court, as the hon. member says. The hon. member argues that our law states that a child over the age of seven is held responsible for its acts. Right enough, but the hon. member for Sea Point has proved conclusively that section 14 of the Immorality Act specifically takes away that responsibility until the child has reached the age of 16 because it makes it a criminal offence for anybody to have intercourse with a girl under the age of 16.

There is another law against qualifying that. If they are married, that does not apply.

But the hon. member knows perfectly well that the provision that a girl of 15 is allowed to marry was only introduced about three years ago. What is more, that provision certainly does not extend to girls of 14 and under who are covered by the Immorality Act.

Yes, with the permission of the Minister it is possible.

Is the hon. member honestly suggesting that a child in Std. 3, because that is what it amounts to, aged 12 or 13, should be allowed to go and get married? I ask you, Sir, did you ever hear of anything so absurd? A child in a gym in Std. 3, playing hopscotch, never mind anything else …

Connie Mulder’s hopscotch.

… yes, playing Connie Mulder’s hopscotch, is expected to bear and rear a child and to get married and have all the responsibilities of running a household. Let us be a little practical about this, for heaven’s sake.

I want to reinforce the legal argument used by the hon. member for Sea Point by pointing out that we also have a Children’s Act on the Statute Book.

Why do you not make it 12 years in your amendment?

How does the Children’s Act define a child? The Children’s Act defines a child as follows—

of certain other statutory provisions which are stipulated—

You are now being scholastically legalistic.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know what the hon. member is talking about. All I can say is that if I am being legalistic in this regard then I appear to know more about the law than that hon. member who has just interjected. That hon. member is a lecturer in law and all I can say is heaven help his ex-students if that is the sort of law he taught. That hon. member has been completely illogical in his argument by stating that our law provides that a child over the age of seven years is responsible for his actions. He forgets two very important qualifications, namely, the major, overriding Act which is the Children’s Act, which protects children up to the age of 18 years and, in certain cases, between the ages of 18 and 21, and section 14 of the Immorality Act which protects children under the age of 16 years. I have advanced an argument in this instance on behalf of women because I know something about having children and rearing a family. I know that it is absolutely physically impossible for a child under the age of 16 to take on those responsibilities adequately. Believe me, it is hard enough when one is older. However, to take these responsibilities on in circumstances where the child has been conceived at some party or other which this little girl attended and where some older man plied her with drink, where she does not know the consequences of her actions and finds herself pregnant does not bear thinking about. She has now either to marry this man whom she does not know or to accept the consequences of the pregnancy.

It is not easy to prove the question of serious damage to health. She may be a perfectly healthy girl of 15 or 16 and, because there is no sign of it, no psychiatrist anywhere will issue a certificate stating that there is going to be permanent mental damage. Therefore, she has to go through with the pregnancy or marry. This at the age of 12! I mentioned two cases last year where children of 12 years who were pregnant were referred to hospital, nine cases of 15 years and under and 18 cases of 16 years and under. This was one hospital. I do not know what goes on in regard to back-street abortions and I do not know about other hospitals. As I say, I am arguing from the point of view of a woman who knows what these things mean, a woman with two daughters who knows what it would have meant had this terrible thing happened to either of those girls. Let me tell these hon. smug male fathers of daughters that it could happen to any single one of their daughters. They must not bluff themselves that because they are members of the Nationalist Party or, for that matter, of the United Party—what is left of it—and because they follow Christian national principles, that their children are protected against pregnancy. Let me assure them this is not the case.

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. member?

Certainly.

Will the hon. member tell the House whether or not her arguments apply to repeated pregnancies in children under the age of 16?

Well, sooner or later a child will reach the age of 16 years! I would say, yes, because that child has not been instructed. Right through this argument there has been the accusation against me that I do not talk family planning. I had a large section of my speech devoted to family planning when my time expired. Of course I recognize the importance of family planning and I do not consider abortion to be a substitute for family planning. I do say that those children should be referred to proper clinics where they can undergo properly controlled abortions and get instruction at the same time. The two should go together.

What would you do if the girl were pregnant a second time?

Well, I am sorry, but I think the same thing applies. I am thinking of the child in this respect.

There is the child to be considered as well. The child to be reared, and not every mother, even under the age of 16, will give up the child for adoption, and it is her right presumably to decide whether she keeps the child or not, as a little doll to play with or something of that sort. No, Sir, you need education; you need to educate the young woman about these things and teach her some moral values, but you cannot deny her medical aid, and that is all I am saying. There is a legal argument which the hon. member has advanced and which I reinforced by quoting the provisions of the Children’s Act, but there is the humanitarian argument as well, and both are important. Surely, Sir, on a matter like this there could be a free vote. Why must this be a party-political measure? Why did the hon. the Minister allow a free vote on whether children should be allowed to marry under the age of 15? Why not a free vote on this?

It will not make any difference.

Sir, are hon. members opposite all sheep that they have to do exactly what they are told? Is there nobody in this House to whom these arguments mean anything at all? I ask hon. members opposite to ignore their political futures, such as they are, for five minutes and to think of the humanitarian considerations. I just cannot understand hon. members opposite.

What about hon. members of the United Party?

Well, they did allow a free vote and there were certain members who said that they agreed with this aspect of the argument, and I am sure there are hon. members there who will vote …

Don’t chase us away.

No. I am not trying to chase you away; I welcome you with open arms, my dear Vause. All contributions in this respect are gratefully received, I assure you, and I sincerely hope that hon. members who do understand the implications of what they are doing on this clause will in fact vote for the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I was not going to speak again at this stage. There is too much repetition of arguments.

†Sir, the hon. member for Sea Point raised at least two legalistic points to which I feel I must react. In the first instance he talked about prostitutes. He referred to a specific word with a specific definition. I do not know whether he knows a definition, but I want to ask him how he defines “prostitution” in this permissive age? Although we did use that word, how many of the women who fall within the category that we have in mind are really prostitutes? Whether I used the word “prostitute” or not, it does not in any way affect what I said about pregnancy in women under 16 years of age. Whether I used the word “prostitute” or not, I was talking about permissiveness, about people living together and having children and about given carte blanche to all girls under 16. That is what I was talking about; that was the crux of the matter. [Interjection.] Yes, I also used that word, but let us get down to what it actually means. In the second place the hon. member mentioned social and other reasons. Sir, I have emphasized repeatedly from the start that social and other reasons, apart from medical reasons, are not accepted as far as hon. members on this side and also many hon. members on that side are concerned. Sir, it is because we cannot prevent abuse that, we cannot accept abortion on demand, as the hon. member wants us to do. The hon. member also mentioned the case where the male was not responsible; where he did not know that the child was under 16, etc. Provision is made in the Act for that, but the woman does not come in anywhere, so what are we talking about?

The consequences.

We are not talking about men and we are not talking about whether the men should be indictable; we are talking about the woman and her condition.

Before calling on the hon. member for Durban Central to speak, I want to draw hon. members’ attention to the fact that there has been a great deal of repetition. Therefore, I want to urge hon. members not to repeat arguments which have already been advanced.

Mr. Chairman, I was expecting your admonition and for that reason I want to raise a completely new point. It is a point which the hon. the Minister, as well as the hon. member for Fauresmith, offered here yesterday as an excuse concerning the married girl who was 13 or 14 years of age. The fact that it was said, proves very clearly that what the hon. the Minister and the hon. members opposite fear, is that a finger may be pointed at them and that it may be said they are doing something which is illogical. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that when we come to clause 3 of this Bill, we shall find that an illogical distinction is drawn in connection with the provisions of that specific clause as well. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, they need not feel so strongly about the whole argument behind it, i.e. that it is something which may be illogical, because here, too, we are dealing with other illogical aspects. I shall tell you why I am saying this. The distinction we want to draw is this. Surely, there is a world of a difference, a logical difference, between the circumstances of the 13 or 14 year-old married or unmarried girl. Under no circumstances does this amendment seek to suggest that the married girl of that age should also be able to lay claim to this, because the circumstances are totally different. One is not going to find a married 13 or 14 year old girl at school. I have never come across that, but I know of many pregnant 13 or 14 year old girls who are still at school. There one has the difference already, and there one has the justification for drawing a logical distinction in this set-up. Then there is the argument that the person should pay for his sins; that the guilty one should pay, but who says that it is the 13 or 14 year old girl who is the guilty one in this regard? What are her circumstances? [Interjection.] If one draws a distinction between these two groups of persons, who fall in the same age group, but between whom there is a world of a difference, because the one is married and the other is unmarried, one finds in many cases that permissiveness on her part was not the cause of the situation in which she finds herself. To a large extent the main fault may, in the first place, lie with her domestic circumstances. Perhaps she comes home from school to a home in which there is no discipline whatsoever. Therefore, this argument is one which does not hold water.

Amendment moved by Mr. G. B. D. McIntosh negatived.

On amendment moved by Mrs. H. Suzman,

Question put: That the words stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, will it be in order if I ask that the names of the 20 hon. members who voted for the amendment be recorded as voting against the clause?

No. The hon. member must call for a division.

In that case, Mr. Chairman, I call for a division.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

As fewer than fifteen members (viz. Mr. G. S. Bartlett, Dr. A. L. Boraine, Messrs. D. J. Dalling, R. M. de Villiers. C. W. Eglin, R. J. Lorimer, N. J. J. Olivier, P. A. Pyper. H. H. Schwarz, Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert, Mrs. H. Suzman, Messrs. H. A. van Hoogstraten, H. E. J. van Rensburg and C. J. S. Wainwright) appeared on one side,

Clause declared agreed to.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 30(2).

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

1. (a) takes cognizance of the view expressed by the Minister of Agriculture with regard to the supply of food and raw materials for “peace and prosperity” and that assistance in this connection can be rendered to developing African states; and
2. (b) accordingly urges that every effort be made to achieve and maintain the highest possible level of efficiency and production in our agricultural industry.

For many years we have been coming forward with a motion relating to the agricultural industry, but this motion has a completely different object this year. This is the year of détente, and I believe that each one of us has a deep desire to bring about peace and co-operation among all South African peoples and also to bring about that same degree of co-operation between the peoples at the southernmost tip of Africa as well as further north. The prevailing feeling is that these sentiments should be converted into practical deeds. It is also a fact that world leaders have for some time been struggling with the biggest of all problems, i.e. where the world is going to get its food and energy from in the next 30 years to feed the people and to keep the wheels of industry turning.

To produce enough food is an important contribution towards bringing about world peace. This week, during the discussion of another motion, we heard a great deal about that matter. Where peoples do not have adequate food supplies and these have to be supplemented by someone else, one might expect that there will be a feeling of goodwill towards that benefactor who is in fact prepared to play that role. An ability to provide food will therefore be a mighty weapon from the point of view of better bargaining, particularly if one considers our position here at the southernmost tip of Africa. During the course of the week many statistics were quoted in order to prove that a population explosion is taking place in the world, and that increasing demands will be made on the providers of food in the future. I do not want to quote statistics today, but I should like to arrive at certain conclusions. With the present tendency in the population growth of the world there will be approximately 15 000 million people on earth by the year 2050. Within six centuries there will be standing room only for all the people on earth. All the countries in which we expect the population figures to double, are undeveloped countries. The greatest percentage growth in 1972 was recorded in Africa. At the end of this century Africa will have a population of 860 million. That is, in other words, an increase from the present 363 million to 860 million towards the end of the century.

Today there is less food per capita in the world than there was in the depression people in the world are starving in one way or another. Not only domestic peace but also greater prosperity is in store for those countries which can maintain a high level of agricultural production, on account of the fact that the demand is bound to increase phenomenally. Others, in turn, will require agricultural production to provide both food and raw materials. Therefore, to have agricultural produce to sell or to exchange can place one in an even better bargaining position than the position in which one would have been if one had gold to sell.

It is a well-known fact that various African countries do not possess the skill, the training and the, manpower to realize their agricultural potential to the full. As many hon. members know, farming activities are carried on here along very primitive lines. With this I do not wish to level an accusation against any African state; one can see this today in our own homelands as well.

If man’s daily dietary requirements were to be pushed up to the minimum basis, as prescribed by the agricultural organization of the United Nations, the world would be required to push up its agricultural production by 20% tomorrow. We know that this is absolutely impossible. Even we, with our phenomenal increase in production volume, cannot say that we are able to increase our present agricultural production by 30% in a year’s time. Experts tell us that if people eat in the manner prescribed, this will have to happen. We in this country have recently been blessed in the sphere of our agriculture. We have just had an exceptionally good agricultural year. We had a record agricultural turnover and our agricultural exports reached a peak. The time has arrived when we in this country need have no fear if surpluses should arise again.

It is gratifying that agricultural leaders, including highranking officials from our various departments, right up to the hon. the Minister and his Deputy, have already expressed the conviction that our industry is now facing a major challenge. Even the hon. the Prime Minister mentioned at a farmers’ day at Bien Donne last year that empty stomachs cannot be conducive to sound race relations in this country. Almost ten years ago this side of the House revised its agricultural policy and last year we adjusted it again. At regular intervals we issued warnings in respect of these challenges. I am pleased today that the warnings about the challenges to come nave not fallen on deaf ears. On this occasion we can, therefore, take cognizance with satisfaction of the fact that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and his colleague will, with a positive approach, help to apply what is being done here in the sphere of agriculture our endeavours to achieve peace.

The latest available report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services shows what kind of assistance is being rendered. We know this is nothing new. The report sets out what assistance is rendered to African States. It is also clear from the report that we are prepared to invite those people to visit South Africa so that their authorities, experts and people who want to receive training in agriculture, can see what we are doing in he sphere of agriculture. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services is doing everything in its power to assist those people. So this is nothing new, it has been done for many years, but it is a good thing that the world should hear more and more about what we in South Africa are doing. I presume that a large-scale attempt to be of further service will undoubtedly mean that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services will have to intensify its efforts in this sphere considerably.

For that reason I find it regrettable that I have, at this stage already, perceived a measure of discord in respect of this matter. The hon. member for Yeoville, the new leader of the Reform Party, recently asserted that there were members of the United Party who were ready to exploit a White backlash if detente and assistance to Africa should not succeed. This is an extraordinary and untrue remark to make about the United Party since, in the 17 years that I have been serving in this House, I have on numerous occasions heard appeals from this side that we should be of greater service in Africa. Where can one be of greater service than precisely when it comes to the most primary industry and especially where many of the African states are still in an exceptionally primitive situation? I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that the farming community, as he knows, is one of the most conservative groups in our country and I know of no one who will be pleased if detente should not succeed in Africa.

On the technical front it will be possible to speed up considerably the exchange of knowledge. I also believe that we will have to train more of the personnel of the African countries in South Africa. Visiting teams from outside and from African states in particular must be invited time and again to visit our research stations so that they can gain first hand information on what is being done here. I was told that, after the Vaalharts scheme had been established years ago by a United Party Government, visiting teams from abroad came here time and again to see how this scheme had been planned in South Africa. That scheme was one of the showpieces of what can be done for denser settlements. If we can invite these people to come and see what is being done, and we are prepared to exchange knowledge with them and make knowledge available to them, I believe it will inspire them with respect for what we are prepared to do for them as well. Through our Department of Agriculture there are a host of means which may be applied in order to show that we are the workshop of Africa, and that we can be so to an even greater extent. It is absolutely essential for us to dispel the suspicion which might be prevailing beyond our borders so that no one need doubt our sincerity in respect of this matter.

This motion also has a second aspect. Our industry will have to maintain itself domestically as well. This afternoon I should like to address a few ideas in this regard to the hon. the Minister and his Deputy. I think they will understand that I cannot state the case in detail in the time at my disposal. I should like to confine myself to a few questions the South African farmer has to cope with.

Last year we obtained the assurance from the hon. the Minister that an agricultural planning council would be constituted. I hope the hon. the Minister will avail himself of this opportunity to tell us what progress has been made with it. We on this side believe that a planning council of this nature, in which we are placing so much confidence for the future, should start functioning as soon as possible. There should be no delay in doing so. We on this side of the House have always regarded the establishment of this council as priority number one, so as to be able to plan for the future in the best way. In spite of much that is being achieved in our agricultural industry there are also a number of other difficulties which we on this side of the House are very concerned about. Production costs have been rising alarmingly in recent times. This unsettles the liquid position of the farmer and the rise in the inflation rate often cancels out an improvement in producer prices. Of course, if we want to maintain or increase our production we shall have to apply mechanization to an increasing extent. It will have to take place on a larger scale. Anyone who is familiar with this knows that mechanization is a tremendously expensive undertaking and financial assistance to the farmer is still inadequate. A high production level can be pushed up even higher in order to keep the losses in our industry to a minimum. In this respect we are justified in putting this question to the hon. the Minister: How much higher cannot we in South Africa push up and improve our production volume if we can limit diseases and pests to a minimum? Diseases and pests cause enormous damage to both our crops and our animal production. We on this side want to know, if we have to maintain the highest degree of efficiency, when the time will arrive that we will, for example, have enough veterinary surgeons in this country? The number of students being trained as veterinary surgeons simply remains inadequate, and we in this country still need scores of extension officers. We on this side of the House are still not satisfied with the progress being made in that regard. In fact, we on this side believe that there is no progress: we think the numbers remain more or less constant, and this cannot promote greater efficiency if the position remains as it is. Sir, to us on this side of the House the training of our farmers remains a sore point. We never cease to be amazed, and I think this applies to the hon. the Minister as well, that we in South Africa are still able to achieve what we do achieve under the present circumstances where only about 20% of our farmers have received formal training. In large parts of our country— this is the other difficulty—the labour position is deteriorating all the time, and attention will now have to be given to this situation. Sir, we on this side of the House are concerned not only about the low productivity but also about the amount of labour at the disposal of our farmers. It is a well-known fact that farmers have to make do with fewer and fewer labourers. Farmers in large parts of the country find themselves in that position. The demand for labour remains great, and we on this side feel that a relaxation undoubtedly has to come, especially in respect of the making available of Bantu labourers, together with their families, in certain parts of the country. If this does not happen our production level will suffer because there are not enough labourers available due to the policy followed by the Government. I want to make an urgent appeal to the hon. the Minister. There are large parts of the Karoo and the South Western Districts where the circumstances are known to me, where the farmers have to contend with a labour shortage. We want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to make an earnest request to his colleagues, because we are unable to maintain our production level under present circumstances and we shall not be able to increase it in the future. Sir, if land and capital are available, surely we cannot tolerate the position where production is hampered by a shortage of labour. Sir, another point is that the housing of the non-White labourers in South Africa must be improved considerably. The farmer has a great obligation towards his employees; he has a great obligation in respect of their housing. Sir, provision has already been made for assistance to farmers in the Western Province and the Western Cape in respect of Coloured housing. When is this same kind of assistance going to be extended to other parts of the country? If farmers in other parts of the country could obtain the same assistance as farmers in the Western Province can in respect of housing today, I believe they would be able to attract the necessary labour to their farms. To be able to keep these people on our farms, better housing and other facilities will have to be provided for them. Sir, it is only a small percentage of the exceptionally prosperous farmers who are able to do this type of thing without State assistance. Sir, I want to submit these few difficulties to the hon. the Minister and ask him to have a look at our financing costs. We are concerned about the rise in our production costs; we are concerned about the question of extension officers and we are concerned about the question of veterinary surgeons. If we do not want to hamper the agricultural industry we shall have to make more agricultural labourers available in many parts of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to put it to the hon. member for Newton Park that one really appreciates a motion that places the importance of agriculture under the spotlight once again. The hon. member said, if I heard correctly, that it is as a result of their repeated pleas in the past that we provide African states with aid. I do want to point out to the hon. member that this Government, through its leaders, has been stating for many years that it is its policy to provide Africa with aid. As long ago as 31 May 1966 Dr. Verwoerd said—

As long ago as 18 March 1967, our present Prime Minister said in Bloemfontein—

This, therefore, was spelt out a long time ago by the leaders of the Government.

Looking at the food situation in the world in these times, and particularly at the situation in Africa, one finds today that there is a race between the population growth on the one hand and the increase in food production on the other. One could put it that this is a road which must, at one time or another, lead to a clash. According to various authorities in the world today, the world population is at present growing by 75 million souls per annum. In other words, the present rate of population increase in the world is more than three times the total population of South Africa today. This is going to make enormous demands on the food supplies of the world.

Now, looking more specifically at the situation in Africa, we see that Africa has one of the highest rates of population increase in the world. The 1972 U.N. estimate indicated that Africa has 300 million souls. At an annual increase of 2,6% this is going to give us an African population of 500 million people by 1985, i.e. in ten years time. What is the position in other parts of the world? In Asia, too, the population is going to increase tremendously. The same goes for Latin America. The fact is that, by the end of 1985, there are going to be 3 800 million people in the developing or under-developed countries, whereas in the developed countries there are only going to be 1,1 thousand million people. If one looks now, at this enormous increase in the population of Africa and one does not see a similar increase in food production then there is really only one answer to the whole question of the food crisis in Africa for which we are heading, namely that the population explosion in Africa must be stopped, that the population growth must be checked. That is also why U.N. declared 1974 a Population Year.

When one takes a look at the attitude of Africa to the limitation of population growth, one sees that Africa is very suspicious of this attempt to keep the population growth under control. I have before me an article from the Times of Zambia, under the heading “The other side of the birth control coin”. This article is an illustration of the standpoint and the feelings of the African countries in regard to the limitation of population growth. I quote—

And now we come to a very interesting contention—

Whether one wants to take cognizance of it or not, it is very clear that Africa regards the limitation of population growth as a plot on the part of the super powers of today to prevent the countries of Africa developing into super powers. Consequently we can take it with a great deal of certainty that Africa’s population is definitely going to grow very rapidly in the future. However, growth as rapid is to be seen in the world population. It is really amazing to note that by the year 2000 there will be seven billion people on earth. Seventy-four years later, in the year 2074, there will be 30 billion people. This explosion in the number of people, particularly over the next two decades, is going to exert enormous pressure on the food resources of the world. Now, when one bears in mind that food production will have to be boosted, one is faced by another problem, i.e. a drop in the amount of land available for food production. As has already been mentioned here in an earlier debate, we require 0,08 ha per capita for housing of the population and a minimum of 0,4 ha per capita for food production. It is therefore interesting to note what is going to happen in South Africa. In 1980, 0,54 ha ver capita of the population will be available for food production. This will drop progressively. In 1990, only 0,41 ha per capita of the population will be available for food production. It is then that we shall begin to reach the cross-roads here in South Africa unless we have a vertical expansion of food production. In the year 2000 only 0,32 ha per capita of the population will be available for food production in the Republic of South Africa. Looking at food production in the world as a whole, one sees that 3.2 billion ha of land are available. More than 50% of this is already utilized for food production. In Europe and South East Asia, 80% of the available, arable land is already utilized for food production. In North America and Russia the figure is somewhat lower, namely 50% to 60%. In Africa and parts of South America only 15% to 20% of the land is utilized. According to a survey by the Food and Agricultural Organization of U.N. it would require enormous capital investments to make this additional land available to agriculture, for example by means of deforestation, etc. The point is that the whole world, and consequently Africa, too, is heading for a food crisis. If, then, we are unable to expand any further horizontally, by cultivating more land, we shall have to expand vertically. This, however, is a very expensive process, a process which will require more capital and knowledge than ordinary horizontal expansion in food production. The Food and Agricultural Organization of U.N. indicates that even though we were to double existing production, within 25 years we should not have enough land to feed the growing population of the world. If we quadrupled existing production, within 50 years there would no longer be sufficient land on which food can be produced to feed the people of the world. In other words, we have no choice but to expand agricultural production vertically. What is going to happen as a result? We foresee that the price of food will continue to rise. Looking at the world situation, we shall see that food production in the world has been increased by 43% from 1951 to 1966. To have been able to do this, 63% more tractors have been used, consumption of fertilizer has risen by 146%, and the use of insecticides has risen by more than 100%. All this has brought about an enormous increase in the cost of food. Besides this, we see that there is already a tremendous drop in the food supplies of the world. In 1970, a little more than four years ago, there was only sufficient food in the world for 69 days. In 1974 the position had worsened to such an extent that the world only had sufficient food for 29 days. What is the position with regard to grain? Fifty-one per cent of man’s energy requirements is obtained from varieties of grain. For the rest, man obtains 13% of his energy requirements from beans, peas, soya beans, and so on. In other words, man is dependent on plants for 64% of his energy requirements. The balance of his energy requirements he obtains from animal foods.

When one looks at the food position in Africa, the picture is a far uglier one than that of the world as a whole. Although there has been a drop in the food supplies of the world, the picture in regard to Africa is far uglier. Actually, this is ironic if we bear in mind that Africa is probably the birthplace of agriculture, because as much as 9 000 years ago the Egyptians were cultivating grain varieties and flax here in Africa. In his writings, Pliny called Africa the granary of the world. The part he referred to as the granary of the world, today accommodates the largest single desert in the world, namely the Sahara. If we take a closer look at Africa, we see that the Sahara is licking with a flaming tongue at the heart of Africa as a result of the tremendous droughts that have been prevailing in the Sahel region. When we look at Africa itself, we see that the greater part of the population of Africa is employed in agriculture. Seventy per cent of the economically active people in Africa make their living in agriculture. This points to a high degree of under-development. When we compare Africa as a whole with the United States of America, we see that 4,2% of the population—as against Africa’s 70%—not only meets the country’s food requirements, but also provides so much food that the U.S.A. is the biggest exporter of food in the world. The U.S.A. produces an enormous surplus of food which it exports to the rest of the world. Looking at the food position in Africa, one finds a good description of what is happening in the words of Dr. Waldheim, the Secretary-General of U.N. In 1973 he said: “Some people and countries could disappear from the map.” He said this with reference to Africa. We have seen that in 1973, tremendous droughts prevailed in Senegal, Mauritania, Mali, Upper Volta, Niger, Chad and Ethiopia. Thousands of people have died of hunger in Africa. In Ethiopia alone, far more than 100 000 people died of hunger; What is disturbing as regards Africa, is that the per capita food production is dropping. In fact, at present the per capita food production is dropping by 2% per annum for Africa as a whole. This means that the increase in food production in Africa is unable to keep pace with the increase in population. In other words, every year there is 2% less food available to every person in Africa than there had been in the previous year.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, this is the second debate we have had this week during which the subject of agricultural planning and land use has been discussed, and I, like some of the speakers in the first debate and at this stage of this debate, also feel that much of what I wanted to say has already been said. However, it is obvious that the subject of agricultural production is exercising the minds of many people today and I believe that it is only right that this should be the case. For many years we have heard that eventually we will have the ultimate result of the population explosion which will end in disaster for the human race on this earth. Here again this morning we heard from the hon. member for Lydenburg of the drop in the amount of suitable available land for agricultural use throughout the world and the encroachment of the Sahara into Africa, how the world’s stocks of food are dropping to an extremely low level, and also of the ugly position which exists in Africa today at a time when Africa’s population is expanding at an extremely rapid rate.

I think most of us are unanimous that food is definitely power today, and that the countries which are able to produce food will be in a position of strength and power. Therefore I think it is correct that we here in this Parliament and those outside should place great emphasis on the increasing rate of agricultural productivity in South Africa. I personally have no real doubts about the future of White South Africa in this regard. I can say this because I believe that this nation of ours, at this stage in its history, has established and has got the three essentials which are required to ensure adequate food supplies for our people. The first is that we have the technology. We in South Africa, I believe, have research stations which are as good as the best in the world. We have done tremendous research into plant physiology, soil fertilization, water, climate and irrigation. Our plant and animal geneticists have bred animals and plants which today are being exported to other parts of the world for use there. Our agronomists are among the best in the world. Our agricultural engineering research work is developing space and is I believe as good as is to be found anywhere in the world. But I should like to make this point, that we have not done this entirely on our own. I should like to say that most of what we know today is the result of help which we have received from overseas. I am quite aware that there are among us today farmers and agriculturists many of whom I am quite sure are thankful for the help they received from overseas study which has brought them to the stage where they are today. I know from personal experience that whenever one goes overseas to investigate agricultural problems, there is no suspicion regarding one’s visit and one is given every assistance to ensure that one derives the greatest benefit out of one’s trip. I think we must not lose sight of this in this particular debate.

The second prerequisite is an adequate infrastructure which supports the agricultural industry, and this I think we have. We have a tremendous chemical industry here in South Africa today; we have a farm machinery and implement manufacturing industry; we have a transportation system which is adequate for our needs, and we have also a tremendous marketing and distribution system for our products. Here again, Sir, I do not think that we can say that this is entirely as a result of our own efforts. Most of these big industries have their origin in oversea countries. The agricultural machinery industry which exists in South Africa today is really an off-shoot of industries which started in Europe or in North America, and I think this applies to all our chemical industries and many others.

I believe that the third prerequisite to an effective and viable agricultural industry is good farmers, and we in this country are blessed with very good farmers. Sir, I say this with all due respect to some of the comments which have been made from time to time about our farmers. Sir, I believe that they are men who firstly have the necessary love for the land, a love which I believe is essential for a farmer to be a success. Our farmers have the determination and stamina to be successful farmers, especially in Africa; thirdly, out farmers have a basic understanding of the nature of Africa, and, fourthly, most of them have had the basic training which is essential to produce a good farmer. Sir, this has not just been acquired overnight. Our farmers have been in South Africa for centuries and they have now got experience of Africa. I believe that with these three essentials, South Africa will not only survive agriculturally, but that we will prosper in this regard, provided—and here I must agree with the hon. member for Lydenburg—that we keep pace with the changes which have to take place in agriculture, changes which are being forced upon us because of rising costs, because of our rising population and because of our diminishing land resources. We have to make sure, therefore, that we do not sit back, but rather that we press forward to ensure that we will have a sound agricultural industry for the time to come. I say this, Sir, because I believe that an increase in productivity in South Africa is going to result from agriculture becoming more capital-intensive; this requires a greater economic usage of money, and therefore our farmers are going to have to become more highly skilled and more highly educated in these forms of training. I believe, therefore, that we have got to make sure that we have adequate extension services for the training of our farmers. I also believe, Sir, that if we do this, we can survive not only to provide food for our own people, but that we can also possibly retain our export markets and that we will in fact be able to have surpluses which we could sell to those nations who are less privileged than we are. I believe that we will then be able to retain our position of power as a world food producer.

However, Sir, I would like to question the context in which we make this statement that food is power. I would like to ask: Power for what? It has been said “for peace and prosperity”, but I would like to ask: “For whom?” Is it just for us here in South Africa or is it for all those nations in the southern part of this continent? In the past, Sir, the world powers colonized and exploited the under-developed areas of the world for their own peace and prosperity, and I think we will all agree that there are powers in the world today that would like to exploit parts of under-developed Africa for their own particular economic imperialism and for the promotion of their particular ideology. I would like to submit, Sir, that in the Western world, at any rate, this philosophy is dead today, and I believe that it is also dead here in South Africa. I think it must be accepted that aid in the form of food will never really win friends. There is no dignity in being a beggar, and you find that those who are being fed usually bite the hands that feed them. Therefore I believe that our position in South Africa today must be one of mutual interdependence and mutual assistance between the nations of Southern Africa if we are to achieve real peace and prosperity. I can recall a comment made by an Indian student from Ceylon who was studying in North America. He said, “If you feed us today through aid and food, all you are doing is preventing us from starving today to allow us to starve tomorrow. If you are going to give us aid, rather teach us to feed ourselves; then we will never go hungry.”

I believe that it is our duty to see that all the people in Southern Africa are well fed. If we are to do this, we must not only expand vertically our production in White South Africa; I believe that we have to see also a horizontal development of sound agriculture throughout Black Africa, and I include here our homelands and our neighbouring nations. I stress this because these areas contain some of the best land in Southern Africa, and are in some of the best rainfall areas. If détente is to succeed and if the goal is peace and prosperity, then I believe it is necessary for our neighbouring States to retain their identity and dignity as economically viable States. I believe that this particular situation is urgent today.

The hon. member for Lydenburg said that the hand of friendship had been held out to these countries in the past and that it had been refused. I should like to ask why. I believe that the Government will probably have an answer to that question. Now we have détente and tensions are easing. Once again I should like to ask why, and here again I believe that the Government has the answer. I think we all have the answer, and that is that we are seeing in South Africa a change in attitude. Here, I believe, lies South Africa’s real challenge of the future As has often been said in this House, we are White Africans. We are born and bred of Africa. We, especially the farmers of South Africa, understand the African scene. Our farmers, through experience built up over centuries, have learnt how to cope in Africa. We have had to put up with the weather, the climate, the diseases and pests of Africa, the soil of Africa and also, may I say, the people of Africa; and here I include both the Whites and the Blacks. If ever there was one group which was able to uplift Black African agriculture in Africa, I believe that group is the White South African farmers, along with the help of their scientists and technologists as well as those businesses, firms and industries which supply them with the essentials for good agriculture.

As we ourselves learnt from Europe and America, so I believe we should help Black Africa. We in this country had students going overseas on tours, attending conferences and so on, and I believe that this has got to happen on the southern part of the continent of Africa. I believe that this should happen without the suspicion which we heard about earlier today, viz. the suspicion of White Africans by Black Africans. That is why we on this side particularly welcome the Prime Minister’s role in achieving détente here in Southern Africa. I should like to pose the following questions in this regard: Is this really going to be enough? Will we be able fully to seize this opportunity which is now before White South Africa? Are our people going to be able to achieve that degree of consensus which is required to enable us to take full advantage of these challenges which are facing us? Are our people going to be enlightened enough? Are they going to be determined enough to resolutely face these problems and challenges which are bound to arise if we are to travel this road into Africa? These problems are known to us, especially to those of us who work the land, those of us who have to produce an agricultural product at an economic price which is acceptable to our consumers. We are aware of the efforts which Black Africa has made as far as agriculture is concerned, and I do not honestly believe that I have to spell it out here today. We have had this experience here in Southern Africa. Our efforts are seen for instance in the Bantustans. We can see the results of our endeavours of the past. We can see the successes of the past. I believe also that we can see our failures of the past. This is the reality, I believe, of the agricultural scene today; the increase in production in the case of African agriculture has been mainly frustrated by human and social problems. We have tribalism with its corporate society. We have a lack of education and training. We have uneconomic plot sizes and this, we know, is basic to any agricultural endeavour. We have the traditional roles of the male, who is the warrior and the herdsman, and of the female, who is the drawer of water and the tiller of the land. We have the despair of a peasant type of environment. Most of all, I believe that Black African agriculture lacks that motivating force which is essential for a successful farming operation. I refer to the love for and pride in the land to which the farmer has freehold title. These are some of the problems which I believe we have to overcome in Black Africa. In this regard I have some further questions. Is Black African agriculture going to consist of State farms? Is it going to consist of large companies owning and operating the land? Are there going to be collective farms, kibbutzes, or are we going to retain the peasant holdings which we see today? Is, in time, Black agriculture in Africa going to be run by private farmers, as is the case in White Africa? I believe that our ultimate goal must be to try to develop the latter, because successful farming must ultimately depend on people. And, most of all, successful farming depends upon the driving force of the dedicated farmer.

As I have said, our people must achieve this degree of consensus in approach and attitude towards these challenges which are facing agriculture in Black Africa today. It is not just a case of a hand of friendship and an offer of help. I believe that we have got to have an understanding of the situation, mutual respect and mutual trust between people. Therefore I say we must have an enlightened approach and a determination to see this right through to the end. This is the challenge which I believe is facing White South Africa and indeed all of Africa and especially this Parliament. It is for this reason that I have great pleasure in supporting the motion of the hon. member for Newton Park.

Mr. Speaker, when the attitude of colleagues towards each other bears witness to a good team spirit, such as we on this side of the House are fortunate enough to enjoy, there are few things that give one more pleasure than to see that others, in this case the Opposition, appreciate the standpoints and objective adopted by one’s leader—in this case our Minister of Agriculture. If that side of the House were now to convince us that, after the tubulent events this were, a similar spirit prevails among them, then we at once want to concede to the members of the farming group opposite that they, too, have reason to be proud of the motion introduced by their chief spokesman on agricultural affairs because it is seldom that we on this side of the House are able, unhesitatingly and with conviction, to support a motion from that side. In his speech, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, who has just resumed his seat, referred a number of times to the challenges awaiting each of us today. I do not want to find fault with the expression “challenges”, because we agree with that, but I want to let the emphasis fall a little more heavily upon the responsibility resting on each of us in these times.

It is also heartening and perhaps politically interesting, too, to note that this standpoint adopted by the Minister of Agriculture has been adopted from a position of power and strength. This strength derives from various facets of politics and also from the agricultural industry and the science of agriculture in particular. I do not want to limit myself this afternoon to empty adulation of the two agricultural departments or to empty adulation of our Minister or our farmers.

I think, however, that it is as well that we also express appreciation, on this occasion, for our technicians in the agricultural departments and for our farmers and that we should thereby guard against the impression being created that too little or nothing is being done to achieve an efficient system of production. Let us concede at once that one can never reach the stage where one can sit back with satisfaction and say that everything possible has been done. However, let us also have appreciation for what has already been done. Let us have appreciation for the agriculturist, for the farmer, and in some cases also for the processer who has succeeded in allowing South Africa, along with Israel, to boast of the highest degree of efficiency, in the field of agricultural production, in Africa.

The favourable position which South Africa has experienced thus far in regard to agricultural production is thanks to a consistent, sound agricultural policy which we are following. The calibre of its farmers and the high quality of the agricultural technical services that are rendered, are the guarantee of this.

Possibly it would be as well for us to dwell for a moment on the definition given to the term “farmer” through the years. In the past it was always said that a farmer was a member of an industry and that it was his task to produce food and other raw materials necessary for man’s survival, by means of cultivation, development and protection of the natural resources of land, water and veld, and to do so in such a way as to ensure for himself and for his family a respectable living. I think that in modern times we can add to that that today’s farmer must also accept co-responsibility to feed his nation and to come to the aid of the friends of his nation in times of need. When we study the definition of the concept “farmer” carefully, there is ample room for two possible interpretations. In the first place it could be interpreted to mean that the farmer is a member of an industry and that the production of food and essential raw materials is the task of the industry as such. This implies further that it is the employer and not the farmer who must be responsible for the training which is necessary so that the task may be carried out in such a way that resources are not only exploited to the maximum degree possible, but also protected and developed to the maximum. In the second interpretation of the definition the farmer is also seen as a member of an industry, but the emphasis falls on his individuality and on his task as stated above as well as on his and every individual farmer’s responsibility. What this involves is that every farming unit is an industry on a small scale and the farmer himself is responsible to ensure that he is properly trained and equipped for his task and to ensure that he carries out his task in the most effective way.

I have said that I do not want to heap empty adulation on the farmer this afternoon, but we must take note of the words of an unknown philosopher of the last century who said: “Burn down the cities of the world and destroy the city dwellers and the farmers will build up the cities within three years, but burn down the farms of the world and destroy the farmers and within three years, agrass will be growing in the streets of the cities.” We also realize, therefore, also in view of the definition, that the farmer is co-responsible for the feeding of the nation and its friends, that it is no wonder that the first and most important instruction given to mankind was specifically to till the soil and have dominion over the plants and the animals.

It is true that adequate supplies of food are of cardinal importance for prosperity and peace within and beyond the borders of the Republic. In the future, the country possessing large supplies of food will definitely not find it difficult to make friends. To be able to look beyond one’s borders at the position in other parts of the world, it is imperative to have a good knowledge of the terrain on which one stands oneself. During the discussion of the motion last Thursday and this afternoon, too, speakers on both sides of the House have already referred to the fact that much has in fact been accomplished in South Africa in spite of certain limiting factors, limiting factors such as the fact that although we in South Africa have 103 million ha of land suitable for agricultural production, only 14 million ha are arable. It is also true that of these, measured against the norms of the world, only 3 million ha may be regarded as so-called high potential land. Because the staple food of the world today comprises specifically grain varieties, it is consequently the custom, too, that wheat and maize, as we cultivate them in South Africa, enjoy the highest priorities in the provision of food. In South Africa about 43 % of our arable land is utilized for maize farming, while about 17% is utilized for wheat production. Except for the possibility of increased production, there is not much room for further progress, because already 90% of our arable land is being utilized for purposes of field husbandry. It is logical to start with the easier or more suitable land. It is also logical that the remaining 10% that is still available today has limiting factors such as slopes and contours which will hamper its cultivation. It is also essential that in the easily cultivable regions there should be natural grass cover that can have a sponge effect and will also serve as a filter so that in this way, the water and the foodstuffs may be retained where they may be utilized to best effect.

I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Amanzimtoti in that he referred to the challenges awaiting all of us. When we consider the wording of this motion, namely “that every effort be made to achieve and maintain the highest possible level of efficiency and production in our agricultural industry”, we have no choice but to lay this responsibility at the door of each individual in South Africa. In this respect the farmer is perhaps the most important. Now it is also a fact that no one is going to produce if he is not compensated for doing so. Whereas once again, today, we had to hear of an increase in fertilizer prices of between 38% and 40%, we are grateful for the assurance that this increase does not result from excessive profit margins. The farmer accepts that these increases are essential. However, let us also express the hope that when producer prices are announced later this year, and those prices will necessarily be higher, so much higher that they will also signify substantial compensation for the farmer, a chorus of protest will not be raised throughout the country once again by those who complain that food in South Africa has become too expensive. The choice we have here is whether we want the food at a price, or whether we want to discourage the farmer from producing.

If this is a responsibility to be laid at the door of each of us, then it is not only the department that needs to break new ground and develop new methods. Nor is it only the farmer who must produce more or the processer who must waste less or eliminate wastage. Nor is it only the housewife who must purchase judiciously or the young men who must eat healthily. If this motion can succeed in bringing home to all of us, in whichever sphere we may be active, the sense of responsibility that causes us to act in a more disciplined way in our work, our activities and our play, then it was timely and worth while. Any sporadic isolated efforts in South Africa, in Africa and throughout the world, to feed the world and to utilize food and raw materials for peace and prosperity, this ideal is doomed to failure. It will demand from us in South Africa, in Southern Africa, in Africa and in the world a keen effort, the like of which has never been seen before. That is why we as Whites may not neglect our duty to provide the homelands with aid, know-how and guidance in regard to the development of their food resources. Perhaps it is also necessary for those who take the lead in the various homelands to motivate their followers more to understand that all development will be limited when the people and the worker are not fed and that the production of food and the work and the labour it involves can be more important than the development of industry. It must be brought home to every citizen that, as the hon. member for Port Natal put it yesterday in terms of the old Chinese proverb: “Give a man a fish and you teach him to eat fish today, but teach him to catch fish and he will be able to eat fish every day.” Perhaps we could profitably convey this message to many of the leaders in Africa.

In addition, the responsibility for efficiency, and for development in particular, falls on research. There is definitely great appreciation for the way in which the department is attempting to, and succeeding in placing the farmer in a position where he is able to furnish a positive reply to the question which one of our talented agriculturists, Mr. Jack Brewis, regularly asked the farmer and that was: “Farmer, do you know your land?” Over the past decade the emphasis in grain production has fallen in particular on the breeding of varieties of which the genetic composition is such that increased fertilization yields fantastic results and, in other instances, that crops will be more drought-resistant. Perhaps in the future, and over the next decade in particular, the emphasis will have to fall on varieties with a greater resistance to diseases such as root diseases, leaf diseases and tassel diseases. This aspect is of the greatest importance for increased production. The hon. member for Newton Park also referred to this. One of the international associations that trades in food and handles food distribution, estimates that losses through diseases and pests destroyed 25% of the potential crops in the world. Insect diseases and weed penetration are also included here. Nor can we simply leave the responsibility for the research to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. Suppliers of essential agricultural raw materials such as fertilizers and fuel and the manufacturers of our machinery will have to give serious consideration to making a bigger contribution to the agricultural research fund in the future. We have reached a stage in South Africa at which advertising gimmicks have become more of a burden than an asset. One can only trust that the tons of paper and the tons of plastic sent out and distributed for advertisement and which are more of a burden than an asset, will disappear in the future and that those funds will be utilized to good effect in the future. In particular we hope that this will be the case as a result of the introduction of television. For this reason we also take the liberty of addressing an appeal to our private sector —the farmer can also be included here— to invest more and contribute more extensively to the Agricultural Research Fund of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. This is an investment that can yield practical dividends in the future. Bodies may stipulate for what research it is to be applied. They will have to be given full opportunity to have a joint say in the expenditure of these funds. We trust that there will be a reaction to this appeal throughout the country.

Because our problem in South Africa is a lack of people rather than a lack of money, the time has perhaps arrived to consider doing away with some of the thousands of representatives for fertilizer companies fuel suppliers and salesmen. By now the farmer knows where to find his production requisites. Unfortunately it is true that in many cases it has become necessary to treat clients to dinner in order to get into and retain the market. So often there is over-indulgence on such occasions. We should also bear in mind that over-indulgence can also be wastage. When we succeed in having more extension officers and fewer representatives and liaison officers, the private companies will also serve a greater purpose.

Here I want to refer to superabundance and excess. It is calculated that if every person were to eat every day only what was healthy and necessary for him to eat, an additional 70 million people could be provided with a balanced diet every day. It is a fact that today diet courses are more popular than ever before. The fact that these slimming foods are being made available today at exceptionally high prices raises the question whether the time has not arrived to determine the price of foodstuffs according to their nutritional value rather than to place delicatessen in the higher price category. The fact that diet courses are so popular in South Africa today, can only be regarded as a charge against most of us, a charge that most of us lack self-discipline. Herein, to me, lies the essence of the problem of a hungry world and the problem inherent in a hungry world, namely the threat to the ideal of peace and prosperity. Not only in the sphere of eating habits but in many spheres we have a lack of self-discipline today. Too much or too often, instant food is prepared, resulting in under-nourishment, not as a result of insufficiency but as a result of malnutrition. Disciplined work methods can facilitate the achieving of results by research and investigation so that guide-lines that are already out of date when they appear may be limited. When each of us in this country maintains discipline with regard to family planning or also works and builds towards planning carried out in a disciplined fashion, the world will also be able to distinguish with greater ease between the valueless and the valuable and then it will also be easier to achieve the aim of not carrying with one the burden of what is unnecessary.

Measured against circumstances in many countries of Africa, South Africa is a country of abundance. However, this, too, can become a dilemma to us when we lose perspective. Let us in South Africa, then, regard the privilege as a responsibility resting on each of us to realize now that in some countries it is a crime against the state and against the nation to waste food. May we also, then, bear in mind that incorrect eating habits, of which many of us are guilty claim more victims than does overwork. We must also bear in mind that peace and prosperity is not just a situation in which nations and governments rejoice but that peace and prosperity begins with the individual body that must develop healthily through a healthy diet, and that the relation between the producer, the processer and the consumer must also bear witness to peace and prosperity in which everyone can find an ample measure of happiness and satisfaction. Part of our peace and prosperity—also as regards our provision of food and raw materials—will be based on and guaranteed by the farmer in time being able to plough more back into the soil than he takes from it by producing, by all co-operatives realizing or bearing in mind that a co-operative that boasts of its profits has lost its soul, by the processers ensuring that no fibre or crumb of food is lost, by the trader offering fresh products at a fair price, by the housewife feeding the family with what nature has shown to be healthy and by every official, manager, teacher, worker, soldier or farmer starting his daily task well clothed and well-fed. Perhaps, before beginning our work and our daily task with fresh dedication, we—not only we in South Africa, but the whole world—should consider a few words once uttered in the Free State, namely “Everything will come right if each person does his duty”. That will demand of us self-discipline.

Mr. Speaker, after the, shall I say brilliant speeches by the hon. members for Newton Park, Amanzimtoti, Lydenburg and Bethlehem, there is very little left to say in this debate. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Newton Park for presenting such an excellent motion to this House, a motion which makes it obvious that détente in agriculture is something that is easily attained. I think the House and the country should realize that the motion proposed by the hon. member for Newton Park is a direct result of the very positive winding up of the agricultural debate that we had last year by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. I believe, as do all of us in the agricultural group and on this side of the House generally, that this was possibly the first step in the positive détente efforts of the Government that are taking place at the moment. We would like to say thank you to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture for what he and his department have done in that field.

Do you perhaps want to cross over?

It is not necessary to cross over. Detente in agriculture has been so good in the past that there was a time in my life when I toyed with the idea of perhaps initiating an Agrarian Reform party. Let me say that I reject this totally now. According to a cartoon in Die Vaderland a few days ago the hon. member for Newton Park was caricatured as someone with a way of presenting “kop en pootjies” to my hon. leader. Let me say that “kop en pootjies” is a remarkable dish, and it is not only the hon. member for Newton Park and the Leader of the Opposition who like “kop en pootjies”. One knows that the best “kop en pootjies” comes from the Persian sheep, and that is a Schwarzkop sheep. I can assure you that on this side of the House there is quite a lot of that dish available at the moment.

How many are still sitting over there?

Order! The hon. member must come back to the motion.

Very well, I shall do so promptly. It is however, remarkable that in this debate dealing with the feeding of (the nation, this new bastion of White civilization in the House, the new Reform Party, is not represented at all. Surely the Schwarz group are interested in feeding the cities they think they represent; or are they, like ticks and leeches, sucking the blood that gave them entity? I should like to congratulate (the Progressive Party…

Did the hon. member describe members of this House as “ticks” and “leeches”?

I asked whether they were like ticks and leeches.

The hon. member must please withdraw the words “ticks” and “leeches”.

I withdraw them unconditionally.

I should like to congratulate the Progressive Party on having the hon. vegetable producer of Orange Gove here in the House. I know he has now gone out for tea. I know they also have the hon. farmer of Parktown who at least listened to the debate. I am sure that if there were time for contributions from them, their contributions would be of a positive nature. They would certainly not be as negative as the complete disdain displayed for agriculture by the Schwarz group.

I now want to deal with a few points that have not been dealt with in this debate. I want to discuss the question of agricultural finance, the question of agricultural technology and the question of agricultural marketing. We know that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is with us. I believe, however, having read the motion, that the Ministers of Bantu Administration and Development) Indian Affairs, Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations and of Foreign Affairs should have been present during the debate because it is a sharing of knowledge and a sharing of the projection of agriculture into the field of detente. The present problem with agricultural finance is that we have a Landbank and a Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure that deal mainly, let us say exclusively, with our White farming population. At the same time, however, we have an Indian farming population and a Coloured farming population. Although agricultural finance is moving in their direction at the moment, this facility is not yet fully organized and they should be introduced to it. I am also happy to see that there is a Land Bank Amendment Bill on the Order Paper at the moment. I feel that an additional change could be introduced. I glanced through the Bill but I could not find the necessary change. This is something the hon. Minister could take up with the Minister of Finance. I believe that the Land Bank should be able to take agricultural investments as well, in the same way as an ordinary bank or financial institution does. In fact, agriculture could build up the funds of the Land Bank which serves it. At the moment the Land Bank is largely dependent on Government hand-outs and cannot operate freely as a commercial bank dealing with farming problems as it does. I believe that they should be enabled to take agricultural money from co-operatives, control boards and farmers at interest, even a low rate of interest, as the building societies do— free of income tax—so that they can operate freely as a bank and so that agricultural money can be ploughed back into agriculture. I believe that this is an important factor that should be taken up with the Minister of Finance.

Then there is the question of the sharing of technology. We are now creating a new department of agriculture in the Coloured Representative Council. We believe that it is absolutely essential, if this department of agriculture is to have any kind of viability, that all the accumulated knowledge that has been acquired by our departments and which has put us in the forefront of agriculture in Africa should remain available to this department of agriculture which is being created for the Coloureds and for the department which, I believe, will subsequently be created for the Indians.

For a number of years we have had departments of agriculture in the Bantu homelands whose facilities for marketing and research are extremely limited. Every effort should be made to build up—I do not like to use the word “reform”—some sort of agrarian reform through the Department of Agriculture in these homelands. A few days ago we had a debate on the diminishing asset of agricultural land. If we look at the homelands we find that there is a vast potential for agricultural development within them. We believe that we have the know-how to give them and that every effort should be made to put our knowledge at their disposal to enable them to develop in such a way that they will be able, at least, to produce sufficient food for themselves. Eventually they could develop in such a way as to be able to export. I know that we have entered into agreements with some of our neighbouring states and with some of the homelands as regards markets. As far as I can gather at the moment, however, the technological side of it is separate. There should be greater co-ordination of these two factors. In other words, what I am appealing for is an internal détente among the separate peoples of South Africa. It is vitally important that we get that detente going thoroughly, getting the question of agriculture going in every sphere and among all the people in South Africa, so that we have them producing for South Africa and for Southern Africa. Once we have done that we can go into the field of detente throughout Southern Africa and possibly throughout Africa and the Southern Hemisphere. I believe that agriculture is of the absolute essence, because we, the farmers of South Africa, are the people who are going to produce the food. It is no good. Sir, speaking about the development of industry and the development of mining and the development of all sorts of other things. None of these things can develop or function unless they are adequately fed. The Prime Minister has gone on record as saying at Bien Donne, I think, that one of the most dangerous things that could happen in Southern Africa is a situation where you have hungry stomachs—empty bellies. I agree with him, because here lies the seed of dissatisfaction and revolution. That is why a great responsibility rests on all farmers in South Africa. At the moment we must admit that the White farmer is carrying the burden for the whole of South Africa and it is about time that through internal co-operation and example we got the Black farmer, the Brown farmer and the Indian farmer to lift themselves up in a new scheme of production. I believe that the Minister of Agriculture can lead such a scheme. We on this side of the House believe that this can be done. Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I should say that I support the motion because I do support it; I think everybody supports the motion. We look forward to hearing from the Minister of Agriculture, who, I believe, has an early appointment today and who would still like to reply to this debate.

Sir, the hon. member for Albany expressed his appreciation towards the Minister, and I think it was quite right for him to have done so. He was very careful when he used tire word “reform”. Politics is really a strange thing, Sir. Your friend of yesterday attacks you today, but that is how it goes. One sometimes sees the similarity between politics and agriculture, especially if one looks at mistletoe growing on a tree. If you do not eradicate it quickly enough, it kills the tree. Sir, I have a great deal of sympathy with the standpoint adopted by the hon. member for Albany in connection with the supplementation of funds at the Land Bank. I think he has a very good point there, and if he wants to come over to this side of the House the two of us might be able to work out something good in this regard. Sir, to my mind the speeches we have had so far in this debate have contained a certain element of pessimism. Perhaps it is natural for this to be so, for we are dealing here with a very serious matter. I am inclined to feel a bit more optimistic about this matter. I should like to quote to you, Sir, what the Secretary for Agricultural Technical Services said on a certain occasion last year. He said (translation)—

Sir, this is a very optimistic note, and I believe that the Secretary had every right to feel so optimistic about our agricultural situation. I share his optimism and I should like, on the basis of one specific industry, a very important industry, to show you what progress we are making in the sphere of agriculture in this country. In 1973-’74 we had a total wheat crop of 1 832 500 tons in this country. This was a record crop for the seventh successive year. If one takes into consideration that our consumption rises by an average of 5% per annum —last year it was even as high as 7 plus per cent—then I say it is a tremendous achievement that we were able to produce a surplus wheat crop of 329 500 tons in 1973-74. Sir, we have made fine progress. If one looks at the production figure by way of shortages and surpluses over the past six years, we find that in 1967-’68 we still had a shortage of 149 000 tons in this country. In other words, our consumption exceeded our production by 149 000 tons.

The turning point was reached in 1967-’68. In that year we had a surplus of 13 000 tons, and then we made very rapid progress for in 1969-’70 we had a surplus of 23 000 tons, in 1970-’71 a surplus of 249 000 tons, in 1971-72 283 000 tons and in 1973-74 329 000 tons. Sir, this is phenomenal progress, and I believe that this progress we have made in the wheat industry is also being experienced in other spheres, such as in the maize industry and in other branches of agriculture. I feel very optimistic. Today we are making very good use of these surpluses which we always feared. We are exporting to our neighbouring states and to other countries which require these products. We are earning exchange for our country and are building up our stabilization funds. Now one asks oneself how this phenomenal increase has been achieved. I want to tell you, Sir, we have achieved it in the first instance as a result of a horizontal expansion of production. If one takes 1967-’68 as the basic year, the area of land under wheat cultivation has increased from 1 268 000 ha to over 2 million ha, an increase, therefore, of 60% in a short period of six years. But this horizontal expansion of production—and this applies not only to wheat, but also to other field husbandry products—has been made possible by various factors. What are these factors?

The first one I want to mention to you as a factor which has made this horizontal expansion possible is the dedication of our producers. This is proof to us—and the hon. member who spoke before me also mentioned it—that if our producers are adequately remunerated, they turn out the required production. Another reason why we have been able to expand horizontally is the financial progress of our producers as a result of a progressive price structure which is being maintained in terms of the Marketing Act. It is true that the farmer is not always satisfied with the prices for his product and that he grouses and complains to the Minister and asks whether he cannot get an extra R2 per ton. It is only logical that in a time of inflation and rising costs there will always be the feeling that the producer is not really getting what he deserves. But we do in fact have a progressive price policy under our Marketing Act, and consequently things are going well for our farmers financially.

Another reason why it has been possible for us to expand on a horizontal level and why we have been able to bring a larger area under cultivation, is as a result of financial assistance on the part of the State via the Land Bank and the Department of Agricultural Credit. It has been possible to purchase implements and we have been able to make provision for storage facilities so that we have had no need to be greatly concerned about over-production. But we have also achieved greater efficiency in the industry. Then, we have had expansion on a vertical level as well. This is the second reason for the increase in production. This has been the case in our traditional wheat-growing areas in particular where we were simply unable to expand any further on a horizontal level. I do not want to tire the House with figures now, but I would like to point out that the yield per ha has risen phenomenally in the traditional wheat-growing areas over the past few years. What has been the reason for this? What has caused it? In the very first place, it has been due to research and information. We must pay tribute to our researchers at the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and our universities as well as the independent researchers employed by fertilizer companies or other concerns; we cannot disparage the work they have done.

It is impossible to give a survey of the whole field covered by the various Departments of Agriculture in a short period of time but anyone reading the annual report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services cannot fail to be impressed by the colossal scope of the activities of this department. Break-throughs have been made in various spheres, for example in the sphere of varieties. Local varieties have been bred and other varieties have been imported. These varieties have been tested and the seed has been multiplied and made available to farmers. I myself am a wheat producer and this year I am not sowing any of the varieties I sowed six years ago. In years gone by we sowed the same variety year after year. Now we have new varieties every year and farmers can abandon the old varieties which eave a poor yield and sow new varieties. This is phenomenal progress. In the sphere of fertilization as well studies have been made and recommendations have been made to farmers. The nutritional requirements of plants have been determined and fertilizer compounds have been improved These are all reasons for vertical progress in production. Progress has been made in the sphere of pest and weed control. We know that the problem today is a world shortage of chemicals. What is more, chemicals have become extremely expensive, but in spite of that we obtain crop increases of 40% to 50% in some cases where the correct means are utilized. This makes a vertical increase in production possible.

However, what is very important is information, for this stimulates the interest of the producer. As a result of information, study groups came into being. Once people form study groups and start teaching themselves and making their own observations, real progress is made.

However, the question is: Will we, when horizontal expansion is no longer possible, be able to continue with vertical expansion so as to produce more and more. Once again, I am not pessimistic. I am optimistic and I shall explain why I am optimistic. I am optimistic because the various Departments of Agriculture made it their object as long ago as 1970 to allow agricultural development to take place in South Africa according to a fixed pattern or principle, i.e. the principle of optimal land use. What does this mean? It means, firstly, that production should take place in harmony with environmental factors. That is very important. It is no use kicking against the pricks; it is no use trying to cultivate the wrong product at the wrong place, for this only results in failures. For that reason the first requirement for optimal land use is that one should, as far as possible, farm in harmoney with nature. A further aspect of optimal land use is that it may not take place at the cost of agricultural resources. We must farm in such a way that we will be able to continue farming; we must produce in such a way that we will always be able to produce more. We may not impoverish the soil; we must constantly improve it. The third aspect of optimal land utilization is that it should be based on sound economic principles. In the past we have had unsuccessful agricultural projects. We know of the fiasco that occurred at the time of the major ground-nut project in Kenya. One can tackle any project, but its success will depend on whether it is based on sound economic principles. I am optimistic that our agriculture will thrive if we endeavour to make optimal use of our land. Now, when one tries to apply these principles of optimal land use in practice, and especially on a national basis, it is subject to certain retarding and restricting factors. However, we must not allow ourselves to be deterred by that. As the hon. member for Smithfield says, we must carry on until our better is our best. What are these restrictive factors? In my opinion, the most important factor in the implementation of this programme is the fact that we do not have enough people to go ahead with this programme wherever we want to do so. It should be clearly understood that it is an enormous task to provide for a very vast land area, such as we have in South Africa, with tremendous variations in respect of climate, soil types, modes of farming and people. Then we also have a further task— there are hon. members who have already referred to this—i.e. that we cannot simply restrict ourselves to White South Africa, but that we also have a task to perform in respect of the development of agriculture in the homelands. We must develop and stimulate agriculture there. For this task we must set aside a portion of our limited manpower for use in those areas. However, we do so gladly for we believe that we will eventually reap the benefits of this.

South Africa is a rapidly developing country with many employment opportunities for scientists. Agriculture is constantly waging a struggle to keep scientists in the industry. It often happens that universities and the Department of Agriculture cannot compete with other sectors which are stronger financially and can offer larger salaries. What can we do to remedy the manpower shortage? The first thing we can do—this is in fact done, otherwise we should never have been able to make the progress we have in fact made—is to organize well and use correctly that which we have—good organization, therefore, with a proper sharing of responsibilities. This, to my mind, is the key to overcoming the shortages we have. We know that our country is divided into seven ecological regions, each with its own needs, and that there are regional officers for area development programmes. Associated with these regional organizations, we have the agricultural faculties. It is pleasing to see that there is fine co-operation between our faculties and the Departments of Agriculture and we should very much like to see more money being made available for research, to the universities as well, for they have to conduct the background research. I am optimistic that, if we continue on the course we have adopted, and if we work persistently and persevere and do not slacken in our efforts, we can ensure that agriculture in this country has a fine future.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me, in this spirit of sincere brotherly love among the various groups, to thank the hon. member for Newton Park for the motion and for the way in which he introduced it. I cannot find any fault with his arguments. He mentioned an important point, which was that it would be a good thing if the world heard what South Africa was doing. I think it is an opportunity of which one has to avail oneself in season and out, as with this discussion, to emphasize the importance of agriculture as well. The hon. member said that African countries were welcome to learn from us in the technical spere. This is true, and in a moment I shall refer briefly to the fact that we do have contact with African countries. There are some things which we cannot constantly be noising abroad. We are also exporting food, but we do not wish to discuss this now, although the amounts involved total millions of rands. All I can tell hon. members is that this is the best method of bringing about a relaxation of tension and sound co-operation, as I have seen previously in talks with African countries that came to ask for food. When one discusses agriculture, one does not play politics, for agriculture is such an elevated matter that one does not occupy one’s time with trivialities.

The hon. member also referred to the Vaal-Harts scheme which was introduced by the old United Party Government. That is the only piece of politics which he dragged in, but I do not simply want to allow the matter to go unanswered. I just want to ask him why the people did not at that time give consideration to the problem of brack formation with which we are now struggling, and why drainage channels were not constructed.

That only came about in your time.

Today we have a tremendous task in consolidating all those uneconomic units and draining them. However, we forgive them this because these are old U.P. monuments with which we are struggling.

The hon. member also asked what progress we had made with the Agricultural Planning Council. I shall furnish further information on this Council during the discussion of my Vote. I can only say that we have appointed a commission of inquiry into marketing, to which we want to put questions on how we can incorporate the marketing councils and on how this body can be constituted in such a way that it is able to operate effectively. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we will establish this Council, and that we shall consult them on this matter.

The hon. member and various other hon. members referred to the increase in production costs, and they also emphasized the importance of mechanization. It is disappointing that the price of fertilizer was increased yesterday evening by between 38% and 40%. Various members on both sides also realized that these cost increases are in due course going to be reflected in the prices which the consumers have to pay for their food. If this is not done we will not be able to encourage the farmer to produce.

The hon. member also asked what diseases and plagues cost the country annually, and he went on to ask how production could be increased. According to the figures which I have at my disposal we are losing 30% of our food production annually as a result of diseases and plagues. A great deal is being done in the field of chemical weed control, as well as in the field of insect control. The department as well as private firms are doing research in that connection. If we had been able to retain that 30% of our food production, hon. members could imagine for themselves what effect this would have had.

The hon. member also asked when we will have enough veterinarians. We are offering training facilities for 45 veterinarians per annum, but we are contemplating increasing the numbers for which the faculty makes provision to 90 in two years’ time. In other words, it will be doubled. At the moment we have vacancies in 29% of the existing posts. There are 938 registered veterinarians in South Africa, but 720 of them are in the private sector. At present the department has 124 posts, of which only 88 are filled. One of our problems is that a veterinarian equips himself for his profession at a very high cost, but then goes to the city where he can make far more money by doctoring a canary and a lap dog, for the people of Houghton have far more money with which to pay for these services than we in the rural areas have. They therefore go to the cities.

The hon. member also discussed extension officers. Our shortage of extension officers amounts to 19% at present. We have 298 posts, of which 243 are filled. In addition we have now commenced a system of overcoming this problem, i.e. the problem that extension officers go over to the private sector and to the co-operatives. I talked to the department, and the Secretary agrees with me that our modus operandi in future should be: “If you cannot fight them, join them.” Now we are making a joint effort to bring certain of this extension work to the farmer. We do not mind who does it, as long as the message of the correct techniques reaches the farmer. The fact of the matter is that some of our people who have a B.Sc. degree in agriculture are driving around selling oil. It is monstrous; we are losing good manpower in this way. But we are looking into this problem.

The hon. member referred to the shortage of labour. In some regions this is a real problem. Unfortunately we have the situation in South Africa that our manpower-hour for the production of, say, a bag of maize or a vat of wine is very high in comparison with other countries. Another problem is, inter alia, the growing pains which are being experienced at the moment. It is a fact that people are mechanizing at high costs, and this in turn pushes up the production costs. On the 28th of next month the department is demonstrating a machine here in the Cape which is capable of harvesting grapes. All these kinds of techniques are being investigated, but they are all extremely expensive. Today a wheat combine costs more than R30 000. Nevertheless we have to mechanize, even if it pushes up production costs. We must also handle products in bulk. We have placed R70 million on the Estimates for the construction of grain silos over the next seven years. That amount is still insufficient, for we shall have to mechanize in full. The time of the bag is past. However, all these improvements cost money.

As regards the housing of labourers, I want to say that I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Finance is not here because I agree with the hon. member for Newton Park that, if one can tell the farmers in the Greater Western Cape that they can obtain a loan at 1 % for the construction of Coloured houses, why cannot this apply to the rest of the Republic as well? I can only tell the hon. member that I shall attempt to obtain the necessary money.

I come now to the hon. member for Lydenburg. You know, Mr. Speaker, there was a misunderstanding. When we adjourned for lunch he was only half way through his speech. After lunch, however, you called upon another member to speak. He nevertheless gave us tremendously interesting information. He had made a study of the increase in the world population. It gives one cold shivers to think of it. The figures which he mentioned are very informative. One wonders what it is all coming to, particularly if one reads what other people have already said.

The speech made by the hon. member for Bethlehem was also very instructive, particularly his mention of the need for us to work more sparingly with food. You know. Sir, Earl Butts, the American Minister of Agriculture, made an appeal to the American nation and said that he shuddered when he saw that American families were acquiring a second dog. Why so many pets? Today he is a very unpopular man. Hon. members must realize that 25% of the canned fish in England is consumed by cats. In this situation in which we find ourselves today, we cannot carry on so lavishly with food while there are people who are starving. The hon. member referred with justification to dieting, and to the people who have injudicious eating habits and consume too much starch. Many of us are in fact digging our own graves with our teeth. We would do well to eat a little less.

The hon. member also said that each farmer should view his farming enterprise as an industry in miniature. To my mind that is the crux of the matter. If each farmer operates bis farming enterprise, no matter how small, correctly in every respect as far as finances are concerned, it would be a great help. As I have already said on a previous occasion, a farmer is a person who should have a very practical approach He should have a knowledge of economy: he should be a bookkeeper, an engineer and a mechanic: he should specialize in every sphere: he should be a practical person and in addition he should have married the right woman otherwise he would be lost. Today the farmer is so important in this picture of food production, that I cannot but agree with the hon. member for Bethlehem. He also referred to high production costs which are going to result in food becoming more expensive. That is why I am so pleased about the spirit of détente. When we come to the fixing of agricultural produce prices this year, I believe that the Opposition will accept these few minor increases which are going to come with acclamation and will support us when the consumers want to get at me because food is going to become more expensive.

I now come to a few points which I should like to emphasize with reference to this motion. Hon. members must realize that the largest research organization in the whole of Africa, including all similar organizations in South Africa, is the Department of Agricultural Technical Services in all its facets. For that reason it is gratifying for me to be able to say that the Cabinet has never told me to cut down in the sphere of food research. There are many possibilities which we have not even begun to explore yet. To mention only one example: There is the production of fresh water fish in the thousands of dams in the interior of our country. We could produce 40% of our fish consumption internally, in these fresh water dams. We are at present engaged on a project in the Department of Agricultural Technical Services in order to develop in this direction. In this way I could still mention other series of examples of matters which were previously neglected, but which are now receiving attention. Frequently the need to produce an essential protein food simply did not previously exist.

Marketing in African countries does not simply mean making sales to them. What are we doing with our wool and mohair in respect of a country such as Lesotho? They are themselves asking to be included in our scheme and so obtain protection on an overseas market. They want to share in our publicity, and under the arrangements which we have, we are doing this work for these countries jointly. In the case of citrus we are also taking Swaziland under our wing. If we were to say tomorrow that we will not purchase one more beef carcase from Botswana, I do not know what would become of those people. We are purchasing as many as 2 000 carcases from those people per week to achieve goodwill with African countries. I furnished figures last week, and I am now going to furnish the very latest figures up to the end of December. We despatched a million doses of vaccine to Angola from Onderstepoort. We despatched 16 300 000 to Botswana: 181 000 to Lesotho; 1 027 000 to Malawi; 20 000 to Mozambique; 2 495 000 to Rhodesia; 155 000 to Swaziland and 7 839 000 to Zambia.

These are doses of vaccine prepared at Onderstepoort and despatched in bottles to these people at a very low price. They will not be able to obtain this anywhere else in the world. I am not even mentioning Hong Kong, Israel, Mauritius, St. Helena and the other countries that receive vaccines from us. Is there better proof of the importance of South Africa, and of the attitude and spirit which prevails in the sphere of agriculture? At the moment we have agricultural representatives in Paris, London, Washington, Canberra and Buenos Aires. They are full-time agricultural representatives. In addition there are the visits of agriculturalists from various countries, and the attendance of international agricultural science conferences. There is a reciprocal exchange of agricultural researchers.

The Nobel Prize winner. Dr. Borlaug, was here a month ago in regard to wheat breeding. The hon. member for Malmesbury referred to the achievements in wheat production. He mentioned extension and study groups. These are matters of current importance. I can only say that Dr. Borlaug was of great assistance to us with wheat research. We exchange knowledge. South Africa is a member of no fewer than 14 international institutes. I am mentioning only the institutes for refrigeration, for plant classification, for animal blood group research and for horticulture. We are constantly endeavouring to achieve better relations with other countries. The Minister of Foreign Affairs referred to Sarccus, which is composed of nine Southern African countries. He did not mention the countries. They are South West Africa. Lesotho. Swaziland. Mozambique Malawi. Rhodesia. Botswana and Angola. In Sarccus they get together to exchange ideas on certain developments in the sphere of agriculture.

†I want to thank the hon member for Albany for his friendly words. I think that is the spirit that should prevail amongst the farmer croups of the United Party and the National Party. We disagree some times, but we do so in a friendly and positive spirit. He asked whether Indians or Coloureds could obtain Land Bank loans. Any non-White person can, at any time, obtain a Land Bank loan provided the land is registered in his name. The hon. member says that the Land Bank should operate as a commercial agricultural bank and that the farmers should be free to invest in the Land Bank. Farmers can invest in the Land Bank if they want to. However, our problem is that no farmer would invest in the Land Bank at 5½% or 6% if he can get 11% or 12% at Volkskas. Why should they then go to the Land Bank? It is a completely impossible situation. If one could invest in the Land Bank and have the money free from income tax, then I am with the hon. member all the way.

*If we can save on income tax, my friend, then I am with you all the way.

†He said that we must help the homelands to develop their agriculture through the knowledge of the White man. This is very important. I said to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration that we could through the Department of Agricultural Technical Services assist him in developing the Black man’s homelands faster than it was being done at the moment. They are doing a wonderful job. I am farming next to one of these homelands and I can see what they have achieved so far, but I still think that it is too slow. We need that very fertile land with its high rainfall to help us to produce more food.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti said that we had received help from overseas countries. I do not differ from the hon. member. As I have said we are always in contact with these people. During the visit which the Secretary and I paid to various European countries, we were only too welcome to ask and to see anything we wished. Last year I went to Taiwan and from there to other countries. I felt guilty to see how friendly those people are. So, I do not differ from the hon. member on that point. But then he said that those that were being fed in the African states, might bite the hand that fed them. We are not, however, going to give them the food without their paying for it. If you give it, as the United Nations are doing it in certain instances, then you are making a mistake. They have to buy the food from us. We cannot give it to them. I think that you realize it was not our intention to give food to Black states without their paying for it. I think that our farmers will be upset if they hear that we are giving food away to other people while our own Black people in South Africa have to pay for it. So, it is not our intention to give the food to them without their paying for it.

*I think that I have now replied to all the hon. members. I just want to mention something briefly, something which is very important to me. The other points which I have here I should prefer to let stand over until we come to my Agriculture Vote. I do not want to expend all my ammunition now.

I should like to mention the communications media which we do in fact have in South Africa. I am referring to Calling all Farmers. We receive a half-hour per day on Calling all Farmers to make contact with our farmers and furnish them with information. I foresee that when we have television we will be able to show the farmer in colour what a wheatland which has had an insufficient supply of nitrogen looks like, what a wheatland which has been eaten up by plant lice looks like, and what one looks like which was sprayed in time. However, Calling all Farmers is a tremendous asset to us.

The Farmers’ Weekly and Landbouweekblad also help us to a tremendous degree to make contact with our people without playing politics, and to bring home the message to them in a positive manner. I conclude by saying that the Canadian Minister of Agriculture, when summing up the seriousness of the world’s food problem, referred to the power one has when one possesses food, and said—

This links up with what the hon. member for Bethlehem said, and also with the motion of the hon. member. We shall have to give greater consideration to all these matters in future when we discuss food because we have to feed more people with less land and less manpower in the rural areas. Sir, the Great Master Himself said: “Go and till the earth”. He did not say: “Become a member of the House of Assembly, or a Prog, or a Reformer”; he said: “Go and become a farmer”. That was our first injunction, and it was a wonderful injunction. Hon. members on both sides of this House have said that we should augment the image of agriculture, that we should take the consumer with us and that we should do everything in our power to feed this growing population. If we cooperate, I am optimistic about our ability to do this.

Mr. Speaker, I am, with the leave of this House, going to withdraw this motion, and I just want to thank hon. members on both sides, as well as the hon. the Minister, for the way in which they participated in this debate. I think that we have succeeded, even if not outwardly, then at least in the annals of Hansard, in proving that we are even at this stage concerned about what is going to happen and what could happen to the world if it does not see to its food production; that, as far as this House is concerned, we are at least aware of the situation; and that we on both sides of the House will do everything in our power to meet the demands which the times are going to make on us. My thanks to the hon. the Minister for the positive way in which he reacted, and particularly to hon. members on my side who supported the motion so strongly.

With leave, motion withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

At the outset I want to make it very clear that when I am discussing this motion I should like, in the first place, to allow the emphasis to fall on the taking of fingerprints when licences are issued; I think that is the crux of this motion. Sir, I think all of us are very well aware that the transportation system in any country is certainly one of the most important undertakings in that country. The traffic in a country is an indication to one of how that country is going to develop in future. I think that motor transportation probably plays one of the most important roles in the transportation system of a country. Motor transportation has its advantages, and those advantages are not few in number, but unfortunately there are also certain disadvantages attached to motor transportation. I think one of the greatest disadvantages attached to motor transportation is the accidents and the attendant loss of life. I think it is the duty of everyone in the Republic to do his utmost to endeavour every day of his life to reduce motor accidents and the loss of lives on our roads to the maximum. I think that, in proportion to its population, the Republic of South Africa has among the highest number of motor vehicles in the world. The number of motor vehicles in South Africa at present is 2 778 579, almost 3 million, and if we include tractors, then the number exceeds 3 million. We have 1 936 000 motor cars alone. In addition to that there are commercial vehicles, motor cycles, and so on. This is an extremely high number of motor vehicles, and attendant upon this, of course, we then have a great deal of human carnage on our roads. I just want to mention a few figures in this regard. In August 1974 the number of accidents on our roads totalled 19 741, while the number of accidents in August 1974 totalled 5 830. Projected over a year, the number of accidents on our roads was 222 000 and the number of casualties 73 500, of whom 8 500 were killed. I think those are astronomical figures. More than 8 500 people are killed annually on our roads in motor accidents. For that reason I think it is constantly the task of each one of us to try to reduce that number of accidents on our roads. In view of this and in order to adapt to our modern developments, we have now proceded to establish a central registry for motor vehicles. Other speakers will probably elaborate further on this. The primary object of the establishment of the central registry is in fact to combat the carnage which is taking place on our roads every day. In order to achieve the object of the central registry, I have introduced this motion in the House so that we may all contribute our ideas towards making of that central registry the great success which we should all like it to be. The taking of fingerprints when motor licences are issued will impart to such licence the status which I think it deserves, whether it is to own a motor car or to drive one. The primary object is the vehicle on the road and we have to try to bring it about that it is regarded as a privilege to own or to drive a motor vehicle. A motor vehicle is probably one of the most dangerous murder weapons we have in this country today. There is a mortality of 8 500 every year, an alarming figure. I think that when a licence has been issued to a person it should go hand in hand with an absolute confidence in that person to handle that licence, that privilege which has been granted to him, with sound judgment and responsibility. For that reason I think that the highest possible requirements should be imposed on a person before issuing him with a licence. For that reason I hit upon the idea of taking fingerprints when a licence is issued, whether to own or to drive a motor vehicle. In dealing with motor vehicles I think that we should make fingerprints a primary requirement.

When a person is tested for a driver’s licence his ability is subjected to the most stringent tests, and I think this is the correct and a good thing to do, for we cannot, after all, issue a licence to a reckless or an incompetent person. Such a person may not possess a licence. This brings me to one of the most important reasons for fingerprinting being such an important requirement. We know that the public has already begun to think that it is easy to obtain a motor licence or a driver’s licence in certain centres. In other words, the idea has taken root among certain people that one can bribe certain officials to issue one with a licence. It is being said: It is not always what you know, but who you know.

On a point of order, Sir, I believe that the hon. member is being slightly irrelevant here. He is talking about drivers’ licences, while the motion refers to motor licences.

I stressed very heavily that the emphasis in the motion falls on fingerprints. When we refer to motor licences, we are referring to the right to own a vehicle, or to drive a vehicle.

Sir, may I speak further on my point of order? I believe that the rule of the House is that when notice is given of a private member’s motion, the object is to enable the other members to prepare themselves to speak on the motion before the House. Obviously, if the hon. member is referring to drivers’ licences, then he should have given notice in the proper way, viz. that he is referring to drivers’ licences. I believe that the hon. member is out of order when he refers to motor drivers’ licences in discussing this motion before the House.

Order! Perhaps the hon. member for East London City ought to consult the hon. member for Durban Point and if he is still not satisfied, he can raise the point of order again. The hon. member for Potgietersrus may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I referred throughout to the privilege of being able to own a motor vehicle, but that is only one of the factors. Another factor which goes with it is the privilege of being able to drive a motor vehicle. The crux of the matter remains that we should like to have fingerprints taken in order to reduce the carnage on our roads. These should be taken when licences to own or drive motor vehicles are issued. If we confine ourselves to the possession of a motor vehicle one can, mutatis mutandis, make it applicable to the driving of a motor vehicle.

Effective identification will ensure that licences which are issued illegally, as well as duplication and falsification will be eliminated Another essential requirement for the taking of fingerprints emerges when we consider the background and attitude of a person who owns a motor vehicle or who would like to own one. We do not want to issue a licence to a person who does not have the necessary responsibility. That goes without saying. When a person applies for a licence the first time, we do not yet know what his attitude is. When a set of fingerprints are taken we can see what the person’s part is. When it is a young person whose fingerprints are being taken for the first time, we can keep an eye on him in future to see how he behaves himself. On that basis it will then be possible to build up statistics, and in due course the issuing of a licence will be made more and more permanent.

What kind of licence?

A licence to own and to drive a motor vehicle. One can make both of these far more permanent, for one does not, after all, buy only one motor vehicle in one’s lifetime; one buys a motor vehicle for a second and a third time. When one has behaved badly, a record of this will be available from the South African Criminal Bureau.

We should like to reduce motor accidents as far as we are able. We should like to reduce the loss of life as far as we are able. However, we should also like to limit the number of law infringements involving motor vehicles as much as we are able. In 1964-’65 there were a total of 263 000 road traffic offences, and in the year 1972-’73 we find that road traffic offences increased to 767 000; three times more than there had been eight years before. By building up data in the central registry—that is, in respect of motor vehicles, persons, crimes and law infringements—we can establish where the fault lies, and we can clamp down on a person who breaks the law, and refuse to issue him with a motor vehicle licence a second time, a licence which authorizes him to own or drive a motor vehicle. We could even suspend the driver’s licence of such a person or impose a certain condition which would result in his regarding the possession of such a licence as being of a more permanent nature. All these particulars will be fed into our computer at the central registry, and will then be available within a moment.

I want to put it to this House that there is virtually only one infallible method of identification, viz., the taking of fingerprints. It immediately gives rise to effective control throughout the country. It is not merely a matter of clamping down on traffic offenders; it includes other offences as well. The Police will benefit a great deal from the data which is obtained as a result of these fingerprints. The Police will be able to trace criminals more rapidly. I am thinking for example of smugglers, murderers and all other kinds of criminals. The taking of fingerprints when motor vehicle licences are issued will give a system, and cause us to build up a system, which is justified and in the interests of the population of South Africa. I know that there is a misconception among many people that when one’s fingerprints are taken, one is being identified as a criminal, for people immediately think one is a criminal. However, that is not true. This is not only done after a crime has been committed, and it is not only guilty people whose fingerprints are taken. In this connection we can consider the Bantu in the first instance. They are used to having their fingerprints taken, whether in regard to the issuing of drivers’ licences, or for various other reasons if they cannot read. Many of them are illiterate and use their fingerprints as signatures. Among them it is therefore no longer an alien phenomenon at all. In the second place persons who join the Police Force or the Reserve Police Force are also fingerprinted. It is not only criminals whose fingerprints are taken in those cases. On the contrary. They are people who are appointed to protect us and our country. In the third place the taking of fingerprints could also be given a positive connotation. It could afford one the protection which one would like to have and which one needs. It could therefore serve to protect a person instead of being to his disadvantage. It could serve to prove his innocence, instead of his guilt. When I refer to the taking of fingerprints of a person who applies for a motor vehicle licence, it should also be borne in mind that this does not mean that the South African Criminal Bureau is going to have a record system of the fingerprints of everyone in the country. It is only approximately one out of every four persons who owns a motor vehicle. It is perhaps one out of every three persons who possesses a driver’s licence. That system, which is going to be kept at the South African Criminal Bureau or the Central Registry, will nevertheless enable the Police to apprehend a large number of our country’s criminals more rapidly. I could just mention that there is increasing interest in the taking of fingerprints when motor vehicle licences are issued. In America we find that this is already applicable in two states, viz. Michigan and Colorado. The most important Western countries have not yet proceeded to do this. I mentioned at the outset that, in proportion to our population, we have an extremely large number of motor vehicles in this country. It is perhaps desirable that a country such as South Africa should take the lead in this field, that we should be the first to take fingerprints for motor vehicle licences. I also want to mention that when we are discussing the taking of fingerprints, we are not referring only to an impression of the thumb or forefinger, but that prints of all ten fingers of a person should be taken. These fingerprints should then be filed with the South African Criminal Bureau. This will also fit in with the Bureau’s filing system, for the system which we should build up, should be of an absolutely high standard. I believe that the South African Criminal Bureau will be able to deal with these fingerprints and what is more, I happen to ascertain that both they and the Police would welcome the taking of fingerprints when driver’s licences are issued. We know that the various road traffic ordinances in the various provinces will have to be amended in order to adapt to this new system.

I want to conclude with the contention that we should ask ourselves what the choice confronting the people of South Africa is. Do we want an ever-increasing motor accident rate, do we want an ever-increasing death rate on our roads, or are we prepared to do everything in our power to reduce that carnage on our roads? In addition I am asking whether we are in fact prepared to take positive action by giving our fingerprints for such a system, a system which could only have a salutary effect on our people in the Republic.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who introduced this motion placed one motion on the Order Paper, but then, however, he wandered far and wide from that motion. He asked that fingerprints should be taken when motor vehicle licences are issued. In other words, he was speaking of the licence to own a vehicle. But what about all the companies that own vehicles? Should all the directors have their fingerprints taken? What about the different bodies such as the town councils and others? Should the city councillors, for instance, all have their fingerprints taken to enable the vehicles of the city council to be driven?

If you own a car yourself, it is not necessary.

If an hon. member wants to make a fool of himself in drawing up his motion, I am entitled to bring it to the attention of this House. Here a motion has been moved in which the hon. member has not expressed his real meaning. He actually meant drivers’ licences, although he did not say so. It is a great pity that the hon. member did not do his homework and did not move here what he had in mind. We could have been difficult, but we were prepared to let him talk in order to see in which direction his thoughts would go. When the hon. member realized what he had done he tried to get by by saying that there should be fingerprints with motor licences as such. He really cannot mean that every time a car is bought by firms and public bodies such as city councils, they will have to ensure that there are fingerprints on the licence of that car. How on earth will that reduce road accidents? After all, it is not the owner of the vehicle who causes an accident in such a case, but the driver of the vehicle. We are nevertheless prepared to discuss this motion, but I want to take it back to its actual purpose, the purpose which is not stated in the motion. That is the question of a central registry, because that is the essence of the problem. The essence is that to be able to have control there must be a central registry.

†I want to give some relevance and some meaning to the meaningless motion before the House by moving the following amendment—

This gives some meaning to this motion because that is what the hon. member himself said he was getting at. He said himself that that was his aim. I am sure the hon. member will therefore accept this amendment because that is what he meant and this is his objective.

Assuming that we are agreed on the need for a central registry, we then come to the question of the fingerprinting proposed in the original motion. I want to say at once that this is an emotional issue because, whatever one says or thinks, fingerprints are associated emotionally with crime and criminals. Even in the hon. member’s proposal here this afternoon he emphasized that this would be controlled by the Central Criminal Fingerprint Bureau. He himself associated it with criminal records. He explained how it would deal with murderers and other sorts of criminals who could then be traced through motor licences.

Nonsense!

I did not say so; the hon. member himself said so. I want to ask: Why this discrimination against the motorist? The motorist in South Africa is one of the most hammered, heaviest taxed and most messed-around and suffering citizens in the country. He pays customs duty, tax on petrol and crippling tariff rates on pipelines. In addition he pays sales duty on his tyres and battery. He is the man who is hammered from one end to the other. The motorist makes a major contribution and now this one section of the population is being singled out to help the Central Criminal Fingerprint Bureau to build up a massive register of fingerprints so that they can catch criminals. Why is the motorist now to be the victim? Why must the motorist be the guinea-pig for the Central Fingerprint Bureau? Why are the farmers not singled out? Let us suggest that every farmer, before he buys a tractor or a plough, is fingerprinted. Just think what a lot of fingerprints one could then have on the records of the fingerprint bureau! Why should the motorist be singled out? We already have forms of identification. If that hon. member has taken out his “book of life” he will know that it includes a driver’s licence. It includes his identity number, his photograph and his date of birth. It is part of his identity document and is personal to him. In the same way every other person who has a “book of life”, has his licence attached to his positive identification. Every Bantu has his identity book with his photo in it and in many cases also his fingerprints. He has therefore a positive identification. Now, despite this identification, the motorist must give all ten fingerprints so that they can be filed away in the criminal bureau.

We have here on our desks the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill, B.13—’75. It is on our desks at this very moment. There is a law and also a Bill that state that if a man whose fingerprints were taken because he was charged with a serious crime, is found not guilty, those fingerprints must be destroyed. That is the extent to which this Parliament and the country go to say that if one has a clean record, one’s fingerprints will not be among those on the criminal records. Where a man, who is charged with murder or a serious offence, has his fingerprints destroyed if he is found not guilty, the hon. member now suggests that every motorist should have to have his fingerprints included in criminal records so that he can be identified. What this means is quite simple. It means that that hon. member, and if he is supported by any Minister, the Government, admits that the whole identification system in South Africa is meaningless. I now ask the hon. the Deputy Minister: Does the identification system which we have in South Africa not mean anything?

Ask the Minister of the Interior. I am not responsible for his department.

We are now dealing with transport and there is collective Cabinet responsibility. Unless the hon. the Deputy Minister opposes this, he is admitting that the population register is a bluff and a fraud and that it is not, in fact, a system of identification …

One can always improve on anything.

… that it does not facilitate identification. The hon. member says that one can always improve on anything. He has sat here when we have debated for hours and hours and heard from the Government, in reply to our objections, about this absolutely immaculate system, this wonderful system which will have every citizen in his pigeon-hole, neatly labelled, neatly pinned, photographed and computerized. One need only press a button and citizens come tumbling out of a computer. We have heard how perfect this system is. We even have a move to put the voters’ roll onto the “book of life” system because that is a positive system of identification. If the hon. the Minister supports the idea of fingerprinting, he is telling South Africa that he has no faith in the system of identification which his Government has introduced and which it claims is the perfect system. He is admitting that we have been led up the garden path in regard to all the assurances we have had on identification. He is admitting that the system is meaningless, that this Government cannot, in fact, identify people. Let me say at once that there are problems, but these problems can be controlled by a central register. That is why I have moved the amendment. A man who loses his licence in Natal can go across to the Transvaal and take out a new licence and away he goes. There is no way of checking back to ensure that he has not forfeited his right to a licence. A central registry would have all licences recorded there—I am talking of drivers’ licences. One may also include motor vehicle licences if one so desires. Immediately a person applies for a licence one could check, from his identity number in his “book of life” which includes his date of birth, with the central registry to ensure that he does not have a criminal record, that his licence has not been suspended or taken away from him because of offences he has committed.

I want to refer now to those people who are regularly involved in accidents, the irresponsible and reckless drivers who have killed people in accidents. If they have committed an offence and have been found guilty, let their fingerprints be taken as they are taken at present. These will then go on record so that the man who is reckless, who has killed somebody or the man who has committed the sort of offence which should prevent him from obtaining a driver’s licence, is fingerprinted and is then on record. His record can then be checked.

Let us look at the logic of this, apart from the illogic of taking fingerprints of the owner of the vehicle as opposed to those of the driver. What is the logic of this? Assume that everybody has been neatly fingerprinted, that they have washed their hands and are now driving along in a beautiful new motor car and they exceed the speed limit. Is every traffic cop going to walk about with a stamp pad in his pocket? Are you going to have your fingerprints taken when you commit an offence, speed or drive recklessly, instead of having a ticket given to you? Otherwise what is the use of having fingerprints on record? Unless you are going to check something against the central record, unless you are going to check it back—have a fingerprint to check against—there is no point in having a central record. If he is suggesting a central fingerprint registry the hon. member must be implying that, whenever a traffic inspector stops somebody, he is going to fingerprint him to find out if the licence he has is in fact his own licence.

There are other ways apart from identity numbers, for example, photographs. Surely identification by a photograph is reasonable. There could be a rule that photographs must be replaced every five or ten years. We could consider something of that nature. I must admit that the photo I had taken at the age of 17 does not really look like me as I am today, but it is still on my original licence. I have become a little slimmer since then. I repeat, there is still your photograph and your identity number. Unless you are implying, however, that you are going to stop motorists when they have committed an offence and have them fingerprinted so as to check them, then, again, the motion is meaningless because a register will be created which will only be used when offences are committed. I cannot see the point of having all these fingerprints on file unless they are going to be checked whenever there are problems or applications.

Let us look at another problem. Today we have licences issued by all sorts of authorities. They are issued, inter alia, by provincial administrations, city councils, the Transkei, and we have licences issued by foreign countries which entitle foreigners to drive in South Africa. The tests in all these cases will be different. If you really want to get to the root of this and you want a central registry, you must have a standardized test and equally strict standards should be applied in the granting of licences. But how is a central register of fingerprints going to help you if the issuing of the licences by some authorities is not controlled, if you can simply go along and buy a licence almost over the counter as it is suggested it is possible to do in some parts of South Africa today?

I want to say that this is an emotional question whether you like it or not. Fingerprints are associated with crime and with criminals. Whilst it would be interesting to see public reaction to a proposal of this nature—the Government can test it—I for myself am opposed to the concept of finger-printing of motorists being discriminated against and of having to form the basis of a national fingerprint record for citizens, and so, Mr. Speaker, I move the amendment which I have proposed. We will oppose the motion as it stands but support this practical and positive proposal which we believe will make a contribution towards solving the problem.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the motion moved by the hon. member for Potgietersrus. I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point at the outset that since we are concerned here with a very important matter, it is a pity that he has tried to score petty debating points here. When we discuss this subject and road safety in general, it is surely one of the most important subjects that should be discussed in this House from time to time. When we discuss road safety and all its facets, I shall readily concede that even hon. members on this side of the House, as well as hon. members on that side, will differ from time to time on the methods to be used for combating road accidents in South Africa. Sir, I do not wish to cross swords with the hon. member for Durban Point today on this important matter, but since I have told him that there is a difference of opinion in respect of road safety, I also want to tell him that even in Natal there is difference of opinion in respect of fingerprints, for I understand that the member of the Executive Committee in Natal charged with roads and road safety is in favour of taking fingerprints when licences are issued. Sir, I believe that it is a good thing for us to reflect on this matter from time to time, and to discuss our differences of opinion in this House. Sir, we are discussing a matter which is a source of great concern to every right-thinking person in this House and outside. The hon. member for Potgietersrus made striking reference to the number of accidents which take place on our roads from day to day; he quoted certain statistics on which I too want to dwell briefly. A source of great concern to me in respect of road accidents in our country is the fact that our road accident rate in South Africa is much higher than the accident rate in many other countries of the world. So there must be something wrong somewhere. I say it is a good thing for us to discuss this aspect; it is a good thing and it is laudable that there are certain persons and bodies in our country to whom this is a matter of very great concern and who endeavour every day to combat road accidents in South Africa, but the fact of the matter is—and this is a source of great concern to me—that our road accident rate is much higher than in many other countries of the world. I have here in my hand a report which appeared a short while ago in The Star, in which the following is said—

Sir, when one looks at these figures one feels great anxiety, and I think it is right for us in this House to reflect from time to time on the methods to be used for combating road accidents in South Africa. Let us take a look at the motion moved by the hon. member for Potgietersrus. In spite of the fact that the hon. member for Durban Point tried to score petty debating points, this motion was obviously introduced for one purpose only, and that was to try to find methods for combating road accidents in South Africa. Sir, the hon. member for Potgietersrus mentioned certain statistics to you. I just want to make some brief remarks further to that, in order to show how serious this matter is. The hon. member mentioned to you what the figures were in August last year. I want to show you what the figures in respect of road accidents were in September 1974. In September last year, i.e. a few months ago, there was a total of 19 741 accidents in South Africa, in which 560 people died in fatal accidents on our roads, and this was in the course of one month only. Seriously injured people numbered 984. I do not want to bore the House with a great many statistics, but I do want to mention this one. In 1962 there were, in round figures, 110 000 read accidents in South Africa, in which 2 200 people died. In 1973, 11 years later, there were 221 528 road accidents, in which 8 579 people died. In looking at these figures one accepts, of course, that the number of vehicles and people increased during that period, but the figures in themselves are appalling. Over and above the pain and misery which road accidents in South Africa cause our people, all the pain and misery where families are wiped out and the many cases of people being maimed, it may be interesting for me to give the House a brief indication of the economic effect of road accidents in South Africa. I want to take hon. members back to the year 1973. I shall now take the unit cost and loss of man-hours for third party claims and fatal injuries, calculated on the basis of compensation, medical costs, legal costs, assessors’ costs and miscellaneous cost. We arrive at the appalling amount of R9 693 000 in respect of Whites, and the equally appalling amount of R2 390 000 for non-Whites. The figures for seriously injured were R3 800 000 for Whites and R1 800 000 for non-Whites. Assuming that at least 37% of the White and 35% of the non-White population of the Republic are economically active, the 8 566 fatal accidents in the year 1973 represent the following losses, calculated according to the same table of compensation, i.e. medical costs, etc.: As far as the Whites are concerned, there is the appalling amount of more than R8 million, and in respect of non-Whites it amounts to more than R5 million. The 18 022 seriously injured represent a loss of R23 million in respect of Whites and R19 million in respect of non-Whites. Of these injured people, approximately 40% will claim damages, since their injuries arise from unlawful acts by other persons. The loss of man-hours, calculated on the basis of eight hours a day, a working week of five days, and 37% economic activity in respect of Whites and 35% in respect of non-Whites, is as follows: For fatal injuries it amounts to the appalling amount of R64 million in respect of Whites and R98 million in respect of non-Whites. This amounts to a total of R165 799000 for all races. These are terrible figures. We also find, in respect of the 217 000 accidents, that damage as a result of physical injury amounted to R65 million, and material damage to R127 000. This gives us a total amount of more than R200 million which South Africa has to pay every year in respect of its road accidents. That is why I say it is a good thing for us to exchange thoughts in this House from time to time in respect of this appalling situation.

Now I may tell the hon. member for Durban Point that to take fingerprints would be a drastic measure, but I want to tell him that I think that in view of this appalling menace which is assuming greater proportions on our roads every day, we in South Africa shall have to take drastic measures, no matter how unpopular they may be, in order to combat this great menace.

I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that there are people in South Africa who raise objections in respect of penalties which we in South Africa impose for traffic offences. I just want to indicate briefly, in the time available to me, that the penalties which we in South Africa impose in respect of traffic offences are much more lenient in many respects than those imposed by other countries of the world. Indeed, the authorities in European countries regard traffic offences in a very serious light, and not as minor or technical offences. In a country such as Italy, for example, the driver of a vehicle which has collided with a pedestrian who was on a legitimate pedestrian crossing is arrested and detained until he has been tried and sentenced in court. In Austria, for example, the Austrian Government recently prepared a draft Bill in which provision was made for the maximum penalties which could be imposed. In the case of a serious traffic accident in which a driver is found guilty of reckless or negligent driving, or of having been under the influence of alcohol, he is sentenced to two years’ imprisonment or a maximum fine of R10 000. In the case of accidents in which people have been seriously injured, the penalty is three years’ imprisonment, and in the case of accidents in which fatal injuries were sustained, the penalty is five years’ imprisonment. I could go on in this way to show you that the penalty provisions in South Africa are much more lenient than those in other countries.

Since the hon. member for Durban Point has mentioned a central registry which has been introduced in South Africa, I wish to dwell on that briefly, for I also consider it to be very important. There must be a central registry in which a record will be kept of every person in South Africa who possesses a motor vehicle licence. Such a register will also keep a record of previous convictions and of specified and dangerous traffic offences by individuals. Such a record will be kept more or less on the same basis as the records of the Criminal Bureau of the S.A. Police. In cases where admission of guilt is paid in respect of the said traffic offences, this will also be entered on the files of the individuals concerned. Such information will then serve as a guideline for our courts in imposing suitable penalties in cases of repeated contravention of the traffic laws by the same person. Records will also be made available to the licensing authorities in order that the administrators of the various provinces and of South West may withdraw or suspend licences where necessary. It will be possible to exercise proper control over the issuing of drivers’ licences. At the moment, as has already been mentioned, no specific record is kept in the Republic of conviction for traffic offences in the case of individuals. Consequently the courts are generally unable to impose suitable penalties for traffic offences when the same offence is repeatedly committed by the same person. Sentences for traffic offences will then be able to serve as a real deterrent, not only for the person who is punished, but for other road users as well. Such a register may also be linked to a system of scoring —the so-called points system which is being applied with great success in America —so that, if a person commits a traffic offence, certain points are registered against him. When a person has a certain number of points against him, which may be checked by the traffic bureau, a letter is addressed to him in which he is warned to drive more carefully. Then, if he commits a further offence, his licence may be suspended.

The hon. member who is to speak after me may come along with petty criticisms of the motion moved by the hon. member for Potgietersrus, but the principle which I believe the motion embodies is that every South African should make purposeful attempts every day to find methods for combating this great menace which manifests itself on our roads every day. It goes without saying that in a developed country such as South Africa, where we are dealing with vehicles we cannot do without, there will always be road accidents. The way things are going at the moment, however, there is something wrong in South Africa. This seems to be so especially when we make comparisons with other countries. I do not wish to disparage in any way the commendable work which is being done every day by all the persons and bodies concerned with traffic safety, but I do want to say something about speed. We are grateful for the fact that the speed limit which has been imposed as a result of circumstances beyond our control—the oil price and so forth—has resulted in a considerable drop in our accident rate. However, what is the present position in regard to speed? A year or so ago the hon. the Prime Minister and the Government appealed to our citizens of South Africa not to exceed a certain speed, on account of the energy crisis. At that stage every citizen in this country suffered pricks of conscience when he exceeded 80 miles an hour, for it had become a national issue to him. I am obliged to pay repeated tribute to South Africa and its people today for the fact that when there is a crisis and an appeal is made, that appeal is responded to. But what is the position today? People no longer believe that there is an oil crisis in South Africa. While a year and a half ago every person suffered pricks of conscience, we find today that people no longer drive at 80 km an hour, but at far greater speeds. With few exceptions, every person who gets into a motor vehicle today tries to see how he can evade the speed limit of 80 km an hour.

I want to conclude by expressing my thanks to the hon. member for Potgietersrus. This is a good motion and one which may be investigated. In my humble opinion it is a motion which at least contains a positive idea.

What does the motion ask for?

Without trying to score points against anyone or to be clever, I may say that this motion represents a purposeful attempt to see whether we cannot in some way put a check to this great menace in South Africa. I should be glad if the hon. member for Durban Point, who is a good sort and who realizes the seriousness of this matter, would reflect from time to time and would assist the Government and other bodies in seeing whether we cannot keep this problem down to a minimum.

Mr. Speaker, both the hon. member for Potgietersrus and the hon. member for Welkom spoke very earnestly about a matter that probably deserves universal attention. People in South Africa talk about consensus a great deal and I am convinced today that when we talk about road accidents and the heavy loss of life on our roads, we have full consensus in this House. I want to tell the hon. member that he did not do his very earnest speech any good by his reference to point-scoring. [Interjections.]

What was the first point of attack raised by the hon. member for Welkom? He said that one of the political colleagues in Natal of the hon. member for Durban Point, who occupies a high position, is in favour of fingerprints.

That is quite correct.

I am pleased to hear that agreement with that hon. member’s friend is being expressed from all sides. Let us see how hon. members continue to agree with the friend in Natal of the hon. member for Durban Point. Do they know why this friend in Natal is in favour of fingerprints? Precisely because the present system of identity documents, as far as Natal is concerned, has failed totally in a number of respects. I should like to know whether the hon. member for Welkom still agrees with that man in Natal?

Sometimes you really talk ambiguously.

The hon. member must not try to score political points off anyone here, because with arguments of that kind he will achieve nothing.

The second point the hon. member tried to score, concerns the question of motor licences. Evidently the hon. member did not study the motion very carefully. The hon. member for Durban Point raised a number of problems, but the hon. member for Welkom did not attempt to reply to one of those problems. I now want to put just one problem to him. There are thousands of bodies in South Africa which are car owners and in respect of which there is no one whose fingerprints can be taken. For example, I have in mind company cars and governmental cars including the cars of Cabinet Ministers, both the small ones and the large ones. Who are the people whose fingerprints are to be taken in cases of this kind? I mention this merely to indicate that the hon. member for Welkom did not make the slightest attempt to try and give a convincing reply to the points of attack raised by the hon. member for Durban Point.

We are in full agreement with the hon. member concerning the seriousness of the matter. What worries me, however, is the question whether we have started at the right place today. No one is arguing with hon. members when they say that this is a matter of the greatest seriousness. But what does the hon. member for Potgietersrus, who introduced this motion, have to say? He says that we should put the emphasis on fingerprints and I want to say at once it is perhaps in this regard that the hon. member casts a shadow over his entire motion. What is the motive behind his motion? He says that he wants the motion accepted in order to keep death off the roads. Let us be fair towards each other now. Can that hon. member tell me what point there would be in my fingerprints being filed in Pretoria whereas I was a bad or thoughtless driver in Cape Town? How would that be of help to any one? The car is no danger in itself, it is the person who uses it who makes of it a deadly instrument. We talk about fingerprints of drivers of dangerous things like cars, but what about all the people who possess pistols? What about all the people who have such a fine time hunting? Must everyone in South Africa who possesses a rifle have his fingerprints taken because he is dealing with a dangerous instrument? That argument certainly does not hold water. However, that is the essence of the motion as we understand it. I want to say at once that where an attempt to keep death off the roads is concerned, I believe that the amendment by the hon. member for Durban Point has more merit than the motion by the hon. member for Potgietersrus. For that reason I want to support the hon. member for Durban Point wholeheartedly.

Let us take a look at this matter. It is generally acknowledged today that 10% of the drivers are responsible for 90% of the accidents on South Africa’s roads. Now the problem is where to draw a distinction. Where does one draw the line? When is one dealing with a guilty person and when with an innocent person?

While dealing with the issue of fingerprints as a way of identifying people, it is of interest to dwell on the history of this subject. Fingerprints have a long history and I am told that it was a Frenchman who discovered for the first time that something of the kind could be introduced into criminal procedure. After the system was developed it was adopted by Britain. In passing, I just want to mention, as a point of interest, that the fingerprints system in Natal was introduced by the grandfather of the hon. member for Mooi River.

However, if we want to use it, then let us realize that we are dealing here with a matter that is going to cast a shadow on every issue that is discussed here. A start was made with the fingerprint system in France, and from there it was transferred to Britain. Later it spread throughout the world. The fact of the matter is that whatever has been done, no one’s fingerprint is taken before it is evident that he may be guilty of a crime, and until that occurs, he is not troubled.

The hon. member for Potgietersrus also said that this is a practice that has been adopted by certain states in America. The information at my disposal indicates that this may apply to one or two states in America, while the rest of America lies fallow as far as this is concerned. It remains to be seen whether they will go so far as to make use of a system of this kind. The point is that to keep fingerprints in Pretoria will not contribute in the slightest to safety on South Africa’s roads. The matter lies far deeper than that.

Undoubtedly one has to start with training. I am pleased to know that a number of attempts are being made, even among school children, to cultivate a respect for the motor vehicle, which is an instrument of death, among people. There must be extensive training. What is more, the vehicle itself must be inspected periodically, because there are far too many people driving old jalopies on the road. However, motions of this kind are going to get us nowhere.

But that is all they can afford.

It is true that so many people can only afford an old jalopy, but there must really be a check on the road worthiness of vehicles. What I should like to see in South Africa—once again I am far beyond the motion—is periodic testing of all the motor vehicles and particularly all the trucks in South Africa to ascertain whether they are still roadworthy.

It is not only the car and the truck that are involved here, but people, too. In 1940 I drove a car far better than I do today, because, after all, one gets older and a number of problems develop in the course of time. One’s vision, one’s hearing, one’s sense of touch and one’s reactions, all one’s senses are changing. Nevertheless I find that my driver’s licence, which I acquired in 1939, is just as valid today as it was then and it takes me right across South Africa. We are dealing here with a mistake that could be deadly. What has this to do with fingerprints, except that the hon. gentlemen seek to identify the guilty parties? If they had come to the House this afternoon and said: “Fellows, we have misgivings about our identity system”, then we should have been able to discuss that. However that is not admitted. Unless they admit it, my argument—and my argument is as strong as their refusal to recognize it—is simply that with an identity document, every man who possesses a car and everyone else, too, can be traced. There is no difficulty whatsoever in this regard. I have no difficulty as far as this is concerned. I do not see why the motorists in South Africa should be singled out and their fingerprints taken in an attempt to get at the 10% of the 90% who cause accidents. There is a stigma attached to fingerprints. Again I say that we can talk as long as we like but the stigma remains and, as the hon. member said, the law recognizes this. I am told—and perhaps my information is more correct than that of the hon. member for Welkom—that at the time when the identity documents were investigated, the idea was expressed by the Police that they want to get people’s fingerprints. Nevertheless they were the people who abandoned the idea later on. That is why one finds, as the hon. member for Durban Point said, that under South African criminal law, if a person is suspected of certain crimes, his fingerprints are taken, but if he is found not guilty, those fingerprints must be destroyed. That is the law in South Africa. Why is it so? Not because I want it to be so but because the South African people, “verlig” or “verkramp” as it may be, have always regarded fingerprints as a brand or stigma. In the light of this fact I think that nothing will be achieved by a motion of this kind. In the first place the people will not go along with it and in the second place one would, in my humble opinion, avoid such a small percentage of fatal road accidents that the game would really not be worth the candle. That is why I say that however one approaches the matter and however praiseworthy are the motives of the hon. member for Potgietersrus, I think that he would be wise to withdraw his motion. I trust that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport who listened today and took cognizance of the viewpoints will reconsider the matter and will try another way to establish a system to identify the motorist in cases where this may be necessary, and at the same time will come to this House and state that the system of identity documents does not work. That is what I require of that side of the House. Then we can argue again. In the meantime I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Maitland has expressed some serious criticism here. He tried to indicate that a considerable stigma attaches to the whole principle of fingerprints in South Africa. He even went further and said that we were allegedly experiencing problems in regard to identity documents, but he did not take the argument any further. Surely, the motion quite clearly relates the necessary requirement of fingerprints to the motor vehicle owner. After all, this is how the two matters are related. Surely, it has nothing to do with the completeness or incompleteness of identity documents. Let us admit that over a period of years to a certain extent a stigma has built up in respect of fingerprints because this was always connected with conviction and a criminal offence in the past. But we also have to consider the matter further today. Let us analyse this aspect logically. If this stigma does exist, let us try and ascertain to what extent it exists and whether conditioning could not take place which would lead to the acceptance on the part of the public of the principle of fingerprints, provided this can serve a purpose in South Africa and provided further that we could save lives by combating road accidents. Let us therefore accept that a period of conditioning would probably be necessary to accustom people to the acceptability of the principle of fingerprints. Let us take the matter raised by the hon. member for Durban Point further back. I am referring to the whole question of the photograph used on his driver’s licence. When he was 18 years old he looked quite different from what he looks today.

Just as good-looking!

One can definitely accept that also in those years a certain stigma attached to the photograph one had to have on one’s driver’s licence. Surely this must have been the case. Later on this was also made applicable to passports. However, we became accustomed to it; we accepted this because we appreciated that a photograph on that document could serve a useful purpose. For that reason we introduced the identity document, that Book of Life which, in 1970 and 1971, was blown up inordinately in the Press by those hon. members. Since then that document has become generally adopted by everyone, whether United Party, Reformist, Nationalist or Progressive. All of them are proud of that document.

Order! I have already allowed considerable deviation in the discussion of the motion. Hon. members should not deviate any further now.

I shall return in a moment to the attack made by the hon. member for Maitland. He referred to a stigma. The principle of fingerprints is not a curtailment of human rights. The privacy of the individual is not encroached upon and there is no discrimination because White, Brown, Black and Indian are all involved in this. No exception is made. In many countries in which fingerprints are taken on a national scale, no stigma is attached to this matter. In certain states of the U.S.A., for example Colorado and Michigan, there are central registries of fingerprints. There is no stigma attached to it. The people are proud of it. As a matter of fact, the fingerprints of a great many people are far more attractive than their faces on the passports. There is no question here of any loss of human dignity. On the contrary, the idea is that this principle of fingerprints may be accepted. The human being is capable of understanding and when fingerprints are prescribed as a requirement in obtaining a motor vehicle licence, he could be persuaded to co-operate in this matter in order to, as in all other cases, do something for this country’s progress.

What use is there in identifying the owner of a vehicle?

Evidently that hon. member also deviated.

Oh, then you also lost your way?

Let me deal with the hon. member now. He adopted the attitude that the principle of fingerprints is required in tracing other criminal offenders. This is far from the truth. That is not the object. Let us take the matter a little further. The hon. member for Maitland specifically referred to the drivers of motor vehicles. He did not speak on the motion at all. He asked what purpose a fingerprint could serve if a driver of a motor vehicle was a poor driver. That was his argument.

Speak on my amendment.

I can also link the question of fingerprints to the question of drivers, particularly on account of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point.

Then speak on my amendment.

I do not want to cross swords with the hon. member for Durban Point now in regard to the principle of central registries in respect of motor vehicle owners and the drivers of motor vehicles. A central registry system, in respect of which a start has already been made, now relates to drivers of motor vehicles and offences committed by them and is therefore closely related to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point. The provincial central registry is already in operation and is operating quite well in Durban. It will come into force in Johannesburg in 1977. If the other provinces follow this example, we are going to have a method here to assist us in having coordinating control over all drivers and owners of motor vehicles, as contained in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point. If, for argument’s sake, and with reference to what was said by the hon. member for Maitland, I could accept that most owners of motor vehicles are also drivers of motor vehicles, we can see that the main purpose of this motion in connection with the necessary requirement for fingerprints of the owner and/or driver of motor vehicles, could serve a particular purpose. This is a system which can be applied over a period of time. This is a system which could, in due course, be properly filed away in the South African Criminal Bureau. This is a system which would give proper co-ordinating control by means of an infallible method of identification in respect of all owners and/or drivers of motor vehicles, in whichever way the hon. the Opposition wants to interpret this.

This question of fingerprints is most essential. It is significant that the chance of two fingerprints being the same is less than one in 64 million. If we should associate ourselves with the thoughts expressed by the hon. member for Durban Point, i.e. that he would like to have this central registry for owners and drivers of motor vehicles, one would have a complete picture of this whole matter. It would contain all the particulars together with fingerprints, whether registered at the central registry or at the Criminal Bureau. Then one would have an even better chance, i.e. one could use the central registry system together with the system of fingerprints, which would then be centralized and filed away on a national basis. All these factors combined would provide a water-tight control over all owners and drivers of motor vehicles in respect of the acquisition of licences and in respect of the acquisition of drivers’ licences in South Africa.

This principle may serve another purpose. One also finds the unscrupulous owner of a motor vehicle who, from the nature of the case, is also the driver of a motor vehicle, apart from the body corporate, goes from one place to another because his licence is withdrawn. Because his driver’s licence is withdrawn he goes from one province to another as was quite rightly said by the hon. member for Durban Point. One would then have proper control. Therefore if a person is a poor driver and information pertaining to this person is filed away in a central registry and one would be able to link this to a register of fingerprints in Pretoria, one would know whether a person applies for a driver’s licence—a matter referred to by the hon. member for Maitland—and one would then be able to obtain a proper record from the central registry as to whether the driver’s licence of that person has been withdrawn. One would also be able to trace the required fingerprint record in order to ascertain whether such a person has committed a serious criminal traffic offence in respect of offences provided for in the Criminal Procedure Act, for which fingerprints have to be taken and the licence withdrawn.

I spoke about the driver.

The hon. member for Durban Point is now referring to the driver every time. The hon. member for Maitland also specifically referred to the driver, and I am also doing so for the same reason. I am doing so on account of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point. What was said by the hon. member for Durban Point was not quite irrelevant, i.e. that a central system of fingerprints for owners of motor vehicles could then be used in tracing criminals. This is quite correct. However, this is an additional factor. It is interesting to note that in more than 50% of all serious criminal offences, i.e. robbery, murder and armed robbery, a motor vehicle is used. In this respect one would at the same time have an additional aid at one’s disposal. Sir, if we go further one could get away from the idea of a stigma, which was referred to by the hon. member for Maitland, by not making an appeal to all owners and drivers of motor vehicles to report for the purposes of fingerprints. On the contrary, these days there is no question of a person having to put his finger on a black ink pad and having to drive away with smudged fingers as was implied by the hon. member for Durban Point. There are far more modern methods today. Fingerprints are taken on a clean surface and no smudges remain on the fingers. When one has one's fingerprints taken, one makes a contribution. When one applies for a driver’s licence one does not apply for a right without a quid pro quo-, one is subject to and has to comply with certain tests. It is a privilege to obtain a driver’s licence for a motor vehicle in this country. The question may very well be raised at a later stage, with an adjustment in respect of a body corporate, to what extent in the case of individuals the owner of a motor vehicle should not also possess a driver’s licence. This record of fingerprints could be compiled over a period of years. A start could be made with the newcomer who applies for a driver’s licence. To that could be added over the years the names of those people who commit offences under the Criminal Procedure Act in terms of which an arrangement exists, even at this stage, in all the provinces that fingerprints should be taken in the case of listed criminal offences. I am referring to offences such as the driving of a motor vehicle while under the influence of liquor, negligent driving, reckless driving, culpable homicide and failing to stop after an accident has taken place. Sir, if one were to combine all these thoughts only sound results could flow from this whole principle of a central registry of fingerprints of owners as well as drivers of motor vehicles, if the Opposition wants to have this extended to that particular aspect. It would be best if one could make this system of fingerprints, as an infallible identification system, applicable to all ten fingers because this is extremely important for the filing system of the South African Criminal Bureau, because even in the case of ten fingers, there are still 1 024 primary categories of classification and filing. In other words, the argument which has been raised here to the effect that it is going to take time to do the tracing in respect of fingerprints which have been filed away, holds no water at all, because it works on a points system.

What do the Cape M.E.C.s’ have to say about this?

Sir, they have an enormous responsibility towards their people, i.e. to combat the slaughter on our roads and to keep it down to a minimum. I believe that every country today has to try to prevent an unnecessary drain on labour forces, to try to utilize its full labour forces and to protect the innocent person against the harm which could be done to him through the person who is negligent, reckless, wilful and guilty. I believe, Sir, that few figures are as shocking as the figures mentioned here by the hon. members for Potgietersrus and Welkom in respect of deaths on the road, the maiming of people on the road and injuries on the road. I believe few figures are as shocking as the figures which were referred to, inter alia, by the hon. member for Welkom in respect of the enormous material loss involved in the unnecessarily high and ever-increasing rate of motor accidents in South Africa, where we are losing millions upon millions of rand on account of the approximately quarter of a million motor accidents per year, and the productivity which is lost in that people lose their lives, because people are maimed and because manpower is being wasted on account of investigations into road accidents—I am referring here to the medical people, the nurses, the traffic constables and the victims themselves. This is precious manpower which is being lost in this whole process. I believe that every person living in this country should lay down as a basic, primary requirement that he would do everything in his power to try and reduce this accident rate. Sir, if a government is convinced that the loss of life on the roads is disproportionately high, if a government is convinced that the bodies and lives of its citizens are destroyed to too great an extent, if a government is convinced that it has applied all possible means in combating and reducing the number of accidents in South Africa and that only one remedy remains, even though a certain stigma attaches to it initially, I believe it is the task and the duty and the responsibility of that government to introduce such method by means of legislation. Sir, it is in this spirit that I should like to make an earnest plea for the serious consideration of this system of fingerprints in respect of the owners of motor vehicles, a system which could also be extended to the drivers of motor vehicles.

Mr. Speaker, I am fully in agreement with the hon. member for Potgietersrus and the hon. member for Welkom, who supported him, that every person in this country should do everything in his power to reduce the terrible slaughter on our roads. But I have not heard one single argument this afternoon to convince me that a system of fingerprints, this or any other system of fingerprints, would make any contribution to this end. If I thought a system such as this would reduce the slaughter on our roads, I would support it, but not one single argument has been advanced to prove this. I can see the advantages of a central registry, but what have fingerprints to do with this matter? Absolutely nothing. Sir, our problem is not one of fingerprints; our problem is poor drivers, negligent drivers, people who should not be driving motor vehicles. If we were to tackle that problem, we would get somewhere, but I think we should leave this idea of fingerprints alone. I am totally against it. I think it is unnecessary and for that reason I cannot vote for the motion of the hon. member for Potgietersrus. However, I shall support the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point, because it makes a contribution to a most serious problem. But no one on that side of the House has told us or, at least, me, anything which can convince us that we will save one single life by introducing a system of fingerprints.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parktown put his finger on it when he said that nobody on the other side of the House has given any indication as to how the taking of fingerprints is going to save lives. I think I have never heard such emotionally charged words as we had from the hon. members for Welkom, Potgietersrus and Durbanville. I trust they will not take it amiss if I say I regret that for the life of me I just cannot take the thought seriously that the taking of fingerprints is going to save lives. What is the ultimate to be? Are we now going to embark on this life-saving programme? Are we possibly going to display slogans such as “Fingerprint of vrek” along the roads? I cannot see that this is going to help us one little iota. What does concern me is how this system is going to be administered if it ever comes about. The hon. member for Durban Point spoke about the “poor motorist”, but I want to speak about the poor motor trader. You know. Sir, the poor motor trader is a much maligned man. His integrity is always doubted but I want to say in his defence—and I say it because I happen to be one—that he contributes his share to our economy. Directly or indirectly, he is the third largest employer of labour in South Africa, and every member will know that through sales tax and other ways he contributes largely to the State’s coffers. What is involved when this motor trader sells a motor-car? I know everybody thinks it a very easy process to sell a motor-car, they think there is nothing to it, but I have categorized here two types of sales. We have the fleet-owner or company sale, and we have the sale to the private individual. Now, the fleet-owner sale can be either an easy one or a difficult one. An easy one would be the one to, shall we say, the motor company itself. That is quite simple. I am a director of a company in Durban, so every time we buy a motor-car, those responsible must send the documents down to me so that I can put my fingerprints on them after the other directors in Durban have done so. There should be no problem finding me here. Then, of course, there is the tough one like sales to, for instance, the Anglo-American group. We have quite a good representation of this group in this House; we have quite a few of the finger-printees to the documents here and there are many up in Johannesburg as well.

The private buyer presents another problem. What about the poor little wife who goes along and says: “My husband is giving me a new car as a birthday present”, and then selects her car. In terms of the motion before us, the owner has to be fingerprinted. Who is the owner? We must establish, firstly, whether that woman is married by antenuptial contract or in community of property. If she is married in community of property, her husband will have to come along so that we can have both sets of fingerprints.

Or living in sin.

Yes, or living in sin.

That would give the game away!

I want to ask whose responsibility it is to ensure that the correct fingerprint is obtained. Once again, I expect it will be the poor motor trader. He just has to make sure that he is putting the right finger in the right place. Another point too is, what about motor cycles and buzzbikes? We have forgotten those We might even get down to pedal cycles. That would be really making this thing as incongruous as frankly I feel that it is! For the benefit of the motor industry I should, however, like to say that there is sufficient difficulty as it is in finding motor salesmen. Good motor salesmen are extremely difficult to recruit. Just imagine how much trouble the trade is going to have in obtaining the services of efficient fingerprinting motor salesmen! That is going to present them with all sorts of problems. There is only one answer to the problem of road safety and that is better driver-training, not fingerprinting. Only driver education can prevent accidents. The hon. member for Maitland rightly asked: How will my fingerprints in Pretoria help to reduce the accident rate? I should like to pose this question: How will the fingerprints of the registered owner of a motor vehicle who does not drive—and there are many such people, you know—prevent that vehicle from being involved in an accident? According to hon. members opposite, it does! They have told us that fingerprinting is going to save lives.

Natal has been brought into the picture. Natal has a central licensing bureau. In the documents pertaining to the registration and licensing of vehicles in Natal there is provision for the identity number of the owner. So this is a step in the right direction. Why fingerprints? Why not a central registry as suggested by the hon. member for Durban Point? Why not photographs? Photographs need not be cumbersome because they can be reduced on microfilm and, quite frankly, I do not think there is the stigma attached to having photographs taken as there is attached to being fingerprinted. I know that if I had an 18-year-old daughter I would hate the thought of her having to have her fingerprints taken and then, after an accident, having to have her fingerprints taken again. I think it is degrading to say the least.

Much has been said about the privilege of owning or driving a motor car. Yes, it is a privilege.

If you can afford it.

Yes, if you can afford it. I should like somebody to tell me how having the prints of one’s fingers registered anywhere helps in regard to this privilege. What does it do to enhance this privilege? I just cannot see the connection. There is no connection at all.

I would like to close by saying that the only valid points of illustration and example made from the other side of this chamber this afternoon as regards fingerprinting for drivers’ licences, are that this is taking place in Colorado and Michigan. I am sure that the citizens of Colorado and Michigan would be deeply impressed to know that they have been mentioned in the House of Assembly of the Parliament of South Africa this afternoon. After all, they represent 4% of the United States of America, two out of fifty States. What on earth do hon. members hope to achieve by telling us about Colorado and Michigan? Tell us about the entire United States, please; not just about two little states. I heartily support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to express my sincere thanks to the hon. member for Potgietersrus for having brought this motion to the House and given us an opportunity to debate this very important subject. I want to thank the hon. member for Welkom, who followed him on this side and furnished very valuable statistics, for his contribution as well. He gave us a picture of the accident pattern in South Africa and we thank him for the knowledge which he placed at our disposal. It was very informative, and I hope that every citizen of this country will take cognizance of it. I want to thank the hon. member for Durbanville for having grasped and put in perspective the very important point which I am going to deal with shortly. I want to say at once that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Durban Point does have some merit. The only pity is that he presented it in such a manner. It is his custom to act like this in the House, and I was just waiting for the moment when he would produce an Austin Mini from his pocket and throw it down on the Table here as he has done with a loaf of bread in the past. It is a pity that the hon. member for Durban Point saw fit to turn a serious debate such as this into a semi-political farce. Other hon. members on his side did so too, and I shall come back to them later. The hon. member for Umlazi is gazing at me seriously. He is a former police officer and I want to ask him whether there is any positive method for identifying a person other than by means of fingerprints. Is there an absolutely 100% positive and reliable method for identifying a person, other than by means of fingerprints? He shakes his head. So there is not. The hon. member is right, for he has knowledge of this; he knows what he is talking about. What are we dealing with here? The National Road Safety Council, which is deeply concerned about the pattern which has been outlined in this House this afternoon in regard to the accident rate in South Africa and the appalling carnage on our roads, with the attendant material losses and loss of life, has begun to think in the direction of a solution to this problem. From the statistics we are able to obtain from the National Road Safety Council, it has appeared that only a small percentage of drivers, and ipso facto also owners of vehicles, are responsible for 90% of the accidents on our roads. We now want to set up a registry—there the hon. member for Durban Point is correct—to enable us to identify these people and to exterminate them from the ranks of motorists. The NRSC has been looking for ways and means of doing this. The population registration system was mentioned here this afternoon. The Department of the Interior is engaged on a major project in providing each of us with a book of life. Their computer does not have the space to be programmed as we want it to be for the purposes of the National Road Safety Council. The kind of programme we can get with the population registration system is not suited to the way in which we want to apply it. We also went to the S.A. Criminal Bureau and asked them, “If we were to require a central registry of drivers and owners of motor vehicles, would your computers be able to meet this need?’’ They replied, “Yes, provided that the computer programme can handle it in the way for which it has been designed, and that is by using fingerprints.” In other words, the computer system of the Criminal Bureau of the S.A. Police is at the disposal of the National Road Safety Council, which will be able to compose a national registry for motor vehicles, owners of motor vehicles and so forth, provided of course that it complies with the kind of programme and the kind of programming they have designed to be able to handle this. This is the one source we have available to us at the moment for the introduction of a bureau such as the hon. member wants.

What are the prospects and what are the possibilities in this regard? In the first place, as far as the motor vehicle and its owner are concerned, the Bureau of Standards has recently undertaken a thorough investigation abroad and conducted research into the possibilities of associating a test for roadworthiness with the vehicle and also of building up a national registry of vehicles. Now I am talking about a registry of vehicles only. That system would also have to include the owner of the vehicle as well as the description, the particulars and a complete record of the vehicle. The vehicle would also have to be tested every year to determine its roadworthiness. This system would be a computerized system which would be linked to the owner, for apart from other factors, car theft is a problem in South Africa. Hon. members will readily concede that. If we want to apply the investigation of the S.A. Bureau of Standards in practice, it will also be important to have positive identification of the owner. So there are two aspects of the system which were grasped by the hon. member for Durban Point, but unfortunately he did not realize the full value of what was said by the hon. member for Potgietersrus. We are looking for a central bureau for the vehicle as well as the driver. We are looking for computer space in which to make provision for this system. The one place where the computer space is available is at the Criminal Bureau of the S.A. Police. We can make use of that, provided that we comply with their programming pattern. For that reason it would be of great value and great benefit for us to discuss this matter unemotionally and to recognize its merits. I find it a great pity that the hon. member for Durban Point has seen fit to make the remarks which he made here this afternoon. He presented the motorist as a martyr. I think the hon. member for Parktown has a much better view of the motorist and of the problems he creates in South Africa than the hon. member for Durban Point has. The hon. member for Durban Point spoke of the poor martyred people who paid so much tax and had such a hard time, according to him. Not for one moment did he keep in mind the figures mentioned by the hon. member for Welkom in regard to the death toll and the material losses. However, the hon. member for Parktown did take note of those things. We are dealing with a population of motorists in South Africa which is reckless and irresponsible. More than anything else, we need law enforcement in order to exterminate this evil. Through the National Road Safety Council we are looking for ways and means of combating this problem, for everyone in this country agrees that we cannot go on like this and that we as authorities dare not allow the situation to continue. For that reason I want to pay tribute again where it is due, and that is to the province of Natal. Natal introduced a computerized system after the provinces had first agreed on this and it has already made great progress in this regard. I want to ask the hon. member for Durban Point to go to the prosecutors or to the Attorney-General of Natal and to ask them whether they do not find it necessary sometimes to have positive identification in Natal because the information is not sufficient for a conviction, in spite of all the computerized information in Natal. The hon. member should also ask the Attorney-General of Natal whether it has not happened in Natal, with its unique population structure, that people have been acquitted because there were differences on the point of positive identification. All over South Africa there are hundreds—if not thousands—of people in possession of forged motor vehicle licences or, as the hon. member for Durban Point said himself, licences which you can buy over the counter. We need a central system to eliminate this and we need positive identification which will also be good enough for the prosecutors of Natal with their computerized system for determining people’s identity. That is what is needed.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Maitland saw fit to criticize population registration and wanted to trap me into criticizing it as well. This matter is the concern of the hon. the Minister of the Interior, on which I have nothing to say and which I cannot criticize.

It is the concern of the Government.

He said that if I were to say that there is no space on that computer and that consequently we cannot use it or that the identification is not correct, this would constitute criticism. However, this is not so; it is merely recognizing the fact that the population registration computer is just not suitable for the purpose for which the National Road Safety Council wants to use it. The point is that the system of the Criminal Bureau of the Police is in fact suitable.

As far as the hon. member for Umhlanga is concerned, I am sorry that he tried to make such a farce of this debate by saying things such as “fingerprints of vrek —slogans along the roads”. Earlier on we had the former member for Salt River here. He used to be a car dealer and I thought very highly of him as a person. Now I am sorry that the quality of car dealers in the House has not improved in the meantime.

What about the Ministers?

I am grateful for the positive opinions which have come from both sides of the House and for the contributions which have been made. I am now able to go to the National Road Safety Council to convey to it the thoughts expressed in this House. I shall feel free to tell it that a debate has been conducted here in the House of Assembly and that Hansard may be read attentively for the positive contributions made here on this particular subject. The discussion of this motion holds the added advantage of being able to serve as an incentive for the National Road Safety Council in its future attempts to combat this particular problem. I want to make an appeal to the Press, an appeal which I made to the hon. member for Durban Point beforehand, but which he did not heed. My request was that we should not get emotional about the subject of fingerprints, that we should not do what the hon. member for Umhlanga did when he said that it would be degrading for his imaginary 18 year old daughter to do this. This is precisely what should not be said here. We are dealing with a reality here. We are dealing with a great problem. I thought this motion was the ideal opportunity for drawing the country’s attention to this matter, so that we could hear from our people how they felt about this. Then we could look into the matter with the assistance of the National Road Safety Council. I should be grateful if the Press would ignore the false emotions—no, Mr. Speaker, you will not allow that; I do not mean it in that sense—the artificial emotions which have been stirred up here this afternoon on this matter, and would present the whole question of fingerprints in its right perspective to our people outside. We shall receive letters about this, of course. The hon. member for Durban Point will receive such letters, as will the National Road Safety Council and I.

Letters in this connection will appear in the columns of the newspapers as well. In the light of this we shall be able to judge, and after we have heard from the public, we can have another debate on the subject. However, I hope the emotions will not be stirred up unnecessarily. I am grateful for the fact that the hon. member for Potgietersrus has raised this very important matter in a highly responsible manner in this House, which is the proper place for it. In this way we shall be able to test the feelings of the people. We shall learn how they feel about this matter in due course, and in the meantime I shall request the National Road Safety Council to give urgent and serious attention to the various arguments and points raised here this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the mover is prepared to withdraw the motion and I accordingly ask leave of the House to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, in view of what was said by the hon. the Deputy Minister, and more particularly of the fact that he will submit this whole matter to the National Road Safety Council and discuss it with them, I am prepared to withdraw the motion.

With leave, amendment and motion withdrawn.