Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment which the hon. the Minister has moved. We do not feel it is necessary to debate this at any length. All we wish to do is to place on record the fact that this is a logical development in the evolution of the Defence Force. It is an amendment we welcome and is, we believe, in the interests of South Africa and her Defence Force as well as of greater co-operation between all segments and sectors of that Defence Force. We therefore give our full backing to this change which we believe will be a step forward in the direction in which we would like to see South Africa moving.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that we in these benches welcome this amendment. We believe it will make a positive contribution to the defence of our country.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches wish to say no more about this amendment than that we support it.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House I wish to make a short statement in connection with the explosion which occurred at the Sasol plant yesterday morning. We already know that seven Whites were fatally injured, and on behalf of the Government and this House I should like to express sincere sympathy with the relatives of the deceased. Seven non-White workmen have also been injured. Two of them have probably already been discharged after treatment, while the condition of the other five can be described as not very serious. We wish them all a speedy recovery.

The gas reforming plant in which the explosion and fire occurred is a plant that was established to optimize the plant’s production. This plant was damaged extensively, but it will shortly be possible for Sasol’s fuel and petro-chemical production to proceed at its originally planned capacity. Since all the facts are not available at this stage it is difficult to predict when the damaged plant will come into operation again. The petro-chemical and fuel plant, in other words the oil-from-coal plant, may possibly be in operation again within the next fourteen days. This estimate is, however, subject to review. In this connection, however, I want to mention that Sasol’s oil-from-coal plant for fuel production at Sasolburg is relatively small in view of the fact that most liquid fuel is at present being produced in the Natref and Sasol Naphta cracker installations. These plants have not been affected by the explosion and there is accordingly no reason for concern as far as the fuel supply position is concerned. Sasol’s most urgent problem is to resume the supply of gas to Gascor for distribution to Johannesburg and the East Rand. The progress made last night in this regard indicates that the corporation’s aim to resume delivery at 06hoo on Wednesday 16 April 1975, that is tomorrow morning, will be achieved. There is still gas in Gascor’s pipeline and consequently hospitals and restaurants which draw their supplies from Gascor direct continue to do so and no break in the supply is expected. In any event, Sasol is of the opinion that the longest break in the case of industrial users of gas will not exceed 40 hours.

It is gratifying, Mr. Speaker, to be able to say that the morale of Sasol’s employees is exceptionally high. Numerous off-duty shift workers and others away on leave, even as far afield as Cape Town, have already reported voluntarily for duty yesterday, or offered to help out during their leave. This is sincerely appreciated.

It is fitting on this occasion to make mention of Sasol’s outstanding accident-free record. Since 1959 the Corporation has received 45 awards from the National Occupation Safety Organization. Among these was a merit award for 3,29 million accident-free working hours and the Noscar trophy was won by Sasol both in 1973 and 1974.

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that under the capable leadership of Sasol’s management the whole plant will again be in full operation shortly and that a minimum of disruption will be experienced in the meantime.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House would like to associate ourselves very closely with the sympathy extended to the relatives of those who lost their lives or were injured in this accident. It is tragic that an institution with such a wonderful safety record should have had a tragedy of this kind. It is a wonderful thing to know that there is this esprit de corps among Sasol’s workers that volunteers throughout the country are prepared to come back and do what they can to get things going again as fast as possible.

QUESTIONS (see “QUESTIONS AND REPLIES”)

Mr. Chairman, this clause amends the existing provisions of the Act in such a way that any profit or surplus arising from the development and disposal of a housing scheme, instead of being paid over to the Housing Commission, is now to be retained by the local authority or other body concerned with the development of that particular housing scheme. One welcomes this measure, but there are one or two questions which arise and which I would like the hon. the Minister to be good enough to deal with.

The first is the problem which exists and continues to exist in the fixing of the selling price of a house, particularly one which falls under a sub-economic housing scheme. It happens that a tenant with the option to purchase is given occupation, and there are occasions where the delay is as long as seven years before a fixed selling price is determined. One understands that there are problems concerning accounting, etc., in the interim, but this does cause a good deal of discontent to a would-be purchaser when, on given occupation, he is given an estimate, and then, after six or seven years, finds that there is a considerable increase in that figure. I hope the hon. the Minister can give attention to this problem, which arises particularly in Natal. There it often happens that there is a change in the purchase price.

Secondly, now that there is a profit incentive—if I may put it that way—to the local authority or utility company to show profit on a scheme so as to provide funds for community facilities, I wonder to what extent the hon. the Minister is going to control the recovery of the cost of the installation of services in a township which is laid out for Coloureds, Indians or Whites from the actual persons who are to buy the properties. I believe that the position at the moment is that there is a special allowance made by the Housing Commission to the local authority to provide for roads, water, sewerage, etc., in addition to the actual building of the houses. To what extent is there going to be a profit margin or control in so tar as that figure is concerned? I refer to the recoupment of the actual cost of installation of services.

There is a third and last point I want to raise, and I would appreciate it if the Minister would deal with it. The clause now states that the funds may be used by the local authority for the provision of facilities for community development as determined by the commission in consultation with the Treasury and, in terms of the hon. the Minister’s amendment, after consultation with the local authority. Is it the hon. the Minister’s intention to have any principle applied whereby any profits or surpluses arising from sales in a township must be spent in that same township when they become available, or will there be a certain amount of latitude so that, where there are profits or surpluses from one township, they may be utilized in another township or another area which is under the same local authority or utility company? I think that a certain amount of flexibility might be desirable in that regard. I would be interested if the hon. the Minister could indicate his thoughts in that connection.

Mr. Chairman, as far as the first question of the hon. member for Green Point is concerned, I want to say that it is sometimes a fact it may take quite a long time before the final price is determined. That could be the result of obligations which have to be met. I received a note from my department a moment ago in which mention is made of a case in Durban. The department informs me that the problem is being investigated at the moment. The reason was that Chatsworth was developed piecemeal and that the services and land prices were not finally known. My department is trying to determine the final price as soon as possible, also because it is in the interests of the purchaser. For the information of the hon. member I can say that the position is that the biggest profits made in this regard up to now, were made on business sites sold by auction. The recovery of services and the third point the hon. member mentioned with regard to the various townships within the same local authority, is one of the considerations why the department has to be granted the power to have access to the books of local authorities so that we shall be able to see precisely what is going on and to make sure that funds which should be earmarked for this particular purpose, are not utilized for other purposes.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Report Stage taken without debate.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we regard this measure which, has been introduced by the hon. the Minister, as a constructive measure and have as such supported it during the previous stages. We welcome particularly an innovation, a recognition, by the hon. the Minister of the position of local authorities when it comes to dealing with housing in the various local authority areas. Not only will the Standards Committee which, is to be established to determine the standards for community facilities, have represented on it the United Municipal Executive but the hon. the Minister has also amended this Bill during the Committee Stage to allow for compulsory consultation between his department and local authorities in the two relevant instances this measure. We welcome those provisions and we do so particularly because this Bill is extending responsibilities to the department to provide for, to look into and to instigate the establishment of community facilities and not only to deal with, the housing need, viz. four walls around a family. This measure will now enable the hon. the Minister in utilizing the Housing Act to provide service centres for the aged in townships and in areas which have been developed by the department, by local authorities or by some other authority receiving financial aid from the Housing Commission. It will now be able to provide for chrèche facilities for children of working parents, although this Bill does limit that to divorced or widowed parents. I believe that in these times of inflation the hon. the Minister’s heart will be softened so that he will find that there is also a need for chrèche facilities in instances where both the husband and the wife must work to be able to maintain their standard of living. This is true particularly of the lower income groups. I am sure that is a matter which will receive the hon. the Minister’s sympathetic attention as and when the establishment of these community facilities is developed. There is, however, one thing which I believe is important. Though community facilities are not defined in the measure before us, we have assumed them to include certain aspects which the hon. the Minister has referred to generally. I and others on this side have also dealt with certain aspects. We take these facilities to include the provision of halls for the use of the public in a community area, the provision of sport and recreational facilities, the provision of library facilities and in addition to that one assumes they will include parks and children’s playgrounds, etc., in the residential areas. It is hoped that these potential developments in the housing schemes and housing estates will receive the utmost priority not only from the hon. the Minister, but also from the local authorities in whose areas these housing estates fall.

I have mentioned before, and I repeat again, that there will be a need for very careful co-ordination in the provision of these various facilities, co-ordination between the authorities who are responsible because unfortunately there is divided responsibility as far as these facilities are concerned. One has, as I have mentioned, the question of health, the preventative side which is the responsibility of the State and the curative side which is the responsibility of the provinces. I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to utilize this measure to see to it that adequate clinics are provided to prevent illness and disease. I also hope that there can be an expansion of what has been successfully initiated by the Cape Provincial Council. I must say that credit is due to the hon. member for Caledon when he was on the Cape Executive. I am referring to the development of the day hospitals to obviate the long distances that have to be travelled by people in these townships to reach some established hospital. In this way hospital facilities and a good deal of the treatment can be brought to them due to the existence of day hospitals dispensing treatment in the areas where these people live. I believe that if the House passes the Bill before us, attention may well be given to that aspect. Let me just mention that in the hospitals in the Peninsula—Groote Schuur, for instance—one has an attendance figure in the out-patients department of something like 4 000 persons per day. A considerable number of those patients could well be dealt with by the sitting of a day hospital in the residential area in which, these people are living. I am sure the hon. the Minister can give attention to that when it comes to this committee which, he is appointing to deal with the standards of facilities. It is to be hoped that those standards do not only mean the purely physical standards, e.g. the type of construction, but also the nature of the facilities to be provided. I have also dealt with the question of libraries, which are the responsibility of the local authorities and of the provinces. There are the facilities in regard to children and the aged, involving the Department of Social Welfare, because the provision of those facilities without Social Welfare involvement would mean a mere physical facility without the beneficial social aspect which can be provided for if the Department of Social Welfare is drawn in. One has the same aspect as far as facilities for sports and recreation are concerned. As I have said earlier, I welcome the recognition of the United Municipal Executive and the local authorities for consultation. Although I have not had the experience myself, many other hon. members in this House have served on local authorities and I think that they will agree with me that local authorities acquire a certain amount of expertise in regard to the circumstances which prevail in their own local authority areas. It is as well that that expertise should be used to the utmost in order to determine the type of facilities and the nature of the facilities which are desired within any particular local authority area.

There is one further point which we welcome in this Bill and that is the provision which extend building loan assistance to the purchasing of existing dwellings. I think that that is a wise precaution which, should be welcomed because it covers the position of a man who has acquired a home through State assistance and who is then transferred through no fault of his own, who is not moving by choice. Such a person will then be able to have the benefit of acquiring a home in a new area with the same assistance with which he initially acquired a home in the area from which he was transferred. I know that the hon. Minister and his department will not be over-generous in applying this principle, but there are circumstances where this assistance will be worthwhile.

In welcoming this Bill as it looks in the Third Reading and the effect which it will have, I think that it is most important that we should recognize in this House the necessity that people who reside as a community in a township or a residential area —I use the word “township” in relation to the technical aspects of a laid-out township and not in a derogatory sense—have a community existence. I believe that one must always be very careful in these matters not to allow the idea to develop that it is for the State or for the local authority to merely give hand-outs to meet the particular needs of a community. I think that local communities must become involved in the development of these facilities, in the direction of the facilities which are being provided and in the control and management of the community facilities when they have been provided, and that aid, where it is given, should be given liberally, especially where the local people are prepared to indicate the acceptance of the necessity that they themselves can contribute to the development and the adequate use of such material facilities as buildings or areas of ground which may be provided for them. I myself have a great belief in self-help, and I think the principle can be introduced, the element of self-help, where this assistance is given. A good deal of community life and community spirit can be developed where there is assistance to a certain degree. For instance, if there is a request for materials, these should be provided and residents encouraged to build over weekends. This will give them an interest in the matter because they will be involved in these facilities and in the community life within their area. I do believe that by doing that we can develop a community pride and an acceptance by the community—which I am sure they will do—of an ever-expanding and corresponding responsibility to use these facilities which are provided to the utmost benefit of the whole community. One of the troubles we have had in the urban areas has arisen because of the absence of community facilities. One has had townships or areas established, particularly where removals of persons from one area to another have been necessary, where families who have come from different areas who have no community interests and who have had no personal contact as family with family. They are housed next to each other and I believe that the provision of community facilities will do a lot to create a community life and, I hope, also assist these people in creating a better situation for themselves, their families and their children in these residential areas. For that reason we support this Bill at the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased that the hon. member for Green Point, on behalf of the official Opposition, supports this Bill which we, too, welcome. For my part I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and the department on this legislation because we believe that it is essential legislation. We are particularly grateful that at an early stage, when he discovered that there was a pressing need for cerain facilities, the hon. the Minister appointed a committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Fouché, a committee with wide terms of reference which was authoritative in that its members were qualified to institute a searching investigation into this whole matter. We are also grateful that that committee brought out a report within a year of its appointment and that after another year the legislation that resulted from it is already at this advanced stage before the House of Assembly.

Earlier in this debate the hon. the Minister furnished replies to some of the matters which the hon. member for Green Point has just been discussing. I, too, shall come back to some of these matters. If we take into account those who served on this important committee which investigated this important matter, and what the terms of reference of that committee were, and if we also take into account all those who gave evidence before that committee, it is not surprising that the Opposition agrees with what is embodied in this Bill. To be specific, this committee was so constituted that the local authorities and provincial administrations themselves, who deal with these matters, were very well represented on that committee. Perhaps I could just remind hon. members briefly that 47 municipalities completed questionnaires at the request of this committee, that a further 60 persons submitted oral evidence on behalf of bodies such as the city councils of large cities, the CRC, the S.A. Indian Council, the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, the Chamber of Industries, the Chamber of Commerce and the Institute of Municipal Treasurers. All these bodies and individuals gave evidence before this committee. That is why the committee was able to complete this comprehensive task in such a short time and submit unanimous recommendations to the hon. the Minister. Even more important is the fact that those recommendations have been accepted by the Government and are embodied in this Bill.

The outstanding characteristic of this legislation is the very positive steps being taken in the interests of the lesser-privileged people and the non-Whites in particular. The committee found that there shortcomings did, in fact, exist and that sound community development was not feasible without community facilities. The committee not only identified the needs, but also made recommendations as to the way in which those needs could be met and the ways in which the financing of this could be supervised and controlled. The Housing Act has accordingly been extended in such a way that provision may also be made for these new schemes of which the three most important are the service centres for elderly persons, the places of care for children and the provision of facilities for community development. Both the service centres for the elderly and the places of care for the children of working parents are, in our modern times, an absolutely essential service that must be provided.

Developments that have taken place, in the medical sphere in particular, have caused a substantial increase in the life expectancy of man. I think the best proof of this is the fact that most of our pension funds have become obsolete because they only provide for a period of about ten years after retirement whereas in practice it is found that people live much longer today. Therefore more people are becoming older today than in the past, and these people must, receive attention because they feel rejected by society; they lose social contact and become more dependent and lonely. Nevertheless, we find that it is characteristic of these elderly people to cling to the life they have known and to try and remain independent for as long as possible. If the provision of these service centres to those of our elderly people who have not been accommodated in old-age homes is effected under this legislation, it will mean that their old age will be eased and made more pleasant, and although we probably still do not deserve to go to heaven for this, I think that we are at least doing our Christian duty by seeing to the needs of these people. These centres will place those old people in particular who are still, to a large extent, able to exist independently and who ought to do so, to some extent in a position comparable to those of their contemporaries who are accommodated in old-age homes and who already provided some of the services that are now being envisaged for the others, and are enjoying that privilege.

Our old-age homes are occupied today by large numbers of people who should in fact still have been living outside the homes but because they are unable to see to their own interests properly or take care of themselves properly and because their children and other relations are concerned about them, they are driven to seek protection in an old-age home at what is perhaps too early a stage. With these facilities available, many of the elderly persons who are at present accommodated in old-age homes will perhaps still be able to lead an independent life outside the homes. Then there will be room in our old-age homes for those elderly persons who, owing to their inability to exist independently, ought to be accommodated therein. The provision of these facilities will possibily have a beneficial effect on the pressure on our old-age homes and the long waiting lists.

I hope that these centres for the elderly will also make provision for convenient restaurants where they can meet socially, where they can visit and where they can be provided with meals. I even hope that meals will be provided there which can be delivered to ill and infirm elderly people. This is precisely what we have found, that many of these people neglect themselves terribly because no provision is made to take good care of them. The provision of these facilities could substantially relieve the pressure.

Another aspect of great importance in this regard is the fact that at the moment, many individuals are providing charitable services on a voluntary basis by visiting our elderly people and providing them with certain limited services. If these facilities are to be provided, as the hon. the Minister envisaged, on the initiative of welfare organizations and utility companies, then I do not foresee a problem and we should be pleased if this voluntary charitable service could be linked up with the new dispensation in terms of which the Department of Community Development provides these facilities in the future.

Another aspect which I consider to be of great importance is television. It would be a very good thing if television could be provided for the elderly people in these service centres for the sake of recreation and instruction. For example, one important matter about which they could be instructed on television is the matter of a healthy diet. In any event, many of the elderly people will probably be unable to afford to hire or purchase television sets.

Before leaving this subject of service centres for elderly people, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the Strand, which is the principal town in my constituency, has an extremely high percentage of retired, people who are not accommodated in old age homes. Could the Strand be put high on the priority list for the provision of a service centre for elderly White people?

The wind blows too much there.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth North states that the wind blows too much there. I think that surveys were conducted about two years ago which indicated that Port Elizabeth has much more wind than the Strand, although at times the wind blows perhaps a little harder at the Strand. The development of medical science has not been the only development. In relation as our country has developed in the technical and other fields as well, it has become more necessary for the mother to become part of the economic life of the country, sometimes because she very much wants to, but sometimes, too, because needs must, and consequently it is essential that for the sake of our national economy and manpower shortage we should provide for the care of the children of those people. I hope that in the non-White areas in particular, extensive provision will be made as far as this matter is concerned so that the very large number of children who require after-school care may be accommodated.

The provision of facilities for community development is a matter that is of deep concern to me. In Biblical times it was the custom to give a child a name that suited him. Fortunately that is no longer the custom today. I think that this has saved many of us from having appropriate names. In the past, the Department of Community Development concentrated to such an extent on the provision of housing that it did not do what it was supposed to and what its task really consisted of. This Bill is now putting the facts into perspective, and when the community facilities are provided by this department, the department of Community Development will really be worthy of the name and its name will in fact describe its activities.

What is also encouraging, Sir, is that the provision of these facilities will not be substitutionary. This will be an additional service provided by this department. The provision of housing will not be prejudiced or delayed by the introduction of this new service. Although this measure will be to the benefit of all the inhabitants of our country, we know that it is the non-Whites in particular who will benefit by this Act. I have in mind in particular the resettlement of non-Whites who have to be moved. The hon. member for Green Point also referred to this So often the Government is reproached for having taken these people out of an existing community and put them somewhere there is not really any semblance of a community. It is never stated that 92% of them are taken from absolute slum conditions and accommodated in good houses. This Bill now holds out as a prospect that even for those people who are re-settled in the new areas, community facilities will be provided. When the hon. the Minister announced this in October last year he intimated that it was envisaged that community facilities costing about R1 million would be provided at Mitchells Plain for the Coloured squatters living in wretched circumstances on the Cape Flats, proof of the serious light in which the Government views this matter. These basic facilities, community facilities, are worth a great deal more to our non-Whites than the franchise, about which many of us sometimes have so much to say, because these things affect their very existence; they affect their human dignity. The Opposition so often maintains that the Government is not doing its duty in regard to the non-Whites. Although I am pleased that the Opposition welcomes this Bill, which will chiefly benefit the non-White communities, I should in fact have preferred them to emphasize from their side, too, that this measure will in fact substantially benefit these people, even more so than many White communities.

Sir, particularly as far as facilities in the non-White areas are concerned, I hope that the facilities will be planned and provided in such a way that there will be scope for the large numbers of young people in those areas who have problems as to how to spend their leisure time; that attention be given to this problem on an organized basis and that there should be scope for the pursuit of a large variety of interests, both extra-mural and intra-mural, with special reference to the large numbers of them who have no way of spending their leisure time in the evenings, or in any event lack adequate facilities, and with special reference, too, to the shift workers. Provision will also have to be made in the same areas for the necessary aids for adult education which are a pressing need among the non-Whites.

Not only will these facilities be provided in new development schemes, but existing housing schemes will also be able to demand these facilities, and this applies even to those small Coloured towns with fewer than 10 000 registered voters. This is a very valuable provision of this Bill.

It is also as well that these people will not necessarily get everything for nothing, but will in fact make a contribution, even though it may be on a very small scale, for these facilities which will be established for their exclusive use. As far back as last year the hon. the Minister had already cleared the way for this by giving an indication of the manner in which these schemes could be financed, and he did so again this year in his second reading speech and in reply to questions, and consequently I am not going to deal with that again. I want to mention that the supervision and control which the Housing Commission will exercise over the provision of these community facilities is essential; and the same goes for the powers which will be given to the hon. the Minister in this regard. As the hon. member for Wynberg rightly said—although in my opinion he dwelt on this matter far too long, as I shall indicate—there are, unfortunately, municipalities and other local authorities who are displeased that the Housing Commission will now have the power to instruct a local authority to provide these facilities and schemes. It is true that there are local authorities which are unenthusiastic about housing schemes or facilities such as those envisaged here. However, for the sake of the ordering of our society and in order that those same pressing needs which this committee pointed out may be met, it is essential that attention be given to these things and that these facilities be provided, and provided in the shortest possible space of time. It is true that the principal Act does not contain this provision to the effect that the Housing Commission may instruct a local authority to provide these services. This is a change. The initiative to provide the scheme may now be taken by the Commission and entrusted to a local authority. Certain individuals and certain local authorities will not like this, and in order to carry out the purpose of the Act, viz. to meet a real need—the committee found that community development could not take place if these facilities did not exist—and these facilities are essential for the taking of the necessary steps where there are local authorities who are unwilling to institute this.

Sir, what do we find now? Local authorities sometimes carry out surveys of needs in regard to housing and other matters and they find that a real need exists, but then the big arguments start, and the search for excuses to show that it is unnecessary to meet those needs at that stage, and eventually nothing happens. Absolutely nothing is done about the needs that exist. Perhaps these additional obligations imposed on a local authority, or submitted to them for action to be taken, will inspire those who are unwilling, to be even more unwilling in the future, and therefore the hon. the Minister must have the right to exercise compulsion should this be necessary.

In 1969, when the Community Development Amendment Bill was discussed in this House, the hon. the Minister pointed out that the Community Development Act already provided that the State President could entrust any or all of the powers, activities and duties of a local authority to the Community Development Board. In such a case the Development Board will act as if it is a local authority. In fact, therefore, this is not a new principle that is now being introduced with regard to meeting these needs. It already exists. On that occasion the hon. the Minister furnished the motivation behind the necessity for a provision of this nature, e.g. because some local authorities failed for a long time to meet needs existing or hampered or obstructed the task of the department. On that occasion, the hon. member for Green Point said that the Government should convince the lower bodies and not force them to act in accordance with the policy of the Government. He said that this was basic to the democratic form of government and that if persuasion did not succeed, then the entire purpose of our democratic form of government was defeated. Probably this is partly true, but I do not think it is the whole truth about democracy. The whole truth about democracy is that there is majority rule and when the majority decides—in this House, too— that a certain act should be adopted, then the minority must also accept this, and if the minority does not accept it, then it is the minority that is undermining the primary and basic principles of democracy, and not the majority that has taken the decision. The hon. the member for Green Point also reproached the hon. the Minister on that occasion for not having consulted the United Municipal Executive when making those proposals. Now in this instance we have the opposite. In this instance the local authorities have been extensively consulted. In fact, that is why the committee was able to make unanimous recommendations which are now being adopted here.

Sir, I have the fullest confidence that the hon. the Minister will not abuse his powers to dominate local authorities and push them around. In the past he has already shown us that he is a man who consults and persuades and would rather go out of his way to obtain co-operation than resort to compulsion.

These schemes are not being envisaged for new residential projects only, but also for existing schemes where these facilities have been omitted, perhaps for the very reason that the local authority concerned was none too hasty or willing to do this. Perhaps it is also owing to simple unwillingness to meet those needs. Where necessary, the provision of these schemes must be tackled without dealy—that was the finding of the committee—to meet these needs and avoid malpractices. It sometimes occurs that areas available for residential development are left without proper supervision. Undesirable squatter conditions develop owing to the failure of the local authority in question to act. This measure is essential to ensure that there need be no preventable delay in the implementation of essential community development.

The provision is also based on the unanimous recommendations of the Fouché committee. The committee’s recommendations were unanimous and because so many local authorities gave evidence and were involved with the committee, they were able to state that the facilities should be provided in the shortest possible time and they even envisaged measures of control and the provision thereof. Last year, in a statement in this House the hon. the Minister said that the Government, on the unanimous recommendations of the committee, had decided on, and I quote—

This the hon. the Minister said in this House last year. He envisaged that the Act would incorporate this, namely that the Housing Commission and the Minister would have the right to compel a local authority to do what was necessary to meet these needs. After the hon. the Minister had made this statement, various members of the Opposition took part in the debate, inter alia, the hon. member for Wynberg who devoted much of his speech in the Second Reading debate to this specific point; he said that local authorities should not be forced into doing things. In spite of the fact that the hon. member noted this fact as far back as last year and took part in the debate immediately afterwards, not one of the Opposition members seized on this point and objected to it. It went through unnoticed. This year, because an Opposition cannot say that it supports a Bill as it stands, we have now had the criticism that this provision is not a good thing.

In the vast majority of cases I believe that local authorities will give their full co-operation in realizing these ideals because they themselves would like to further the best interests of their communities and because this is something they are deeply concerned about. They themselves would like those areas to be attractive. They want to see their people happy and their communities attractive and they want their people to be proud of the place where they live and of the facilities that will be provided there. I also foresee that more extensive community development will be implemented by the local authorities around these basic facilities which the department will provide in the future.

I now want to conclude. There is nothing negative in this Bill. Its greatest virtue is precisely that it incorporates so many positive benefits for all our population groups. I can clearly detect the hand of the hon. the Minister himself in this Bill and we congratulate and thank him and his department on having taken this upon themselves as an extra task; we look forward to the first fruits of this Act.

Mr. Speaker, there are just a few facts I want to mention in connection with what was said by the hon. members for Green Point and False Bay. In the first place, I want to say that there is no doubt in my mind that we shall have only the fullest co-operation from the vast majority of local authorities. This has been my experience thus far in my department, and I believe that this will be the position in this regard, too. In fact, there are indications—I mentioned this in my Second Reading speech—that local authorities are already displaying great enthusiasm in this regard. Something else that I want to mention—I owe it to my department—is the enthusiasm among the officials in my department to implement these measures. That enthusiasm was also manifested in the manner in which the Fouché Committee went about its task and the speed with which it came up with concrete proposals which could be implemented in practice. Consequently I also want to convey my appreciation to that committee. Hon. members will realize that what is being envisaged here cannot materialize overnight like mushrooms. That is just the way things are. However, I am of the opinion that a good start has been made in the unanimous adoption of this measure by this House today.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

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

Before I motivate the amendment, I should like to refer to the reply made by the hon. the Minister to the Second Reading debate. He created the impression that we on this side of the House had consulted certain people who might have had sinister intentions and who were not satisfied with the clause as it now stands in this Bill. In the first place I want to inform the hon. the Minister that we on this side of the House consult many people. Before a Bill comes to this House, it is frequently necessary to consult many people in order to acquaint ourselves with the matter. I want to give the hon. the Minister the assurance that it is as unlikely that the gentlemen whom we on this side of the House consulted on this legislation had ulterior motives in regard to this legislation as that the hon. the Minister or any hon. member on this side of the House had.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Did the hon. member consult the board of directors of that co-operative to which I referred? After all, they are the people whom the hon. member should consult.

What is at stake here, has nothing to do with the directors, but with the rights and obligations of the members of that co-operative. Consultations were held with those people. In addition I want to give the hon. the Minister the assurance that the gentlemen we spoke to about this legislation were all members of this co-operative, and have as much interest as any other member or members of the board of directors of that co-operative. Therefore, there are no ulterior motives in regard to this matter.

I want to return now to the motivation of the amendment which this side of the House has moved. In the first place, when the original Act was passed in 1939, three principal tasks which a co-operative has to perform were included in the section concerned. Firstly it was provided that they should keep certain books. In the second place, when they fail to keep those books of account, there are certain steps which may be taken by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. In the third place, in regard to the section we are changing, members of the co-operative are from time to time given the opportunity to carry out inspections, if they so wish, in regard to how the affairs of such a co-operative are being managed and administered. The intention of section 1(3) in the original 1939 legislation was not to afford a group of gossip-mongers an opportunity of ascertaining what certain persons owe the co-operative, or of ascertaining what the internal credit facilities, and so on, of the co-operative are. The reason why this right was granted to these people, was so that they could acquaint themselves with the matter, so that when the annual meeting of the co-operative was held they could be conversant with the good or the bad situation in which the said co-operative found itself. For that reason that provision is there. Questions were asked about the legislation in regard to public companies. As argument I want to advance that there is world of difference between the functions of a co-operative and those of a public company. A co-operative is an institution which is far closer to its members than a public company. One usually finds that a person becomes a member of the co-operative which is situated within a relatively short distance from him. He therefore has a close association with that co-operative. It is the establishment from which he makes his purchases, and it is usually the establishment which markets his produce for him. However, if I purchase shares in a public company, I am usually doing so as an investment, or I am doing so for speculation purposes. One can quite understand there being no provision in the Companies Act for each shareholder to be able to inspect the books of such a company. In the case of co-operatives this is most certainly the case because a co-operative is as close as possible to its members. Now the hon. the Minister, is however, coming forward with this legislation, and he is affording these people the right to inspect the books. He is not changing the principle. This remains unchanged. However, he is saying that the right to make such an inspection should be subject to the conditions in clause l(3)(b). However, how does clause l(3Xb) read? It is stated in that clause that a co-operative, through its members, may impose reasonable restrictions on the nature of the books which may be inspected, and also that other reasonable restrictions may be imposed. At one juncture the door is being opened, but immediately afterwards the hon. gentleman is making it almost impossible for any person, about whose bona fides there is no doubt or who has no ulterior motives, to obtain in a reasonable manner the right to inspect the books of account of such a co-operative or co-operative company. For that reason I am moving my amendment. With my amendment the amendments of the hon. gentleman can go through. We shall then have no objection to them. If he accepts this amendment, it would mean that a co-operative will, by means of a general meeting, be able to inform such a person that he may not inspect the books if he wants to make use of certain information which could perhaps be to the benefit of rivals. The object of inspecting the books should not be to discover what Uncle John or Uncle Peter owes the co-operative, or what the co-operative owes them. Then it is the task of the person who wants to know what is happening in the business and how it is being administered, to say to tell the chairman of the board of directors at a general meeting that he thinks they have failed in this sphere and have been successful in that. How else is he going to do this? The hon. the Minister knows that certain people referred to the court case in question, and that they wanted to find out what was happening in the business.

For what purpose?

The hon. gentleman knows about this, for it appeared everywhere in the Press. It appeared in the local newspapers and some of the members of that co-operative are under the impression that they were able to obtain far higher prices for their produce on certain overseas markets. Members of that co-operative thought—I do not want to become involved in that dispute because I know nothing about their local affairs—that they could have done far better …

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

No. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened very attentively to the hon. member for Newton Park, and I must say that there is something which is rather inconsistent. In his Second Reading speech —I am referring to column 3088 of Hansard—the hon. member said—

I want to suggest this afternoon that if this amendment, with the proviso which it contains, is passed, those restrictions will then fall away and there will be no restrictions whatsoever.

Is that unreasonable?

I shall explain this now. It may be that the hon. member does not understand the accounting and the bookkeeping terms, or the bookkeeping systems, very well, or, to put it more mildly, it may perhaps be that he is less familiar with these, and that he does not really understand the implications of this proviso which he has moved as an amendment this afternoon. If this amendment were to be accepted, it would amount to a motion of no-confidence of the worse degree in the inspectors of the office of the Registrar, the auditors, the board of directors and officials. In addition I want to allege that this amendment will be an absolute breach of the confidential transactions between a member and his co-operative, with regard to his yield, his purchases and his debts.

Why?

I shall explain it to the hon. member. I also want to allege that this proviso, as contained in the hon. member’s amendment, could mean the downfall of a co-operative, its members and the farmers if there are no restrictions whatsoever, as the hon. member is proposing, on a co-operative’s supplies, its clients in South Africa and abroad, and if there may be no restriction on inspection of the accounts of clients. If this amendment is passed, it would mean that any member of a co-operative could, for example, inspect the books and the salaries of the officials. Would that not create a lack of confidence and confusion among the officials? Let us analyse the amendment. [Interjections.] In this amend the hon. member refers to—

I wonder whether we really appreciate what this means. I do not think that we need in fact be experts in the sphere of bookkeeping to ascertain what this means. Nor do I really think that one need be conversant with all the systems which are in force in the various co-operatives. It is very clear that what this revolves around is the purchases of individual members. This is after all what these terms mean in bookkeeping. It means the purchases of individual members, the supplies of their co-operative, and the selling prices of ordinary as well as of fashion produce. If we approve of this action, those books may furnish the wilful snooper with information which he can repeat in public, and which could cause the specific co-operative a great deal of harm.

Who are the owners of the co-operative?

In other words, by adding this proviso, the hon. members opposite want to throw the doors of the co-operative wide open, and impose no restrictions. If the hon. members analyse this in bookkeeping terms, they will see what it means.

It is not any person who can use the books …

Order!

The hon. member refers in his amendment to debit ledgers. What does a debit ledger mean? Have any of the hon. members opposite tried to find out what this means yet? Does it not contain the accounts indicating what is due to the co-operative by its members and other clients? That is what a debit ledger is. I have no other definition for it In his amendment the hon. member is now requesting that these debit ledgers be made available, but on the other hand he says he does not want people to be able to inspect member’s accounts.

Let me go further. I want to tell the hon. member that a co-operative also has members which are not only producers, but also dealers. I think that in this regard the hon. member is going to encounter a few problems among the members of his own party in Oudtshoorn. I have nothing to do with this, because they do not belong to my party in the constituency of Oudtshoorn. However, there are people in this co-operative, to which we referred, who are not only members of that co-operative, but who also carry on a trade with the products of that co-operative. In other words, if the debit ledgers are thrown open, A, who is a member of the co-operative but also a dealer, may ascertain what the position of his rival B is, and vice versa. In other words, the hon. member is going to start a minor war if he allows this. For that reason we cannot accept this proposed proviso with regard to the debit ledgers.

What about the credit ledgers which, he wants to throw open? The credit ledger, so my knowledge of bookkeeping tells me, is, on the other hand, that book in which the accounts of those people with whom the co-operative carries on a trade appear. The hon. member wants those books to be thrown open as well. The result will be that any member will be able to make an inspection and will be able to say to a firm with whom this co-operative is trading: “Firm A provides the co-operative with so and so. These are its terms and these are its discounts.” Then firm B is able to submit other terms to the co-operative.

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

Unfortunately I do not have the time. Therefore we cannot allow people to inspect the credit ledgers. The hon. member also refers in his amendment to “all ledgers”. That is indeed framed very widely. The hon. member wants “all books” to be thrown open. I think that this could mean anything, and that it could create terrible problems.

Where I want to concede that the hon. member is correct, is when he refers to nominal books. From those, we know, financial statements and balance sheets are compiled, which are presented to the annual meeting. Consequently the hon. member will agree with me that we have never said that that book should be closed, or that the members may not inspect the nominal entries. If only the hon. member had moved that this should not be restricted, I believe that the hon. the Minister and all of us would have supported him. However, we cannot throw open the credit and debit ledgers and the book of primary entries because this would disclose all the information of all members to all clients.

To the members.

Yes, to the members who are in turn able to convey that information to others. It is not that I distrust the members; I have just tried to explain that there are members who are also trading in the products of the co-operative …

What difference does that make?

… and that this is going to cause friction. It makes a big difference because if the hon. member were to have a rival in the same business, surely he would not allow information concerning his business to be available to his rival. Surely this is the case in politics as well. When the United Party holds a caucus meeting, they prevent information in regard to it from reaching us, and we in our turn prevent information from our side reaching them. This is how it works in the business world too. As I have already stated during my Second Reading speech, I do not want us to engage in a conflict in regard to our co-operatives. I believe that this measure simply seeks to bring the English wording into line with the Afrikaans, and that it constitutes no real change. I believe that we should have confidence in our co-operatives, and that we should have confidence in the democratic system. I want to make an appeal to all co-operatives and boards of directors not to withhold information from members. I have confidence in them and believe that they will act like adults, and make that information which is essential and conducive to the good of the co-operative, available to their members.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that we on these benches cannot support the amendment which was proposed by the hon. member for Newton Park. I think that the amendment is based on a number of fallacies. The first fallacy which I think the hon. member has overlooked, is that if you actually have access to the books of original entry, you can with that build up a complete set of all the records, books and get all the information relating to the company. By suggesting this proviso, the hon. member is in fact destroying the whole effect of the proposed subsection (3)(a) as inserted by clause 1 in its entirety. Once you have access to the books of original entry, there is actually nothing to which you do not have access and which you cannot build up yourself. The second point is, that if you have access to books, the courts have interpreted that that means that you can in fact make copies of them, so that you can take away complete copies of all the original books of entry and as an individual member of the co-op make that available to other people. This is the dangerous aspect.

That can be a reasonable restriction as laid down by the members.

With respect, the whole point is that if the hon. member reads the clause and reads his own amendment, he will see that he has actually said that one cannot impose a reasonable restriction in respect of these particular original books of entry. I regret that the hon. member for Newton Park does not know the implication of his own amendment, and I am sorry about that. This is the great difficulty that there is. [Interjections.] The naivety of saying that this is restricted to members, is absolutely ludicrous, because we know full-well in life that when a member has the right of access to something, there is nothing that can prevent him from giving it to other people. That is to my mind utter naïveness to suggest that it is something that can be done in this particular case. With great respect, what the hon. members overlook in this case, is that one is opening the doors to the Nosy Parkers of the world, to the people who want to obtain information for competitive purposes and, with great respect, there seems to be no validity for doing this.

The hon. member for Newton Park compared co-operatives and public companies. That is a very legitimate point, because there is a very real difference between a public company and a co-op. Let me give him the example of a private company. In a private company, if you are a shareholder and thus have a very real and meaningful stake in the company but you are not a director, you do not have access to the books. This is one of the things that the hon. member overlooks. It is all very well to talk about public companies which is an investment situation. A private company is quite a different position in toto. To my mind, if this amendment is accepted, it will destroy the entire effect of the clause. I am not even sure that this amendment is not out of order, because it goes completely against the principle which is contained in this Bill. Lastly, if reasonable restrictions are imposed and the restrictions turn out to be unreasonable, the persons concerned still have a remedy. Accordingly we propose to vote against this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is probably the first occasion on which there has been a sympathetic feeling between the hon. member for Oudtshoorn and the hon. member for Yeoville. [Interjections.] Perhaps I am not aware of other occasions on which there has been a sympathetic feeling between them. I knew that the hon. member for Yeoville was moving in a direction; I was not quite certain which direction. It looks rather suspicious now; it looks as though, he may be moving in the opposite direction, right across the floor.

Order! That is not relevant now.

I thought I should make this statement, Sir, to clear the air somewhat. The hon. member for Yeoville says that we do not know what amendment we are introducing here, because in fact this amendment is out of order and really negates the whole principle of the Bill. I do not believe that the hon. member for Yeoville has any experience of farmers’ co-operative societies. I know that he has great experience of companies, company formation, company administration and everything that has to do with private and public companies. The hon. member for Yeoville has great experience of these matters, but I doubt whether he has any experience at all of farming co-operative societies. Farming co-operative societies are organizations which are completely different from companies. The shareholders of companies do not hold anything like the position held by members of a co-operative society. A co-operative society, particularly a farmers’ co-operative society, consists of a band of people who have formed themselves together for a particular purpose, usually in connection with farming, and they do this in order to further their own interests. Their position is rather different from that of the shareholders of a public company.

May I ask a question?

Perhaps a little later, after I have finished with the hon. member for Yeoville. Sir, I do not think the hon. member for Yeoville is correct in saying that if we are going to place restrictions on the reasonable right of access of members, we are going to negate the purpose of this Bill.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I am not prepared to answer questions. The hon. member has already had his opportunity to speak. He has already told us that he is going to vote with the Nats, and as far as I am concerned any question that he is going to put to me can only have a bearing on that very happy occasion that is going to take place this afternoon.

A double wedding.

I now come to the hon. member for Oudtshoorn.

*The hon. member said that we are displaying an utter lack of confidence in the directors of these co-operative societies, but the whole point is that there are a considerable number of members of co-operative societies who are perhaps feeling very unhappy about the state of affairs in the directors of certain co-operative societies, because certain information is being withheld from them. There is most probably no reason for not having this confidence, but if one forbids one’s members to obtain certain important information, it creates a feeling of no-confidence among those members, and it is to do away with that lack of confidence which may exist that we ask that this amendment be accepted. Sir, the hon. member mentioned the Nationalist Party caucus as an example and said that the decisions of the caucus must not be divulged. But I want to put this question to him: If the Nationalist Party caucus meets and takes certain decisions in the absence of, for instance, the Minister of Defence, does the hon. member want that information to be withheld from the Minister of Defence? He is a member of the caucus. Surely, it is reasonable of him to ask for information on what happened at that caucus meeting. That is all we are asking here. We are asking to have access to the details to which every member is entitled. It is not a case of one wanting to do something that is not allowed at all. One often finds this. There is the case of levies which are imposed on certain products which are supplied to a co-operative society. Levies are imposed on certain products in the first instance, I would say, for advertising purposes, and they are also imposed for marketing purposes, Now, there are many members of that co-operative society who pay levies, and more than one product may perhaps be sold. In which way are the members to know whether the levy which has been imposed either for marketing purposes or for advertising purposes, was spent to the advantage of his product or may not have been spent to its disadvantage, for instance that more was spent on the other products than on his own. [Interjections.] I think it is a very reasonable proposition that where a levy is imposed upon products, the members are entitled to know in which way the levy was spent— for instance, was it all spent pro Tata to the advantage of the two or three items in respect of which the levies were imposed, or was the levy in respect of one product used to advertise another product, in other words does the one product not perhaps gain an advantage at the expense of the other? It is therefore a very reasonable request and I say that unless the ordinary members who supply the products to the co-operative society are entitled to that information, they cannot ascertain whether or not it is the case. What answer would they receive should they make inquiries about the levies after the annual meeting? All they will receive, is an explanation that the levy was used for advertising purposes and “We cannot now say exactly how it was spent, but you simply have to accept that it was spent in the best interest of all the members.” That is the kind of answer one receives to a question at an annual meeting. I say that it is therefore a reasonable suggestion, that the members of the co-operative societies should know how the money was spent. If this amendment is not accepted, no member will have the right to obtain information in this regard, because those levies are recorded in the books we are referring to here, and unless the members have an opportunity to consult those books to see what has been done with the levy, they will not be able to ascertain how it was actually spent. I am now referring to levies, but the same applies to all other payments made through a co-operative society. Those payments are made through the co-operative society to the benefits of the members, and if the members are not quite satisfied, why may they not obtain the necessary information? In what other way should they obtain it? Should they come and ask the Minister every time to make investigations? Because that is what will happen. Every co-operative society can now say that they have the right to prevent any of its members from obtaining this information, and therefore they are going to decide that the members will not obtain it at all. What is going to happen then? A great many members will approach the Minister and ask for an investigation under the Co-operative Societies Act. I do not want this to happen and therefore I would like to see this amendment which was introduced by the hon. member for Newton Park accepted.

Mr. Chairman, it was almost with amazement that I listened to the hon. members for Newton Park and Wynberg. It seems to me as if the hon. members do not really know what is contained in the amendment. I would like to know from the hon. gentlemen which books the co-operative societies may keep are not included in the amendment. As the amendment reads, it is a contradictio in terminis. This clause provides that the members of the co-operative society may impose certain restrictions on the occasion of an annual general meeting. The hon. members, however, move an amendment which provides that the members of the co-operative society may not impose a restriction as far as the set of books mentioned in the amendment is concerned. As far as I am concerned, anybody who knows something about accounting, this covers the whole set of books of a co-operative society. What surprises me is that the hon. members did not introduce an amendment during the Second Reading debate to the effect that the clause be negatived completely because what they are suggesting now amount to the provisions of the clause being rendered completely ineffective. What hon. members are saying to the members of a co-operative society is that they may place restrictions upon the right of inspection of the books, provided it does not relate to any of the books. That is what it amounts to. I think this matter was debated fully during the Second Reading debate.

Sit down then!

As a matter of fact, even the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Newton Park, of which he had given notice at that stage, was to a large extent discussed as well. From the discussion we have had this afternoon a further misconception becomes evident on the part of the official Opposition. The legislation does not tell the co-operative societies what to do. This clause is merely an enabling clause and it depends on the members of the co-operative societies concerned to exercise their democratic right as to whether or not they want to impose those restrictions. On our side of the House— in this connection I also agree with the arguments of the hon. member for Yeoville—we leave it to the members of the co-operative societies to decide for themselves. We do not leave it to the directors of the co-operative society or to its management, but to the members themselves to decide on the matter by means of the annual general meeting. If any member of a co-operative society is worth his salt—and we believe our farmers are worth their salt as members of co-operative societies—and if he is not satisfied with such a restriction, he will not vote in favour of it at the annual general meeting. I believe this matter has more or less been fully discussed and I can only say that the amendment of the official Opposition is meaningless and senseless. No person of sound mind would ever accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member who preceded me when he said that this matter has already been fully discussed. I am afraid that I am going to confuse the hon. member for Wynberg even further and say that I cannot support the amendment of the hon. member for Newton Park either. The logic of the hon. member for Newton Park is more or less that one first has to lay an egg before one can say whether it is bad. Strange enough, I also have belonged to a co-operative society at one stage. I cannot say that it helped me a great deal. I was in the position that I was a member of the co-operative society but I learned more about co-operative societies after I ceased to be a member than I learned while I was a member. However, I do know that there would be chaos in co-operative societies if the amendment, moved by the hon. member, is accepted. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment at all.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he still believes in what he said during the Second Reading debate. I should like to have an answer to this question. I do not see any reaction and therefore I am going to read what the hon. the Minister said during the Second Reading debate. As I have said, I want to know whether he still believes in what he said then. This is what the hon. the Minister said (Hansard, 1975, col. 3596)—

It was never proposed by the hon. member for Mooi River, anyway.

It was a misprint.

The hon. the Minister continued—

Then he goes on to say—

What stranger is the hon. the Minister talking about? I read further—

The hon. the Minister has obviously got hold of the wrong end of the stick. He believes that this amendment gives the right to outside people to come and find out from the co-operative societies what their inner functions are. This is what he says quite clearly in his reply to the Second Reading debate. That is why I asked him just now whether he still stands by what he said during that speech. I now ask the hon. the Minister whether he still stands by what he said in his reply to the Second Reading debate.

Yes, definitely.

He still stands by it, Mr. Chairman, and therefore he obviously does not know what he is talking about. In point of fact, I want to say that I doubt very much if he realizes that instead of changing the English version to fall into line with the Afrikaans version in the existing Act, had he changed the Afrikaans version to fall into line with the English version, he might well have had a better amending Bill here. But that is not what we are talking about this afternoon; we are talking about the amendment moved by my hon. colleague here.

The first point I want to make is that the principle has been accepted that a member should be allowed to inspect. That is the first principle that was accepted when this Bill passed its Second Reading. Any member of a society or a company may, subject to the provisions of paragraph (b), inspect the books of account. I want to ask the hon. the Minister too if he can please define to me what “books of account” are? I also want to ask the hon. members for Yeoville and Rondebosch what “books of account” are? This side of the House has had expert advice as to what “books of account” are.

You need it.

The hon. member for Yeoville says that we need expert advice, but he needs even greater expert advice, because even he tried to say to this House that a private company is a company which is very similar to a co-operative society. The hon. member does not realize that a private company is a limited liability company. Anyway, the hon. member will wake up just now when he sits on the other side and votes on this matter. But let me go on. The proposed section 46(3)(b) provides that “any society or company may from time to time in general meeting impose … reasonable restrictions …” I want to ask whether anybody can please define what “reasonable restrictions” are. Is this not going to mean that if a co-operative wishes to impose a reasonable restriction it would say to itself: “What are reasonable restrictions?” I have very good authority for saying that it is dangerous to use those words without the qualifications we give them in our amendment. The authorities I have are in fact the hon. members on the other side of the House. In the second reading speech of the hon. member for Bethal he said, inter alia—

In other words, the principles contained could be replaced by other measures …

He was talking about the possibility of amending the Act to a considerable degree. Referring to the provision now before the House he said the following—

Despite that, however, the hon. the Minister wants to retain these words undefined in the Bill which is before us today. A little further on the hon. member for Oudtshoorn—he will not get away with it either —said the following—

Now, if the hon. member for Oudtshoorn can give me a legal definition of what reasonable restrictions are, one which co-operatives can adopt, I believe that our amendment could fall away. The amendment is designed to obviate the difficulties by defining those books which, if restricted, could be regarded as having been unreasonably restricted. We define the books to make the matter clear to co-operative societies. A lot has been said during the Second Reading debate about rights being given to members to inspect books and about whether those rights are justifiable. I believe that a member of a co-operative society or company has a much closer relationship with that society or company, as has been said by previous members on this side of the House, than a shareholder in a company, even a private company, has with that specific company. A shareholder’s liability is limited, but the liability of a member of a co-operative society is certainly not limited. The liability of a member of a co-operative company, however, is limited. Section 63 of the Land Bank Act, which is a very far-reaching provision, in fact imposes all sorts of drastic restrictions and financial obligations upon a member of a co-operative company. The liability of a member of a co-operative company as opposed to a co-operative society liability is limited, but there are a thousand other possibilities where a member of a Co-operative Company’s position can be seriously affected. For instance, when a company raises an annual loan from the Land Bank in terms of section 25 of the Co-operative Societies Act two-thirds of the members of the company must vote in favour of it. The Land Bank then takes a cession of all the debts due to the co-operative society and the subscriber’s unpaid capital. Then in terms of section 63 of the Land Bank Act, the Land Bank may without recourse to a court of law, after seven days’ notice, seize or sell the immovable property of the co-operative company, including the members’ movable and immovable property. I believe that this means that every member of a co-operative must have the right to inspect the books of that company. There must be access to books, and I believe it is our duty as legislators to protect, in general terms, the members of the farming community as we do in other Acts connected with the farming community. Just to sum up, I feel that we cannot get away from the fact that firstly, the amendment will reduce the possibility of legal wrangles, and secondly, it will entrench the right of a member to inspect the basic books of account of the co-operative to which he belongs.

Mr. Chairman, every time I come to the conclusion that the United Party has no feeling for matters such as these. The hon. member for Newton Park began by saying that they also consult people and that there is nothing sinister in this when they do so. But the hon. member knows whom he spoke to. After all, I saw that person here. I am asking the hon. member explicitly whether they consulted the board of directors of a co-operative, or a single member who came and snapped at the heels of the hon. members here, and came to see them here in the dark passages? Or do the hon. members speak candidly to the board of directors and to the people who have been democratically elected to represent that co-operative? To whom do the hon. members speak? That is the point. The hon. members have suddenly obtained information to the effect that something is amiss. The hon. member for East London City, who has just resumed his seat, asked me whether I adhered to what I said. Of course I stand by what I said that day. The hon. member referred to the Klein Karoo Co-operative court case, but because the case is sub judice and the case is on appeal, I am not going to discuss it. Surely hon. members know that this is what gave rise to this legislation. It is not being made with retrospective effect. Why are the hon. members complaining and nagging about this matter, if it is not being made with retrospective effect? The hon. members cannot understand the soul of a co-operative. That is the difficulty. The hon. member says that we are making it almost impossible for the books to be open to reasonable inspection.

Of course it is virtually impossible.

With reference to what has been said by hon. members, I want to ask them, particularly the hon. member for Wynberg, whether they have ever attended the annual meeting of a co-operative?

Yes.

Has the hon. member ever, at an annual meeting, asked the auditors how the publicity campaign for peanuts, milk and the other produce was managed? He then receives the audited reports which contains all the information he wants. To the smaller Opposition parties I want to say that in this sphere they are streets ahead of the United Party. Look, I can never agree with them in the political sphere, but there is one thing I must say, and that is that they are not stupid, as the hon. members who are pleading this matter are. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville said of the hon. member for Newton Park: “He does not know the implications of his own amendment.” That is precisely what the hon. member for Oudtshoorn also said. The hon. members want to throw everything open, willy-nilly, from the book in which the petty cash is entered down to the last document. They want to throw open all the information which is contained there by moving an amendment such as this.

Read what restrictions you can impose within the ambit of one clause.

The whole idea of this amendment was to bring the two languages into line with one another. Why do the hon. members get such a fright that their milk dries up when we come forward with such a practical matter as bringing the two languages into line with one another? Surely that is nothing …

But he is dry! [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Oudtshoorn is quite right when he says that if we do what is being requested, we will demolish this specific co-operative completely. The hon. member for Newton Park let the cat out of the bag. He said that there were a few members who were able to obtain better prices for their ostrich skins. Those were his words.

It was published in the newspaper.

The hon. member’s own words were that there were such members. What options does a member who is able to obtain a better price for his ostrich skins have? He elects other directors in a democratic manner and ousts the old directors—all of them. The new board of directors can then give him the information which the hon. member said was withheld from him by the old board of directors.

How can he do this on his own?

The hon. member for Albany knows precisely how co-operatives work. This is the reason why he did not discuss this amendment Bill. I should also like to inform the hon. member for Barberton that I agree with him that this amendment is senseless and meaningless. I would have liked to have expressed this more strongly, but I like to use circumspect and neat language. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. member for Rondebosch that I agree with him wholeheartedly that there would be chaos in the co-operative movement if we …

Really?

Of course. There would be chaos in the co-operative movement if we accepted the amendment, for then there would no longer be an opportunity to do business in a meaningful way. Therefore I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has a way of making statements without formulating his case by means of arguments. Anyone can get by in that way. I want to tell the hon. gentleman that as Minister of Agriculture he has been trying to get by for just a little too long by simply making statements and declarations without motivating them with sound arguments. The reason why we moved this amendment was that we did not want to meddle in or have anything to do with a certain court case. During that court case affidavits were submitted to the court on what was meant by a book of account. Our amendment is based on an affidavit submitted to the court by a chartered accountant on what a “book of account” means. That is the first point I want to make. If the hon. gentleman wishes to allow a member of a co-operative to inspect the books of account in terms of the proposed new subsection (3)(a), he must give such a member the right to inspect all the books we mentioned in our amendment. How can hon. members then say, as the hon. member for Barberton did, that because we are enumerating this entire list of books, we simply want to throw everything open, while it is stated in subsection (3)(a) that the books of account of a co-operative may in fact be inspected? I also want to point out that that principle was laid down in the original 1939 Act, the principle that all the books which we enumerated here could in fact be made available for inspection.

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

No, first give me a chance. Let us read again what is stated in the last few lines of the proposed new subsection (3)(b):

In other words, a meeting of the members of a co-operative may prescribe by regulation that a person who wants to examine those books to obtain personal information of what I or anyone else for that matter owes the co-operative, is prohibited from inspecting those books. They may set out for a person from A to Z for what purposes he may go to a co-operative to examine those books. If legislation means anything, that is precisely what it means. All we are asking with this amendment is that no restrictions are imposed which would prevent a person from going through those books of account. However, if a person has no bona fide motive, a decision on this can be reached by regulation by a meeting of the members of that co-operative. As the legislation reads at present, the hon. the Minister also wants to exclude that person who simply wants to know what is happening so that he can acquaint himself with the matter. If he wants to exclude that person as well, I want to ask what the intention is of the proposed subsection (3)(a). What does it mean then to give that person the right to have access to the books? Surely one may just was well scrap it then.

Finish what you are saying and I shall then reply to you.

The hon. the Minister is simply levelling general accusations to the effect that the United Party allegedly consulted in dark corners with certain people. The hon. gentleman will no get by with that type of argument. I have all the cuttings relating to this specific co-operative we are talking about. Criticism of the co-operative was expressed in public by its members, and many of them are not even supporters of this side of the House, but are in fact supporters of the hon. the Minister’s party. The criticism they levelled at this co-operative was that they believed, that the marketing methods of that institution could be changed to the benefit not of those few members who levelled this criticism, but of that co-operative as a whole. Does the hon. the Minister want to put a stop to this kind of criticism? Does he want this type of thing to be in the hands of a few people? Does he want certain things to be concealed from other members of the co-operative? Does he want that co-operative to fail to act to the benefit of all farmers? It is to this type of argument that the hon. the Minister has to reply. He must not make vague accusations alleging that we are on the side of people who do not have the best intentions with this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to pose one very simple question which either the hon. member for Newton Park or the hon. member for Wynberg may answer. My question is: If one has access to the original books of entry, what is it then that is not open to one either b looking at the original books of entry or constructing another set of books based on them? That is the question to which I want an answer. If in fact there is nothing withheld and if we look at the Bill where it says that there should be reasonable restrictions in respect of the nature of the books that may be inspected and that no restrictions may be imposed in respect of books of original entry, then the whole amendment becomes utter nonsense from beginning to end.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Newton Park said that I have a way of circumventing things. This matter is as clear as crystal to me, but I simply cannot succeed in doing what he does—to repeat the same old story here from morning till night. During the Second Reading debate I indicated what the hon. member wanted to know. Why should I repeat it now? I have already told the hon. member everything he is now asking. During the Second Reading debate I set out for the hon. member what stood in the original Act. Section 46(3) read as follows—

This is stated in the original Act. I should also like to inform the hon. member that our amendment is intended to bring the two languages into line because they do not correspond. The amendment of the hon. member states clearly—

The hon. member for Yeoville referred to this. This is the full set of books which may be made available for the information of any member. In other words, you are throwing the door open. I stated courteously to the hon. member that we cannot accept this. Let us vote on the clause, and get done with it. I do not want to offend anyone. I want to put this question to the hon. member: Is the hon. member prepared to request me to suggest to all the ostrich farmers of this country who are members of that co-operative, on the basis of certain references—I cannot refer to that because the case is sub judice—that we should hold a referendum so that they can decide between the amendment of the Opposition and the statutory amendment of a decent party such as this one? Can we hold a referendum? You see, you do not have a snowball’s chance. You will not even find a seconder there. Therefore I say we are wasting time. I am not trying to circumvent anything. We have quite a lot of work to do, and I still have to go to Port Elizabeth.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Tellers: S. F. Kotzé, J. P. C. le Roux, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Amendment negatived.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As is generally known, our country only has a few lagoons. Therefore, it is in the national interest that effective measures be introduced by the Government, in the first place, to ensure that this extremely valuable heritage will be retained for posterity and, in the second place, to make provision for the orderly and co-ordinated development and utilization thereof.

In this regard one thinks particularly of the lake complex in the Wilderness/Knysna area which extends from the Touw River in the west to the Knysna Lagoon in the east. The natural beauty of this region is extraordinary because of the lagoons, river-mouths and lakes as well us the beautiful vegetation one finds there. Therefore, this region, if it is developed in a planned and purposeful way, offers the holiday-maker a rich variety and has great possibilities for the future as far as recreational and tourist activities are concerned.

The optimum utilization of river-mouths, lagoons and lakes in the area under discussion, has already been the subject of various investigations, inter alia one by an auxiliary committee of the Planning Advisory Council to the Prime Minister. From reports and recommendations of that committee, it is clear that the deterioration of some of these lakes has already reached an advanced stage. This also indicates that active steps are necessary to prevent further deterioration and, if possible, to restore the lakes to their original natural state.

A factor which is the cause of great concern, is the silting up which is taking place there and which really constitutes a serious threat to the lake complex. The lakes as well as the connecting rivers are rapidly being choked up by water plants and that obstructs the normal flow of the water between the lakes. The abnormal formation of sand-banks at the lake and river mouths which results in the injudicious opening and closing of these mouths, is another factor which contributes to the unheard-of state of affairs. The haphazard and unplanned development which is taking place or has taken place on and around the lakes and along the rivers, is definitely not beneficial to the continued existence and effective utilization thereof either.

In the light of the reports and recommendations of the auxilary committee to which reference has already been made, the Government has come to the conclusion that active steps have become a matter of urgent necessity. On the one hand, to combat the further deterioration of the lake complex in the Southern Cape, and, on the other hand, to advance the planned and purposeful development thereof. It has consequently been decided to introduce measures by means of legislation in terms of which the whole situation can be regulated in an orderly fashion. The intention is that the legislation will not only apply in respect of the said lake complex, but that action may also be taken in terms thereof in respect of other lagoons where similar problems may be experienced, or where it might just be possible to regulate the opening and closing of a river mouth in a judicious way. The necessary measures have been embodied in the Bill which is before you and the contents of which are largely self-explanatory. However, I consider it desirable to explain a few provisions in brief.

The proposed measures should in fact be seen as empowering legislation. Naturally it is of fundamental importance that an area will be identified for the purpose of control and development as is being envisaged. Furthermore, it is necessary that one body will be established with the necessary authority and funds to be able to exercise the envisaged control and to undertake or advance the development. Consequently provision is made in the proposed legislation, firstly, for the delimitation, by means of proclamation, of a particular area which will be known as a lake area. Such a lake area will consist of land comprising or adjoining a tidal lagoon or tidal river, or even a natural lake or a river which is situated in the immediate vicinity of a tidal lagoon or a tidal river. Such delimitation will take place in close consultation with interested bodies and I believe that the necessary co-operation will be experienced in this regard since this is a matter of national importance.

†Secondly, provision is made for the establishment of a Lake Areas Development Board of not more than seven members, with jurisdiction to function within a lake area. The main function of the board will be to exercise control over the use of the tidal lagoons and tidal rivers within a lake area as well as any other State land acquired for the purposes of the board or made available to the board and to develop or promote the development of such land in a lake area. Development must, however, be aimed at the continued existence of the lakes and the utilization of the area surrounding a lake to the best advantage of the general public and, in particular, to promote recreational and tourism activities. Any development which may take place shall, however, be within the framework of the National Physical Development Plan.

With regard to the development of State land made available to the board, the functions of the board will include the subdivision, planning and sale thereof before or after development, subject to the approval of the State department concerned. As it may be essential to acquire for the purposes of the board certain privately owned stretches of water or land within a lake area, provision is made for the acquisition by the State of such land whether by purchase or, if necessary, by expropriation in terms of the provisions of the Expropriation Act. Land thus acquired will be registered in the name of the State.

It is realized that the board will have a very difficult and responsible task and must therefore be constituted of persons who will be able to make a positive contribution towards the attainment of the objects of the board. With the appointment of the members care will be taken to ensure that both the Government and the private sector are represented.

It is foreseen that the board will for a considerable time depend mainly on funds appropriated by Parliament whether as loans or as grants-in-aid, It is expected, however, that in due course the board will be in a position to provide to a large extent in its own requirements. The progress which the board will make, will thus depend to a large extent on the availability of State funds for appropriation to the board.

I want to stress that it is not the intention to declare all the tidal lagoons and rivers to be lake areas. The need for the declaration of such areas is in particular evident in the Southern Cape Province where the provincial administration and local authorities are in agreement that the matter warrants to be dealt with by the Central Government. In areas where there is no reason for misgivings about the state of affairs or where the development in progress is acceptable, the matter will be left in the hands of the local authority concerned or private initiative. Should it, however, become clear that essential development fails to materialize or neglect takes place, for instance as a result of the injudicious opening and closing of the mouth of a tidal river, action in terms of the proposed legislation will be the proper course. Action by the board will take place with due regard to the interest of other Government departments and authorities concerned and will therefore be on a co-ordinated basis.

*As hon. members will understand, it is not possible at this stage to spell out a plan of action for the proposed board in greater detail. The envisaged development in a particular area must be seen as a new growth point where practice will show what the needs and where the bottlenecks are. The results of research which has already been done and which is to be done in connection with the silting up of lakes, will determine further what the task of the board will be in general. Provision is therefore also made for the making of suitable regulations concerning general rules and procedures which will apply in connection with the board’s controlling and developing functions as well as concerning utilization aspects in so far as these affect the general public.

In conclusion, I should like to point of that it is by no means the intention to hamper nature conservation activities in any respect through the proposed development. On the contrary, because by planning a lake area’s development efficaciously and in a co-ordinated way, around the central idea of conservation and development, the continued existence of the lake can be brought about without necessarily infringing on any other conservation activities.

Mr. Speaker, the official Opposition supports the Second Reading of this Pill because of the fact that it meets a long-felt need in many areas. It is surprising, since there are so many man-made lakes in the country at present, and since the hon. the Minister’s department is taking over this function, that the Bill does not apply to man-made lakes. One would like to see proper co-ordination existing, not only when it comes to natural lakes, but also to man-made lakes,

I have said that a long-felt need is being met. Up to now many of our local authorities, divisional councils as well as provincial administrations, have fulfilled these functions in many instances. Especially in Natal this function has been fulfilled by the local Parks Board in an outstanding way. When one reads clause 2(2), it is very clear that where such land is under the control of the provincial administration, it will not be declared a lake area, except after consultation by the Minister with the Administrator concerned. This provision may arouse certain suspicions among provincial administrations which already have control over such land, and I trust that the hon. the Minister will state very clearly today that it is not his intention to do that in that respect. Where one already has a body which fulfils that function, I wonder whether it will be in our best interest for that function to be taken over by anybody else. In the case of other lakes, especially man-made lakes, where there is not a specific authority seeing to them, my argument does not become invalid. I should like to see that where the Minister fulfils this function, it should also take place in co-operation with other bodies when it comes to man-made lakes. One can talk for hours about the question of recreational facilities in this country. There is usually a connection between recreational facilities and water. With the various water sports which are becoming more and more popular and the fact that people like to be in the open air, and that it is so much more enjoyable to enjoy the open air next to water, it is very clear to me that the more densely the world is populated, the better we shall have to plan this kind of facility and natural beauty which are at our disposal and the better we shall have to preserve them. This kind of thing is not necessarily going to increase, and especially those in their natural state can obviously never increase. Therefore, where we come across these areas, for example in the South-Western Cape, as the hon. the Minister mentioned, while still in their completely unspoiled state, we should like to see them being developed to the best of the country’s ability into major attractions for tourists and holiday-makers. Because one of the most important objects of this Bill is to have a board of control leaking after this kind of thing, I think it will be completely out of place for us not to give our wholehearted support to the Bill. With these words, I say that we support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to learn from the hon. member for Newton Park that the official Opposition has decided to support this legislation. As the hon. member for Newton Park quite rightly said, it is in fact a measure to be welcomed, especially since it is aimed, in the first place, at the lakes of the Southern Cape.

These lakes in the Southern Cape are something of which South Africa may rightly be proud. They are a tourist attraction which is coming more and more into its own in the Southern Cape. The lakes are a natural asset of the Southern Cape, not only to the advantage of that region, but also to the advantage of the whole country. This tourist attraction is in fact, still in the initial stages of its development and exploitation. In recent times, however, there have been certain undesirable circumstances, such as silting up and certain plants gaining a stranglehold, as the hon. the Minister also mentioned in his Second Reading speech, as well as certain injudicious developments around those lakes and in the vicinity. Therefore, a measure such as this is to be welcomed —a measure which seeks not only to protect the lagoons, but also to develop them further.

I do not want to take up any more of the time of this House. Perhaps we can come back to this on a later occasion, for example, during the discussion of the Tourism Vote. However, I just want to express my thanks to the hon. the Minister for introducing this measure. It is certainly a timeous measure. I am also very glad to learn that the official Opposition has decided to support the measure, because it is definitely a measure which deserves general support.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill has to do with tidal lagoons, lakes and rivers, which, implies of course that we are dealing with the coastal areas of this country. There are two provinces and South-West Africa which are, therefore, concerned with, this Bill. One is the province of the Cape of Good Hope which embodies by far the greater part of the South African coastline and the other is the province of Natal. As the hon. the Minister has indicated the Bill makes provision for the establishment of a board to which control can be given of land—

A board is to be established and its functions are set out in the Bill. The board will be able to acquire land adjacent to these natural water areas, to administer that land, to provide amenities on that land, to subdivide it and dispose of it, to acquire further private land which is adjacent to those areas and generally to administer these areas for the benefit of the public. A perfectly good case has been made out for the acceptance of such a board so far as the province of the Cape of Good Hope is concerned. So far the discussion has been entirely in regard to the Southern Cape area where, as we all know, we find the Wilderness and Knysna area which is a most attractive part of the country and where apparently an administrative board of this kind is needed. So far as Natal is concerned, the provision of a board of this kind is entirely superfluous. I emphasize that it is entirely superfluous because you have a long-established board, viz. the Natal Parks Board, which in respect of Natal has precisely these functions. It already controls not only the natural lake areas along the coast such as Richards Bay, St. Lucia, Sordwana Bay, Kosi Bay, and the tidal estuary at Mtunzini, but also a number of tidal estuaries on the South Coast, to name but a few. I can think of no important tidal estuary in Natal where the water area and the surrounding land area is not under the control of the Natal Parks Board. As I say, and I wish to emphasize it, its functions in these areas are very similar to those set out in the Bill. In some cases they are not quite so extensive in regard to the acquisition of land, but nevertheless they are very similar, they exist and they are exercised. I think it is generally accepted that they are exercised efficiently and for the public benefit by that board. The Natal Parks Board has additional functions which, were mentioned by the hon. member who spoke first on this side. That is in respect of the lake areas established in terms of State-owned dams such as Midmar Dam, Chelmsford Dam and all the big dams in Natal which were constructed by the Department of Water Affairs. By arrangement with that department such dams are handed over to the Natal Parks Board after they have been completed who then control the amenities so far as fishing and boating and the immediate shores of these areas are concerned. If that exists in Natal, and I believe that I have stated the position fairly, there can be no earthly reason that I can see for this legislation to apply to that province. One knows that any board when it is brought into being tends to like to expand. It is a natural reaction of people who are appointed to a board which has administrative jurisdiction.

Parkinson’s law.

Yes, I believe it is called Parkinson’s law. They wish to expand and they wish to acquire further areas of jurisdiction. From time to time one also finds that local politicians attempt to make political capital out of a situation of this kind. I wish to elaborate on it no more than that. However, the danger is quite simply, firstly, that a board of this kind would, I think, in time seek to take over certain powers of the Natal Parks Board and would be likely to bring pressure to bear on either this Minister or his successors in order to bring that about. It is also likely that from time to time for purely party political reasons pressure will be brought to bear on the hon. the Minister or his successors to expand the jurisdiction of a board of this kind at the expense of the Natal Parks Board.

The Natal Parks Board has one other point in its favour and I do not know whether it is the hon. the Minister’s intention to make use of that merit in connection with the appointment of members to this board. The Natal Parks Board consists of gentlemen who do the work of the board for no payment whatever. In the interests of conservation in Natal they give their services entirely gratis.

The same applies to the National Parks Board.

That may well be the case, but I doubt whether the hon. the Minister will be able to establish this board on the same basis, although I would be very glad if he could.

For those reasons we shall be moving an amendment at the Committee Stage, an amendment which I hope the hon. the Minister will find himself able to accept. I can foreshadow the amendment I have in mind now although I have not yet drafted it. The amendment will refer to clause 2(2) in terms of which areas under control of the Provincial Administration can be taken over after consultation with the administrator concerned. The amendment will require the consent of the administrator concerned before the particular area is taken over. The amendment will be along those lines and will try to safeguard the Natal Parks Board, although not particularly from this hon. gentleman who holds the portfolio at the present time because I believe his relationships with the board are most cordial. Nevertheless, we do not know what may take place in the future and one wants the legislation to be definite in this regard.

Apart from that issue, as my friend the hon. member for Newton Park said, this Bill certainly has our support because it embodies the administration and control of the areas and that is something that is desirable.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech made by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. I say “with great interest” because I expected that he, like the hon. member for Newton Park, would support this legislation. But obviously support is given to this legislation on a provincial basis. The hon. member for Newton Park supported this legislation unconditionally, as I understood him. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana, in contrast to this, does not really want this legislation to be seen in the province of Natal Therefore, I am slightly confused about the support which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana gives this legislation.

I want to add immediately that I have great respect and appreciation for the field work and conservation work which the Natal Parks Board has been doing through the years. All of us can indeed have great appreciation for the conservation work it has been doing. However, we must see this Bill as a national attempt to protect our unique lagoons on a national basis. Therefore, I believe that we must allow the emphasis to fall more on the general conservation of our lagoons and not make attempts to look for exceptions in respect of the way in which such conservation is to take place.

By referring to clause 11 of the Bill, we see that it provides very clearly that, wherever a lake area is proclaimed, the development board will co-operate wholeheartedly with any conservation activities of other bodies. For example, clause 11 (1)(c) makes particular provision for money to be lent to local authorities, with the approval of the Minister. I refer to this in particular because some of these conservation works are so comprehensive that it is sometimes impossible for a local authority to find its own funds and means to do the necessary conservation work. The conservation of lagoons and tidal rivers has so many facets that it is impossible sometimes simply to leave it in the hands of a local authority. So many other departments also have to be involved. I want to refer to a few of these. Let us take the question of the silting up of our beautiful lagoons. There is the Department of Agricultural Technical Services whose co-operation in the application of the Soil Conservation Act is of the utmost importance in preventing soil erosion. A board such as that which is envisaged in this legislation, can acquire the co-operation of this department. The Lake Areas Development Board is to be constituted under the Department of Agriculture. One also has bodies such as the Department of Health and the provincial authorities that have to be involved in the conservation of these lakes, for example, to ensure that proper health measures are taken, for example, in the matter of the sewerage of new townships. Then we also have the Department of Sport and Recreation and the Department of Tourism that also come into the picture in the planning and the development of these lake areas.

Therefore, I should say that to argue that this should remain in the hands of one single local body, is not correct. It is too important a task to be left in the hands of only one body. All bodies ought to be involved. The hon. the Minister has stated clearly that it is not being envisaged to apply this legislation elsewhere than in the areas of Knysna and the Wilderness at the moment and that it will only be applied elsewhere if it should appear that development is not taking place or if the conservation and the protection of the areas do not take place. Therefore, I want to put it to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that in spite of the arguments which he advanced, an exception can surely not be made in respect of a general principle which is stated here and which is aimed at finding a sound method throughout our Republic. We must not make an exception of Natal. We must find a uniform method to act wherever it might be necessary.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to find that the hon. member for Eshowe did not follow the arguments and reasoning of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana in his discussion of this Bill. The point is that Natal is in a slightly different position to that of the Cape Province. Perhaps the hon. member for Eshowe is not aware of this fact. When the Sea-shore Act was passed by this House in 1934, the province of Natal refused to give up its right to the seashore. It formed the Natal Parks Board and the Natal Administration saw very conscientiously to the protection of the seashore and the protection of its lagoons. That is the whole basis of the reasoning of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. As far as the Cape Province is concerned, the right to the seashore was surrendered to the Government and this caused the Cape Province to find itself in a rather chaotic position. I want to say that it is absolutely necessary to have legislation of this sort in the Cape Province whereas it is not so specifically necessary in Natal. On behalf of the Cape Province I welcome this legislation.

I was very sorry to hear the hon. Minister speaking only about the southern Cape and the Knysna and Wilderness areas. There are other estuaries as well. I am sure the hon. the Minister is fully aware of the problems that I have experienced in regard to certain estuaries in the Eastern Cape that are just as important to the country as a whole as ecological places of attraction, not only because they provide long stretches of tidal water but also because of the flora and fauna along the river banks.

For the umpteenth time since I have been a public representative I want to come back to the question of the Bushman’s River. I said just now that I thought that this legislation was very necessary in the Cape. I want to mention the fact that the Bushman’s River is a tidal river. There are various departments controlling it. At the local level there are two municipalities involved, the municipality of Kenton-on-Sea on the east bank, and the municipality of Boesmanriviersmond on the west Bank. There is the Divisional Council of Bathurst on the east bank and the Divisional Council of Alexandria on the west bank. Further up the line there is the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure which controls the riverbed, the Department of Water Affairs which controls the surface and the Department of Sport and Recreation which controls sporting events on the river. One can go on in this way. The hon. the Minister knows that I have spent many hours with his department and other departments trying to sort out problems in regard to the Bushman’s River. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to ensure that this area is one of the first to be proclaimed a lake area when this Bill becomes law because it is important that we should have it as such. I am also extremely grateful to see that funds can be appropriated by Parliament for the establishment of these lake areas. There is one thing I have not found in this Bill. The hon. the Minister mentioned in his Second Reading speech that a lot of damage had been done to these lake areas and to estuaries through the injudicious opening and closing of river mouths. The hon. the Minister knows that a very injudicious method was employed in building a bridge over the Bushman’s River. I would be very pleased to see a provision incorporated in this Bill whereby funds could be appropriated to correct the wrongs caused by these injudicious actions of the past.

There is another question I should like to ask the hon. the Minister. Under the Department of Planning and the Environment we have recently had various trusts established along the coast for the protection of the environment and particularly of these lake areas and estuaries. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether through the Department of Planning and the Environment these trusts will also be able to assist the board that it is proposed should look after these matters. I should like to know whether these trusts will be brought in an advisory capacity and for the purposes of consultation. As far as I know these trusts have only been in existence for a very short period of time. I think the oldest one is at Knysna and that is about four or five years old. These trusts have done an amazing amount of good work in conjunction with the Department of Planning and of the Environment and the Department of Nature Conservation in the Cape Province up to the present. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to make use of these trusts when he sets up his board.

Then, finally, Sir, one cannot talk about legislation that has not yet been passed through this House, but I would draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to legislation that is proposed by his colleague, the Minister of Transport, in the Railways and Harbours Acts Amendment Bill. I cannot discuss it now, but when the time comes for us to discuss clause 5(7) quin (b) in that legislation, I sincerely hope that he will support the amendment that will be moved by the Opposition and that he will not oppose it as he did the amendment that we moved in a previous debate here today. I believe that that is an exceptionally important matter, because you cannot have overlapping legislation. When you legislate in one Bill to give protection, you cannot in another Bill which falls under a different department legislate to do exactly the opposite. My final appeal to the Minister is this: Do not just think about the South Coast and about Knysna and George. They are beautiful and they need protection, but think about us in the Eastern Cape, too, and think particularly about the Bushman’s River.

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly be mindful of the hon. the Minister’s appointment in Port Elizabeth, and therefore I intend to be brief. The first point I would like to make is that we believe that this is a very good piece of legislation which is in the interests of South Africa, and therefore we will obviously support it. The second point I want to make is that this legislation would probably have been more appropriate if it had come from the Department of Planning and the Environment. I say that because when one studies the purpose of this legislation, the very nature of this legislation and the aspects of South Africa with which it deals, one is brought to the conclusion that the Department of the Environment is better placed to deal with these matters. In dealing with a Bill such as this, the problem always arises, as it has again arisen in this House this afternoon, that people feel that existing organizations should be excluded from the provisions of the Bill; that they should not be subject to the control of the bodies created by this legislation. The problem will always arise until one can find a discipline which can truly interrelate all the parts that such legislation attempts to cover. We are not concerned here just with tourism, but also with the protection of the ecology and the protection of the environment and with all matters affecting the exploitation of the environment. Many different disciplines and different activities fall under this legislation and under the control of the bodies created by this legislation. The problem which arises is to find a discipline which can clearly and unequivocally interrelate the other disciplines and form and establish a logical management of these disciplines. I have always felt that the Department of the Environment is the department best placed to do so. The Department of Agriculture, although it is closely associated with certain aspects of lakes and the control of the shores of lakes, is not associated with all the aspects. The Department of the Environment, on the other hand, can in fact assume this responsibility and is well placed to look after all the aspects which fall thereunder. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few points. I believe that in South Africa the lack of control of lake shores has been most unfortunate to date. For that reason this legislation is welcomed. A tremendous amount of harm has been done throughout South Africa both with regard to lakes in the low-lying areas close to the sea—lakes which are tied up with estuary systems—and with regard to inland lakes and man-made lakes. Because there have not been uniform and scientifically-based methods and systems of control, a great deal of harm has already been done from the point of view of the destruction of the ecological aspects of these lakes, from the point of view of the pollution of the water of the lakes and from the point of view of the destruction of fish and bird life, and it is going to take a great deal of effort to re-establish the natural and proper ecology of these areas. This harm was done specifically because such control measures did not exist. I think the Government is on the right track if they seek to create a system, with regulations which will be uniform for the whole of South Africa and with which all existing authorities and bodies will have to comply throughout South Africa. Such a system would result in many advantages. In the first place, you would get the advantage that the fruits and the results of the research that is done in order to establish the necessary systems and which costs a tremendous amount of money and takes a long time to carry out, would then be available to and would be applied uniformly throughout the country. The second tremendous advantage would be that you would have a uniform discipline throughout the country to see to it that the highest possible standards are applied—I accept at this early stage that we will obviously be vigilant to see to it that the highest standards will be applied throughout. With regard to sewage treatment systems, for example, you will find that the authorities which control many of our lake areas allow systems which are inefficient and that they allow raw sewage to flow into these lakes, thus playing havoc with the fish life. Sir, what I think is also terribly important is that in South Africa where lake shores are available and accessible to the public, rigid control should be applied to the people making use of these lake shores. Unfortunately the entrance fees which are charged to the public for making use of our lake shores and lakes are far too low, with the result that there is not sufficient revenue to permit of the proper policing, or let me rather say proper control, by personnel of the authorities in control of the lakes, of the way in which people use the facilities and amenities which are provided for them. I believe that adequate fees should be charged of everybody who is going to use either the shore for his recreating or pleasure or who is going to use the water itself. Here I refer to people such as anglers and picnickers. They should be required to pay an adequate and reasonable fee, and the revenue should be applied in order to see to it that there is proper control. I think the hon. member for Witwatersberg, for instance, will agree with me when I say that it is shocking to see the degree of pollution of the shoreline and of the water of the beautiful man-made lake of the Hartbeespoort dam in the Transvaal, resulting from the fact that thousands of people flock to that dam during the summer months for fishing and other purposes. Sir, we do not say that members of the public must not use these lakes. Obviously they must have access to the lakes and their shores for recreation and pleasure, but they should not be permitted to destroy those facilities and to harm or to destroy the animal, bird and fish life which exists there. I believe, Sir, that the public will get even more enjoyment out of the use of those facilities if they are subject to reasonably rigid control in order to ensure that people neither harm nor destroy the facilities which exist for them. I think it is very timeous and a very good thing that action is being taken in this regard. I hope that the board will soon get cracking and that the measures provided for in this Bill will be applied and that we will soon be able to see a marked improvement throughout South Africa. As one of the earlier speakers has pointed out, natural lakes are limited assets In fact, all the activities of our economy, whether it is transport or industry, always tend to cause harm to some of the natural environmental assets of our country. Sir, these are limited assets; they cannot be added to, and the Government is charged with the responsibility of enforcing rigorous measures to control these environmental assets. Where new dams are created, whether they are created by the Government or any other authority, or whether they are privately created, these are new environmental assets for the country, and it is most important that those assets should also be controlled rigorously by a board equipped with proper control measures.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to give the hon. member for Newton Park a few assurances. In the first place: The man-made lakes to which he referred, can all be placed in the hands of the province concerned when they ask for that. If the province says that there is land around the dam basin which they would like to control, and this is justified and we do not need the land for agriculture, we give it to the province for maintenance and for the purpose of recreational facilities. That is the case in each province. The hon. member, as well as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, referred to the fact that the machinery already existed in Natal. I also want to give the assurance that this board will have its hands full with the lake complex of George and Knysna.

†First of all, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana asked whether we were going to pay these people, because the Natal Parks Board people work without being paid, also the National Parks Board members. But they get a kind of payment. You know, it is a matter of prestige to be on these boards, and they get free accommodation, which is very attractive. So actually there is some remuneration connected with this.

*But this will be a full-time job so that there will be no time for the men to go camping or on holiday. A few of them will have to work full-time in order to perform this tremendous task as far as the lakes are concerned. The hon. the Minister of Defence took me to these lakes. I think it is five minutes to twelve already and these people will have to start work on the silting up and the injudicious actions one finds in that area. That is why we feel that we should have the right men on the job, and to get the right man, one sometimes has to pay some remuneration so as to get the work going as soon as possible. Eventually it may come about, once the board functions properly, that one will be able to appoint people who will need to spend less time on that, but I foresee that these people will not be able to extend their activities to other provinces for many years to come. They will have to concentrate on this area. The hon. member for Newton Park was quite right in saying that the dense population made it essential that we look for more recreational facilities. The hon. member for Mossel Bay has a thorough understanding of how essential the protection of the lakes and nature is.

†For the information of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana I want to rectify something. This Bill is not applicable to South West Africa, but only to the Republic. We will discuss the hon. member’s amendment. I do not think he should be afraid of the Natal Parks Board. We want to do the same kind of work that they do at St. Lucia, to ensure the same kind of preservation.

*I can just tell the hon. member that the public is not always so highly pleàsed with the Natal Parks Board. There are also problems, but I do not mean to offend the Natal Parks Board in any way with this legislation. My aim is to rectify this specific problem.

The hon. member for Eshowe said we should allow the emphasis to fall on lagoons in general and that we should not just look at the province. He is quite right. He need not be afraid that we want to offend the Natal Parks Board. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Eshowe on his contribution.

†I want to say to the hon. member for Albany in connection with any injudicious opening and closing of the mouths of the rivers, especially at the Bushmans River, to which he referred, that at the moment, as he knows, we are busy with the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, Water Affairs and the province in regard to his specific request as far as the Bushman River is concerned. We will discuss it with the new board of trustees and use them in an advisory capacity. I will, therefore, pay attention to the request of the hon. member.

The hon. member for Bryanston said it was actually the task of the Department of Planning and the Environment. The hon. member must remember that traditionally the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure is the owner of State land and not the Department of Planning. For instance, the National Parks Board falls under this department, and under Agriculture you also have Soil Conservation and Nature Conservation. We have all these divisions under the portfolio of Agriculture and I do not think it is necessary to have this under the Department of Planning and the Environment. I think we can do the job effectively under the Department of Agriculture. The hon. member said that harm was done because control did not exist in the past. That is the reason why we are introducing this legislation and that is why I am glad that all opposition parties are with us on this, and I thank everybody very much.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In implementing the Human Sciences Research Act, 1968, it has been found that the Human Sciences Research Council is impeded and retarded in the performance of its functions by certain restricting provisions, and also that certain adjustments to the Act have become necessary in order to remedy specific shortcomings and to promote the efficient functioning of the council.

The Act provides, inter alia, that the functions of the council are, in the first place, to undertake such research on behalf of persons or bodies as the Minister may approve, and, in the second place, to perform, with the approval of the Minister, certain other specified functions in respect of research, such as the co-ordination of research, co-operation with other bodies in respect of research and the publication of the results of research. The fact that ministerial approval has to be obtained again and again to enable the council to perform the tasks with which it is charged by law has led to delays, and this has had an inhibiting effect on the council’s activities. In this regard one thinks, inter alia, of research which has to be conducted on behalf of State departments, the publication of the results of research, the collecting, processing and interpreting of educational statistics and the standardizing of psychological and scholastic tests. It is accepted that certain tasks which the council has to perform have to be subject to the approval of the Minister, and for that reason the intention is to amend the Act in such a way that the council will be able to undertake projects without the approval of the Minister, but that the Minister will retain the right to indicate which activities will require his prior approval. Provision is being made for this in clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill.

†In terms of section 4(1) of the Act the council shall consist of a president and such number of other members not exceeding eight, as the Minister may determine.

Council members are appointed in their personal capacity but appointments are, as far as possible, made with due regard to, inter alia, the following:

1. (a) The representation of bodies having particular interests in the activities of the council, e.g. the Committee of Head of Education, the Committee of University Principals and the National Education Council.
2. (b) the representation of English and Afrikaans-speaking persons.
3. (c) the representation of various disciplines in the field of the human sciences, and
4. (d) liaison with the natural sciences.

Eight members are considered to be insufficient to provide for a truly representative body taking into account the requirements that I have mentioned. The intention is, therefore, to amend the Act in order that two more members may be appointed to the council.

There is no provision in the Act to empower the council to obtain revenue by means of services rendered by it in the course of its activities. The proposed amendment of section 12 is designed to remedy this shortcoming.

*Section 13 provides, inter alia, that at the end of every financial year the council shall submit to the Minister an annual report, together with certain financial statement certified by the Controller and Auditor-General, to be tabled in the Senate and the House of Assembly. Because the financial statements can only be audited after 31 March every year, the submission of the annual report is delayed by a year. The proposed amendment of the section will enable the annual report as such to be submitted at the end of the calendar year, together with audited financial statements of the previous financial year.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are always in favour of legislation which aims at better administration. We believe that what is known as “red tape” should be eliminated as far as possible. The amendments contained in clauses 1 and 2 will in our opinion definitely result in the activities of the Human Sciences Research Council being executed more effectively. As the hon. the Minister has already said, this will eliminate delays. It does state that the prior approval of the Minister must be obtained, but we assume—and this is in fact the case in practice—that the hon. the Minister may, by issuing regulations, delineate certain fields in which the council may continue with the absolute minimum of delay.

The Human Sciences Research Council is, in the nature of the matter, a council whose work is so important that it is necessary for us and the Minister, too, to trust it entirely, and to a large extent this legislation is a demonstration of full confidence in the council. It displays the correct attitude as we interpret it. Consequently we welcome this Amendment Bill. The activities of the council cover an enormously wide field and this is particularly the case as regards those activities for which the Minister’s prior approval must be obtained. Looking at the principal Act, one notes that it covers 12 specific tasks. All these tasks are of vital importance to us.

I just want to add one other point, viz. that the council must at all times be accessible for private persons involved in research. For this reason it is encouraging to see that whereas the old section 3(2) has been entirely replaced, the accessibility of the council to the public is in fact retained in terms of clause 3(3a) of the Bill, which, in fact, contains the same provisions.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could elucidate a certain point. I refer to the increase in the number of members of the council from eight to ten. I accept that the hon. the Minister wishes by this means to give a greater number of interested bodies an opportunity to serve in this council. Could the hon. the Minister tell us, in the course of his reply, what interested bodies are going to benefit from this increase, and also to what extent other interested bodies could possibly insist on serving on this council? The reason I am asking this question is that I believe that if we were perhaps to find that there were other bodies and other interested groups who could also claim, on merit, to serve on the council, the number of members could be further extended. In the normal course one would not want too large a body—it is easier to control a smaller body —but if one finds that there are, in fact, certain organizations, institutions and a certain type of interested group which also want to serve on the council, I wonder how far one would progress along this path. However, we support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to certain aspects of clause 4. This clause provides that the HSRC will, in terms of the proposed new Act, be entitled to deposit into its own account, funds it earns through its research work. It is an anomaly that in terms of the existing Act these funds should have to be deposited in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This is not the case as regards the CSIR, which is a counterpart of the HSRC. The funds they earn through their activities are deposited in their own account. In terms of the amendment Bill this may now be done by the HSRC.

It is important to point out that the HSRC has covered a very broad and extensive field of research. Money for research is always, of course, of decisive importance. The HSRC is at present undertaking a research project investigating the effect of television on various population groups. Research of this nature can only be carried out in South Africa. No other country in the world can do this at the moment because at this stage we are the only developed country that does not yet have television and can carry out that research now. That is why interest has been shown in this research project throughout the Western world as well. There has been co-operation, too, in this regard. This is only one example of what can be done.

There is probably just as much, and perhaps even more scope for research at the level of the human sciences as there is at the purely scientific level. When the money is available, this council can extend its activities accordingly. In America, England and other countries there are many independent institutes. One calls to mind, for example, the Institute for the Study of Conflict in London which has carried out highly important research work, including research work in Africa. We, too, should like to carry out research of this kind. In America there are many institutes of this kind with a great deal of money at their disposal. For example, I call to mind the Ford Foundation and the Hoover Institute. However, these people do not work for nothing. They are also commissioned by the American Government. They carry out research quickly, effectively, scientifically and objectively and make their data available without delay. It is then available for use by the authority or the body which requested it. Consequently these people are prepared to pay.

I can foresee that this amendment of the Act may also mean that State departments could commission the HSRC to undertake a quick research project. For example, one could imagine what it would mean to the Department of Coloured Relations at this stage if they were able to determine scientifically what the Coloured is thinking today. What does he think about his leaders, what does he think about his Representative Council? What is the ordinary Coloured thinking and what are his problems? If such questions could be answered, it would be of great value to this department. What would it not mean to the Department of Bantu Administration if they could know what the Bantu in Soweto was thinking. What is important to him? Does he want improved educational facilities for his children, does he want better working conditions, are political rights of real importance to him, etc.? It is research projects of this kind, at the level of the human sciences —I could mention innumerable others— which could be undertaken and with which the council could concern itself and in so doing extend its activities indefinitely if the money were available. Now that the council itself can dispose of the money it earns, I think that this is an opportunity for the council to extend its activities. There are also institutes attached to our universities, but because they have to work with limited funds, they are unable to undertake these major research projects which we in Southern Africa today regard as imperative and of vital importance. I trust, therefore, that the HSRC will now be able to enter this field.

Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with the hon. member for Algoa that there is a considerable lack of adequate human sciences research in South Africa, particularly when one compares it with the research being carried out in the field of the natural sciences. I speak from experience when I say that the human sciences researcher has the greatest difficulty in obtaining funds, particularly when he has to compete with the natural or technological sciences when he approaches the industrial sector for research funds. The same applies as regards the availability of bursaries and facilities at universities. I therefore have no difficulty in supporting this Bill.

The legislation attempts to streamline one of the research facilities available to the human sciences researcher. In my opinion this is a very positive piece of legislation inasmuch as it curbs, to some extent, the powers of the hon. the Minister in regard to the operation of the HSRC. At the same time it enables that institution to tackle research projects with a greater degree of freedom of discretion and more expeditiously.

I find it strange that in South. Africa in particular,—not only in South Africa, but in other societies too—there is much prejudice against and even suspicion of the human sciences. It is as if certain groups in society feels that one should not tamper with, relation problems between people or with problems in politics, the community or the welfare services, and that one should accept without further ado that these problems are not amendable to scientific research. I think that we are going to find increasingly that not only is there a need for more human sciences research and on a larger scale, but that there is a pressing need today for inter-disciplinary research as well. For example, disciplines such as medical science and the human sciences are moving closer to one another all the time. There is also the relationship between architecture as a discipline and the whole problem of regional and city planning, which indicates that there is a greater tendency for co-operation at the inter-disciplinary level. I think the hon. member for Algoa made a valid point when he referred to similar inter-disciplinary research institutes overseas. Perhaps this is something that could be stimulated here, too, through the agency of something like the Human Sciences Research Council. I therefore have no difficulty in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it has struck me that all three hon. members who have given their support to this Bill on behalf of their respective parties, have been persons who have studied in the field of the human sciences. Consequently I did not expect any opposition to this legislation and I want to put on record my sincere gratitude for the way in which this legislation has been accepted. I also want to agree with the hon. members for Algoa and Rondebosch, who pointed out that there is still ample scope for expansion in the field of human sciences research. I think that this can be explained historically, since a start was made with research in the natural sciences before research into the human sciences was commenced in the same organized way. The significance of human sciences research is also, as the hon. member for Rondebosch indicated, of great importance to our country and all its inhabitants. If he were to take a look at the latest Budget proposals, he would see that we have, in fact, made substantial progress in regard to the funds voted. In my opinion we have made good progress in recent times since 1968 when this council was established. We hope to continue in this fashion.

The hon. member for Durban Central asked me specifically whether there were certain interested parties who insisted on serving on the council. I am not aware of specific representations that were made. The Human Sciences Research Council felt that eight persons were really too few to do justice to all the considerations which do have to be taken into account. Consequently, two additional members are being added. I am grateful to receive his assurance in advance that it if should be necessary on a later occasion to expand the council further, we should be able to continue in this fashion.

There is just one small matter which I want to rectify. The hon. member’s inference that I can exclude certain fields of research by way of regulation without the Minister’s approval is technically not quite correct. The implication of clauses 1 and 2 is that the Council will be able to carry on with research unless the Minister, under the powers he is given in terms of this amendment, lays down that certain research is not to be carried out.

Then, too, I just want to convey my thanks once again to all the parties in the House which support this amendment Bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a short point on the question of giving the council powers to charge for services that have been requested by certain persons or authorities. We all realize the need for research. There is a wide field open for research, particularly on the adjustment of people who are moved from slum areas to other areas where better living conditions prevail. While this council has been given greater scope to conduct research and to charge for their services, this research is often very expensive. I am a little worried that persons who request such research might not be able to carry these expenses. When one looks at the amount which is to be voted for the CSIR in the Estimates of Expenditure, one sees that they get something like R28¼ million whilst the Human Sciences Research Council gets a meagre R4¼ million. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider increasing the subsidy that is given to the Human Sciences Research Council so that they can utilize this greater authority to get research done.

Mr. Chairman, the new section 3(3) as inserted by clause 2 provides that—

1. (a) at the request of any person or authority and subject to such conditions and the payment of such costs as may be agreed upon, conduct or cause to be conducted …

In other words, there must be agreement between the two parties as to the amount to be paid for the service rendered. Up to now it has been the custom that the council has, in fact, been paid for rendering certain services. I can tell the House that this council probably earned the most money from psychological and scholastic tests standardized for the Provincial Education Departments. The council did, in fact, in consultation with the Treasury, retain these funds. They were not repaid into the Revenue Fund, but it is with the very aim of rectifying this position, viz. inserting this in the Act as one of the sources of income, that this amendment is being moved. I think that this explanation with which I have furnished the hon. member will satisfy him.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Explosives Act of 1956 came into operation in the Union on 2 May 1956, having replaced the Explosives Act of 1911. On 12 July 1972, the former Act was made applicable to the territory of South West Africa, including the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel, in terms of an amending Act, Act No. 74 of 1972. The present Act contains comprehensive directions for, inter alia, the manufacture, storage, sale, transportation and handling of explosives. In certain cases, as I shall explain later, some of these directions do not comply with the modern requirements for the proper administration of the Act as well as the use and handling of explosives. Consequently it has become necessary to amend and supplement the Act in order to bring it into line with the requirements which have now arisen.

I want to deal in the proper order with the most important proposed amendments to the Act. It is being proposed that the definition of the words “factory licence” be further supplemented to make it clear that a factory licence issued in terms of the Act is valid in respect of a factory for the manufacture of explosives and not in respect of a magazine which is licensed in terms of section 22.

On 1 September 1967, the former Department of Commerce and Industries was divided into two separate departments, namely the Department of Commerce and the Department of Industires. The administration of the Explosives Act was entrusted to the Department of Commerce. However, this Act still provides for the Secretary for Commerce and Industries to perform certain duties under the said Act. In order to rectify this provision, it is being proposed that the words “and Industries”, where they appear in section 2(5) of the Act, be deleted.

The Explosives Act does not authorize the Secretary for Commerce to delegate to officials of his department the powers conferred upon him in terms of the Act. Over the past few months it has been agreed, after consultation with the S.A. Police and the Railway Police, to train police officers to supervise the storage of explosives in the remote parts of the Republic and of South West Africa and also to issue the necessary permits when small quantities of explosives are to be transported. Allow me to say in passing that this is aimed in particular at accommodating the position in South West. The appointment of these police officers is a purely administrative task which could just as well be performed by another senior official in the Department of Commerce if the head of department were to be legally authorized to delegate this task to an official designated by him. Clause 2 of the Bill now makes provision for the appropriate amendment to section 2(5) of the Act by means of which the necessary powers are conferred upon the departmental head.

In terms of section 4(1A)(a), the chief inspector of explosives may grant permission for explosives containing ammonium nitrate to be manufactured outside a licensed factory, on condition that the explosive be used immediately. However, practical problems have been experienced in complying with this provision, since it is sometimes necessary for this type of explosive first to be placed in containers on the site where it is being manufactured, in order to facilitate the loading of the blasting-holes, instead of placing these explosives in the blasting-holes directly after they have been manufactured. In order to solve this problem which has arisen, it is proposed that the word “immediate” be deleted. However, it remains absolutely essential that the manufacture and handling of this explosive be properly controlled. For this reason it is desirable to provide for the chief inspector to be authorized to prescribe the conditions subject to which this explosive may be manufactured and later used outside an approved factory. In clause 3 of the Bill it is being proposed that section 4(lA)(a) of the Act be suitably supplemented to provide for this eventuality.

The procedures presently prescribed for the licensing of factories are comprehensive and complicated, and complying with them leads to unnecessary delays in dealing with applications for such licences. In recent years, ammonium nitrate explosives have been used to an increasing extent, and a consumer who manufactures this explosive for his own use is required to comply with the comprehensive procedures at present prescribed for the licensing of a factory in terms of section 12 of the Act in order to obtain a licence for the plant at which he wants to manufacture the explosive concerned. With a view to expediting and facilitating the licensing of the plants concerned, which mostly belong to the mining houses, it is proposed that the simple procedures presently applicable to the licensing of magazines in which explosives are stored, be made applicable to such plants as well as to factories, and that the allocation of powers conferred upon the Minister and the State President respectively under the Act be amended accordingly. Consequently the proposed amendment to the Explosives Act of 1956 will briefly involve the following: Firstly, the licensing of factories will in future rest with the chief inspector of explosives and not with the Minister, as is the case at present. It is felt that the licensing of factories is not a matter of policy but purely technical matter with which the Minister should not be burdened.

Secondly, any appeal which may arise from the issuing of licences to factories, or the amendment of licences, will rest with the Minister, instead of the Minister’s having to appoint a commission of inquiry for this purpose, as is at present required by the Act. Thirdly, the power of revoking the licence of a factory will rest with the Minister instead of the State President, as is laid down by the Act at present. Once again it is felt that this is not a task which the State President should be burdened with. Finally, the Act presently provides that any fees to be levied in terms of its provisions are to be prescribed by the Minister. However, it has become customary for any fees collected in terms of certain laws of our country to be determined in consultation with the Minister of Finance. In clause 6(d) of the Bill it is proposed that an appropriate provision be added to the Explosives Act of 1956 to make provision for this financial procedure. The provisions of sections 12 to 16 and 18 to 21 of the Act will be deleted by clause 4 of the Bill in order to give effect to the amendments proposed above.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are going to support the Bill. It is, as the hon. the Minister has said, merely amending a consolidated Act which is presently in existence, Act 26 of 1956. I believe that having regard to the tragedy which has just been experienced at Sasol, the public itself will be very conscious of the word “explosion” and of the terrible consequence when explosives are not brought under direct control. I believe that this is an enabling Act in order to streamline and change the situation in which this country finds itself at the moment. I think that the hon. the Minister has been at pains to indicate precisely what the intention of the Bill is. To that extent we will not oppose the Bill but give it our support.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members on the other side for their support and I endorse the idea that we should exercise the greatest care in dealing with explosives, but that we should nevertheless simplify the procedure so as to provide for practical machinery.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.