During the second reading of this Bill the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) raised a point in regard to the use of domestic appliances such as certain pressure vessels, portable gas containers, etc., which were being used in caravans. households and on picnic sites. He raised the question as to whether the terms of this Bill made any provision for the control of these particular appliances which, he submitted. were all potentially dangerous. He posed the question as to whether there was any relevant provision in this Bill to deal with these particular appliances.

During the recess I had an opportunity of going into this question and I found that domestic appliances were specifically excluded from the principal Act. I refer to the definition of “machinery” which reads

1. (a) “Machinery” means any locomotive or any stationary or portable engine or boiler or other steam apparatus.

Certain appliances are detailed in (b) and (c). It then goes on to say—

So that domestic appliances are specifically excluded by the principal Act. I agree with the hon. member that electrical domestic appliances are deemed to be machinery in terms of Sections 31, 32 and 33 of the Act. Hon. members will see that those sections deal with the question of notification of accidents. I refer to Section 31.

The provisions of sub-section (1) … which deals with employees involved in accidents—

So there is that provision in regard to electric domestic appliances.

Section 32 deals with the actual inquiry by the inspector and Section 32 deals with the calling of witnesses. The reason why electrical domestic appliances are included is that accidents frequently occur in the use of these appliances due to a variety of causes such as faulty wiring, corrosion, ignorant people tampering with the terminals and so on. That is why inspectors of my Department are entitled to inquire into the causes of those particular accidents. Where it appears from their investigations that the accident has been caused by the negligence of some or other person the papers are referred to the Attorney-General for whatever action he may consider necessary. The Attorney-General can then take action against the supplier of the electricity who is controlled by either or both of the Factories Act or the Electrical Wiremen and Contractors Act amendments to which the House passed last year. But, Mr. Chairman, in the case of domestic pressure vessels and gas containers with which the hon. member was concerned, no such control is provided, and even if the Department’s inspectors found that there was negligence on the part of some or other person, no further action could be taken, and therefore inquiries into such accidents would really serve no useful purpose. But I can assure the hon. member that there are certain safeguards which are quite likely to keep accidents down to a minimum. As far as I know, all domestic pressure cookers are equipped with safety valves, and the new machinery regulations to which I referred previously make provision in respect of portable gas containers. I would just shortly like to refer the hon. members to the relevant drafted regulation in connection with portable gas containers. I refer to Regulation No. 88 on page 129 of the draft regulations—

And then Regulation No. 89 provides that “during storage, transportation and use of portable gas containers, the user shall use effective measures to be taken against bumping, rolling, over-heating or corrosion. In the case of toxic, flammable and corrosive gases the container shall be adequately protected at all times, except when being used or filled, by means of a metal cap or cover securely attached to the container unless the valve is so recessed, or shrouded, or the container is so boxed or crated as to prevent the possibility of the valve being damaged during impact So the hon. member will see that there is adequate provision in the regulations to meet the difficulties he had in mind. I think that full compliance with the regulation which I have just mentioned will ensure as much safety as is humanly possible.

I would like to thank the hon. the Minister for the detailed reply given, but it seems to appear from the reply that we are somewhat at cross-purposes. My query in regard to the particular type of domestic utensil was not so much that it should be brought in under the conditions imposed the Bill, but to make certain that full allowance had been made for the general use throughout the country of these various domestic appliances. My fear arose both from the hon. Minister’s remarks in the Other Place in introducing the Bill and from reading the relevant clause in the Bill. In Clause 2, Section 2 of the principal Act is amended by the insertion of—

1. (a)bis. Any pressure vessel or portable gas container.

That read with the hon. Minister’s introductory remarks led one to believe to some extent that these were then to be classed as “machinery” and would then fall under certain of the provisions appertaining to machinery, and furthermore would make any premises in which they were used and the persons who use them also responsible for certain safeguards which apply normally to machinery. I am very glad to hear from the hon. Minister that that is not the case. Arising also from the excerpts the hon. the Minister has given from the regulation itself (Section 129 of the regulations), I notice that amongst the conditions that have to be fulfilled is the condition that the gas containers themselves, apart from other things, have to be subject to periodical tests. Now there are literally hundreds of thousands of these containers. Part of the equipment itself spread right throughout households all over the country, and in all the caravans and throughout the picnic spots in the country, and it does seem to me that there are very great practical difficulties that will arise there if the Department wants to enforce such tests. I am referring now to the subsequent tests by the users and owners, not to the test to be applied by the manufacturer when new, which is a simple matter. I can see practical difficulties arising there because the average user just will not be interested in such a test and although in theory it may be a perfectly sound proposition, I have great doubts whether it can be made effective.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

I move the following amendments—

The first amendment is a textual amendment in the Afrikaans version to omit “bekwaamheid” and to substitute “bevoegdheid”. The other amendment is to reinsert (t)ter and (t)quat, which were deleted in the Other Place as the result of certain rules.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) during the second-reading debate also raised a question of importance. He wanted to know whether the certificates of competency at present held by engineers in factories will be recognized when the proposed amendment becomes law and the new regulations have been promulgated. I have also gone into this question during the recess, and my reply is that all certificates issued under the Mines and Works Act will continue to be recognized under the Factories Act. It will therefore not be necessary for the holders of certificates issued by the Department of Mines to now requalify for any future appointment in such a factory. The certificates of competency which are required for employment in any particular occupation in, at or above a factory or premises where machinery is used are covered by the regulations which are framed under Section 51 of the Act. I take it the hon. member did refer to Section 51. There are a series of powers under which regulations can be issued, and I want to tell the hon. member that a new regulation will now be drafted in view of the representations which he made in such a manner as to make it quite clear that a certificated engineer will be one who is qualified either under the Mines and Works Act or under the Factories Act. So there will be no doubt about that point whatsoever.

I think that clarifies one point very well. The second point that arises now is that any engineer who wishes to qualify in future will have to be examined on his knowledge of the regulations as framed under this Act. I assume that is the position if he wants to hold a position as engineer under the Factories Act. That means that the Ministry of Education has to be fully aware of the considerable change being brought about as the result of this amendment in respect of the regulations which will now fall under the Factories Act, the amended regulations. Therefore I want to ask the hon. Minister whether the Department of Education has taken cognizance of this change, and what they are going to do about this matter as far as education is concerned.

As soon as this Bill has been placed on the Statute Book we will draw the attention of the Department of Education to this amendment.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

I move—

Agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I move—

1. (b) by the addition of the following sub-section:
   1. “(4) When an inquiry is held in respect of any matter referred to the council by the Minister in terms of Section 14 of the Land Survey Act, 1927, one half the cost of such inquiry shall be borne by the State.”

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Agreed to.

The Minister of Agricultural Technical Services moved, seconded by Mr. D. J. Potgieter:

Agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I was asked by the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Oldfield) during the second-reading debate to give some further information in regard to the Africa Institute. I will give the information now. The purpose is: (1) To compile and collate information in connection with all matters specifically affecting the continent of Africa; (2) to carry on research and issue publications; (3) to disseminate knowledge and give assistance to all bodies or persons requiring information; (4) to make contact with leaders in territories in Africa and to investigate matters locally; (5) to attend conferences in the Republic as well as in the rest of Africa and in other parts of the world in regard to matters affecting Africa; (6) to deliver addresses at such conferences. The Institute functions under the control of a board on which representatives of the Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns, the universities, the Department of Education, Arts and Science and the Department of Bantu Administration and Development serve.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

I move—

More than two members having objected, Bill to be read a third time on 18 April.

I move—

This is a hybrid Bill and it has therefore been referred to a Select Committee. The Bill deals with a difficulty that we have at a number of our settlements. Nearly all settlements—not all of them—have certain commonages which either belong to them or of which they have the use. In some cases they are the coowners of these commonages and in certain cases it is State land on which grazing rights have been granted to them as a concession. In the case of the Klipdrift Settlement, which was established in 1911, the position is that the commonage consists of approximately 3,000 morgen; it is the property of the settlers but it is held jointly by them, and this always leads to a great number of difficulties because there is no proper control over it. Every settler is allowed grazing rights on the common-age for a certain number of head of cattle or sheep; these grazing rights are regulated by a committee, and the committee finds that all sorts of contraventions take place. People keep more cattle on the commonage than the number they are entitled to keep, and in such a vast area, where there are perhaps 30, 40 or 100 and sometimes even a few hundred owners, it is almost impossible to exercise the necessary control. There are some settlers who are inclined to concentrate on cattle farming rather than cultivation, and they practise their cattle farming on land which actually also belongs to the other settlers. Another difficulty is that while some of the settlers try to improve the quality of their cattle others do not bother much about it; scrub cattle are allowed to graze together with other cattle, and the scrub bulls do not know the difference between a thoroughbred heifer and a scrub heifer. But to the owner it is of great importance that scrub cattle should be kept apart from other cattle on our settlements. Then we also find that some people come onto the settlements with cattle suffering from contagious diseases. It is a very difficult matter to control. On these vast commonages where you have quite a number of owners who allow their cattle to graze all over the commonage, the stock inspectors are unable to exercise control. These people then come along to the Department and ask us to subdivide the commonages so that every settler can have his own piece of pasture which he can then fence off and reserve for his own use. That is the object of this Bill. One always finds that there are some people who are opposed to subdivision. They are usually not the best farmers because the best farmers want the commonage subdivided; it is the inferior farmers who want the right to graze their cattle all over the place. In any event, as far as the Klipdrift Settlement is concerned, practically two-thirds of the settlers asked that this division should take place, and we then referred the matter to the Select Committee.

Then there are a few other provisions which are designed to facilitate the changeover. There is a river there. These settlements usually adjoin rivers. In this case there is an area of 1,000 morgen on one side of the river, and 2,000 morgen on the other. It is a very easy matter to divide the 1,000 morgen on the northern side of the river. We are giving the settlers the right to sell the 1,000 morgen on the northern side and then to buy land along the southern bank to compensate them for the land along the northern bank so as to facilitate the division. We are giving them title to the land without requiring them to pay transfer dues or stamp duties, and they are also being exempted from the payment of registration fees. This commonage can be regarded as the joint property of the settlers, and they would therefore be exempt from the payment of these fees in the event of subdivision. There are ten owners who still have hire-purchase contracts. Their lots will be transferred to the State, because the State remains the owner of the land until such time as the hire-purchaser takes it over. This pasture will then be handed over to him together with his lot.

The Board of Management will not really involve the State in any expense because it receives a considerable sum by way of option moneys under a prospecting contract. It will be possible to use this money to defray the cost of the division and the transfer costs, but the amount is not sufficient, the rest will be raised by way of a levy imposed upon the settlers.

On many of these settlements arrangements of this kind arc made without coming to Parliament, but this settlement was established in terms of an Act of Parliament and that is why I have to come to Parliament to obtain permission to do what is normally done as a matter of course in the Department and in connection with which it is not necessary to come to Parliament in other cases. Generally speaking this system works very well and I hope that the division of this land will also be to the advantage of these people.

We on this side of the House support this Bill. We believe that it is in the interests not only of the settlers but in the general interest and also in the interest of the land, because as things stand at the moment it is impossible to exercise proper control and to make the best use of the land. It is impossible to practise rotational grazing and the land can never be improved therefore. It is in the interests of everybody therefore that the land should be subdivided.

I should just like to ask the hon. the Minister a few questions relative to these subdivisions. He has had experience of the subdivision of communal grazing in the Eastern Province, and he has struck many snags which are holding up those subdivisions. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has consulted his officials in respect of those subdivisions, so as to avoid as far as possible the same snags being struck again. The second point is that I see he is granting transfer completely free of charge. Is that not setting a precedent?

As far as granting transfer free of charge is concerned, that is not a precedent, because it is actually land which belongs to them, but is now being divided up. It was not Crown land; they were the communal owners of the land. That is why we feel it would not be right to charge them transfer duties.

The other point the hon. member raised is this. Whenever I get deputations from these settlements asking me to cut up the communal grazing, I always point out all the difficulties to them because, as the hon. member knows, in his constituency we had a number of cases which caused much difficulty. In many cases the man has his holding here and his grazing lies 11 miles away. When they came to see me, I put all these difficulties to them. I told them to go back and discuss the matter with my officials and see whether the difficulties experienced in many places would also be experienced here. In many cases where they asked for the subdivision and I have told them to investigate the difficulties, they came back and said no, it would be more trouble than it was worth. But in this case it lends itself to subdivision. If we allow them to sell the 1,000 morgen on the northern boundary and buy another 1,000 morgen on the southern boundary, it lends itself to a fair and equitable and satisfactory solution.

I now move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Order No. VIII to stand over.

I move—

The two principal clauses of this Bill seek to bring the control measures in regard to aliens into conformity with the present requirements. The first clause seeks to amend Section 24 of the Admission of Persons to the Union Regulation Act, 1913, and to add a further subdivision. As Section 21 of the said Act now reads, every person of the age of 16 years and over who enters the Republic without a passport or other document of identification recognized by the Minister of the Interior, as well as all other persons who have entered the Republic without such a document since 1937, and who on entry were 16 years of age or over, are prohibited persons in the Republic. These person may be removed from the Republic in terms of the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 19 of the same Act, but before such removal can take place a period of three days must be allowed to each one for the purpose of noting an appeal to a Special Appeal Board. If the person concerned does not lodge his appeal within the three days, he may be summarily removed, but if he does in fact lodge an appeal his removal must be deferred until his case has been disposed of, which may even be taken to the Supreme Court. To this I may just add that a deposit of an amount not exceeding R200 may be required from such a person noting an appeal, and he may be kept in custody during the whole period. This existing procedure for controlling the entry of aliens into the Republic has in recent times proved ineffective in controlling the influx of Bantu from the Africa territories adequately. As hon. members are aware, the Bantu from the Africa territories are continually flocking to the Republic, and that in spite of all the poison that is spread by certain Black leaders in Africa against the racial policy of the Republic. It is ironic indeed, Mr. Speaker, that the Blacks from the Africa territories, with all their vaunted benefits, flock to this so-called police state to such an extent that our measures of control are not sufficiently effective to stem this stream. Having arrived here, they then oust our own Bantu from their sources of employment. According to the Froneman Report 73,000 Bantu were registered in the Republic as unemployed at the end of September 1961 but as we all know, there are numerous Bantu seeking employment who do not register themselves for employment, and it may be assumed that the number of unemployed Bantu is much greater. In fact, the Froneman Commission also estimated that there are 505,000 indigenous Bantu who are unemployed. If in addition we have regard to the statistics supplied by the Bureau of Census and Statistics, namely that the number of foreign Bantu from the High Commission Territories and the other parts of Africa in October 1961 was provisionally estimated to be 836,000, then the House surely will appreciate the necessity to tighten up the measures of control. The addition to Section 24, as contained in Clause 1, will enable us to control this unlawful influx more effectively. According to this new provision, a person who now enters the Republic without a travel document, may be summarily removed from the Republic as soon as all the arrangements have been made for his removal. Such a person may also, if necessary, be kept in custody until he is removed. Moreover, such an unlawful entrant is also subject to prosecution and the concomitant conviction. In other words, such an unlawful entrant could be dealt with in the same way as an alien who enters the Republic without a temporary permit as required in terms of the Aliens Act. It may possibly interest the House if I were merely to mention that a similar provision was inserted in the Admission of Persons to the Union Regulation Act in 1937 by the then United Party Government to very good effect. That 1937 provision very effectively controlled the influx of aliens in the Republic and judging from the experience of the past, there is no reason why the same procedure will not also be able to control the influx of foreign Bantu.

The grounds of appeal are rather trivial in this case now, for the person either is in possession of a travel document or he does not possess one. The proposed provisions’ effect is exactly the same as that of Section 19 (3) of the 1913 Act, save that the imprisonment is extended from three to six months. This extension is not intended to be prejudicial, for the person may be removed forthwith after he has been identified by his territorial authority and arrangements have been made for his removal, and then the remainder of his sentence lapses. The reason for this extension is to see to it that a person is kept occupied during his detention. The experience has been that a person who has been detained for removal, and has been unable to work, sometimes began to suffer from certain nervous ailments if he had no work to do. Now we wish to provide some relief from those nervous ailments by occupying him usefully.

Now I come to Clause 2 which deals with persons who become aliens after they had entered the Republic. The present provisions of Section 19 (3) of the Admission of Persons to the Union Regulation Act, read with the provisions of Section 5 of the Aliens Act of 1937, now merely concerns aliens who, as I explained earlier, had entered the Republic without a temporary permit, and not persons who became aliens after they had entered the Republic. Section 2 of the Aliens Act of 1937, as amended last year, required that an alien who remains in the Republic for temporary purposes should also be in possession of a temporary permit, although he was not required to possess a temporary permit on his entry. The persons concerned here are mainly those who became aliens while they were in the Republic, e.g. persons who are deprived of their citizenship of the Republic or abandon their citizenship, and aliens in respect of whom the exemptions from the provisions of the Aliens Act are revoked. The problem here is that such persons have to apply for a temporary permit on their own volition, and if they fail to do so no steps can be taken against them except by way of deportation, which of course is not desirable. All that is now desired in this legislation is that they should be in possession of temporary permits to regularize their sojourn in the Republic. It is proposed therefore that such persons should be compelled to apply, and if they fail to do so. they should be dealt with in exactly the same way as I explained in the previous case, as an alien who on entry was not in possession of a travel document. That is the object of this provision, and I now move accordingly.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has set out the principles both in regard to Clause 1 and Clause 2, and we on this side cannot quarrel with it, but I do think that some comment is necessary at this stage in respect of the speech the hon. the Deputy Minister has just made. He pointed out that the control of Bantu from outside our borders has become ineffective and that what is aimed at here is a more effective control. That can be exercised in many ways. Merely the passing of this Bill and putting it on the Statute Book will obviously be quite insufficient to effect efficient control over entry into the Republic. There has to be a physical barrier of some kind at some point, or if prohibited immigrants enter the Republic there must be machinery provided to trace them. In passing, I would like to refer briefly to what the Deputy Minister had to say about the stream of Bantu work-seekers who come into the Republic from the territories outside our borders, notwithstanding the fact that we have such a bad reputation in the eyes of their own Governments. Of course, that may well be the case, but I do not think it is really germane to the Minister’s argument. We may have a bad reputation in regard to overseas countries in so far as our Government is concerned, but that does not necessarily mean that we ourselves are looked upon askance because our Government has a bad reputation overseas. It does not mean that all the work-seekers who come here looking for work share the point of view of their own Governments. That is just their Government’s official attitude towards us.

[Inaudible.]

I wish the hon. member would just give me an opportunity to make my speech. He can reply later. We know he knows all the answers, because he was the Chairman of that Commission. Sir. these people came into the Republic because there was work to be done here. They may have received higher wages and remuneration here than they could find in their own countries, which certainly as far as industrial development is concerned are hopelessly behind the Republic of South Africa, but when the Minister said that the control was ineffective to stop the stream, it was not a question of being ineffective; there was simply no control. Neither this Government nor past Governments made any attempt to have any effective control where the Bantu were concerned. I have from time to time over the last 15 years pointed out the position of our boundary between Northern Zululand and Portuguese East Africa, where there is not even a police post. For 50 to 60 miles from the sea inland, except for a police post at Mputa, which is not on the border anyway, there has been free ingress and egress over the border. Unless the Minister provides the necessary machinery to stop these people at the border, they will still come in. Whatever the attraction was which induced them to come in here to seek work, that attraction will remain, and the fact of putting this Bill on the Statute Book does not do away with that inducement. They will still come here if they can. And it was to our benefit also. Do not let us look upon this as though it was a one-sided affair, that we were giving well-paid jobs to the foreign Bantu and getting nothing out of it. They were working. and in many respects they were people who were capable of doing certain kinds of work which some of our own Bantu are unable to perform, because of what is called their natural aptitudes.

As I say, the Bill has two points to which we cannot take exception, but we regret that it is necessary to have this kind of legislation, and to find means of creating this tension on our borders. When we think of a country like the United States, with its long land boundary with Canada, there are no such proposals. It is perfectly true that in this particular case it does not take two to make a quarrel. If other people have ideas in their minds which are hostile to us, the Government must take certain steps to cope with the situation, and we realize that there is always the possibility that a small number of people who are actuated by the worst intentions towards the Republic will find their way over the borders if there is no adequate control. Then we see the necessity for it, but I ask the Minister whether he really thinks that when once this kind of control is established on the borders it will be an effective barrier to people who enter the Republic with a hostile intent? I am sure it will not. We are dealing with a far greater problem than anything which can be solved by a barrier on the border, or by having a certain organization for the purpose of combing out the undesirables. I know of people who have gone to other countries and who have come back, and of people who do not belong here but who come in as prohibited immigrants. Although we do not feel this step will adequately serve its purpose, we must say that we have no objection to it. We also think that Clause 2 contains a sound provision and we will support it, but I hope the Minister will not be disappointed if, having passed this Bill, he finds it inadequate and comes back to Parliament in a year or two and says that unfortunately this control has been found to be ineffective. What we would seek from this side of the House is rather a means of easing the tension, of utilizing all the labour available, in the same way that we are trying to bring White immigrants to South Africa. Labour is of great value to us economically. We should seek to ease the tension and not to create fresh tensions. However, we are not prepared to oppose the Bill and we wish the Minister all success.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has stated on behalf of his party, that he has no objection to this Bill, but he offers some criticism by saying that he thinks that this Bill is not effective and that it will not achieve the purpose for which it has been introduced. He says that two things should be added. There should be physical control, and machinery for tracking down aliens.

Let me say at once that this Bill should not be regarded as standing by itself. It is merely one of the steps that are being taken to give effect to a whole series of recommendations referred to in that report that has been mentioned here. We have seen in the Press that a series of police posts will be established on the borders, but notice has also been given in the Government Gazette of a Bill dealing with all Bantu in White areas, and it also provides for a system of depots where these people who are in this country unlawfully could be held in custody. All that is part of a plan. This Bill should not be regarded as standing by itself. It is only one of a series of measures that will have to be taken to deal with the matter.

Let me also refer to the Bantu who have entered Northern Natal, to which the hon. member has referred. It is estimated that in the constituency of Zululand alone, there are about 30,000 alien Shangaans who have crossed the border. What was the position in the past? The persons simply crossed the border, without any travel documents or identification. As soon as one was caught without a pass or without documents, he was taken to the Bantu Affairs Commissioner and he then gave him a permit, the so-called 5s. permit, and then he could remain in the country and look for employment. In this way thousands of Bantu came in, who simply merely crossed the border, and when picked up here or tracked down, they simply went to the Commissioner and obtained a 5s. permit, which entitled him to seek employment. We estimated that there are nearly a million foreign Bantu in the country. This Bill now tries to change that position. Now he may not enter the country without a travel document issued by his own authority. It is no longer a permit given to him here in South Africa, but he now has to obtain a travel document from his own authority, and when he enters the country without such a travel document, he may be punished, and he may be regarded as an offender, and he may be taken to those depots where he can be identified by his own authority; because you cannot deport a person unless his own state is willing to take him back. That is the problem confronting us. It is no good simply saying he is a Shangaan. If he has to be deported to Moçambique, you can only take him to the border, but his Government is not obliged to take him unless he is identified. It is very difficult to identify him. [Interjections.] The hon. member here asks how it is done. He is interrogated as to where he comes from, who his relatives are, where he formerly lived and who his chief is, and those data are then transmitted to his country’s Government, and they then check them, and if they are satisfied that the information furnished by us is correct, they say he is a citizen of that country and they will take him back. But that is being eliminated now, for he now has to possess a travel document of his own Government before he crosses the border, and if he does not have that, he knows that if he is caught he will be imprisoned and will have to wait a month for identification and that it would be to his disadvantage. Therefore he will now go and ask his own Government for a travel document. The Bantu will very soon become used to this new procedure.

I also wish to refer to the bad reputation we are said to have overseas, to which the hon. the Deputy Minister has referred. The hon. member for South Coast suggests that we are in bad odour with those Governments, but that does not concern the public. The position in regard to overseas criticism is that we are criticized for oppressing the Bantu and that we are cruel, but in spite of that thousands of them still flock to our country, which of course shows that that propaganda is false. It is also stated by the hon. member for South Coast that we should have physical control. That is true and I should like to mention the fact here that success has already been achieved in obtaining a measure of physical control. A wire fence has been erected by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services all round our borders to combat foot-and-mouth disease. I do not wish to suggest that all who enter the country have foot-and-mouth disease, but the fact of the matter is that it does help that a fence has been erected on all the borders. A fence is also being erected in the area referred to by the hon. member for South Coast, namely between Northern Zululand and South Moçambique. It helps to control stock diseases, and in addition it also indicates where the boundary is, and when we establish our police posts there will already be a large degree of physical control. But we should not rely upon physical control alone. We should also have what I call documentary control, for which provision is being made in this Bill.

The hon. member for South Coast has said that we should also have machinery to track down aliens in South Africa. Well, we shall have it by means of that Act which has been so consistently opposed by the Opposition throughout the years, namely the Population Registration Act. By means of that Act which applies to Whites as well as to Bantu it will now be possible to track down any alien in South Africa, for if he is not registered under the Population Registration Act, we shall know he is an alien. Thus aliens will in future be capable of being tracked down under the machinery of this Act.

I should also like to mention the point raised here by the hon. member for South Coast, namely that the alien Bantu who came to South Africa, rendered a service here. Mr. Speaker, during that inquiry I frequently heard of the so-called natural aptitude those alien Bantu are supposed to have to do certain work. Let me tell you what the true position is. There is no substance in that story of the so-called “natural aptitude”. The position is simply this: This alien Bantu enters this country and because he knows that he is subject to ejectment from the country, he looks after his work to a greater extent than our own Bantu. That foreign Bantu then is a very good and useful employee who looks after his work because he knows that he may be deported from the country unless he renders good service. It is because those alien Bantu look well after their work and do it thoroughly, that it is said on the part of their employers also that they are good employees and that they have a so-called natural aptitude for this particular type of work and that they are persons without whom we cannot manage in this country. In actual fact that is not the true position. That alien Bantu only looks after his work in order to be able to stay here. Mr. Speaker, there are more than 50,000 of our own Bantu who are not working. I do not say that they are unemployed, but they are not economically employed. The Bantu male in the reserves, as hon. members know, does not work at all; he is not economically employed, but he is not an unemployed; his woman works for him in the fields while he sits at his hut. We could very usefully employ the labour of these 50,000 Bantu in our own country, who are not economically working, if we could get rid of the alien Bantu in our country.

A few more words only in conclusion on the argument that we must ease the tension. I should like to say at once that the tension prevailing at the present time between us and our neighbour states has not been caused by us. We have always acted most magnanimously towards our neighbour states. But just take Basutoland. Any tension there may be has not been caused by us but by Basutoland. We have never yet had one single police post on the borders of Basutoland, and control has never yet been exercised by us on people who have come to South Africa from Basutoland, but if we cross the border into Basutoland there is in fact a police post on the borders established there by the Basutoland Government. So we are not the ones causing the tension; the tension comes from the other side; we are not the ones looking for trouble with them; I think they are the ones who to a certain extent are looking for trouble with us. I think the rule ought to be that we should first of all take care of our own people, and when I refer to our own people I include the Bantu within the Republic. We first have to provide our own people with employment, and look after their welfare before we look after the welfare of the aliens in our midst.

I am afraid that I do have objections to this Bill and I intend to oppose the second reading. I do not think it is as simple matter as either the Minister or the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has tried to make out. I have several objections to this Bill. The first is that this falls into the category of retrospective legislation and therefore I think in principle it should be opposed; secondly I think it is a very untimely measure. It is introducing at this stage the whole question of the Protectorate African and the status, when as the hon. the Minister told hon. members in the Other Place the whole matter is still under negotiation with the British Government. Indeed he refused to give any details of the negotiations which were at present taking place and which, I presume, have not yet been concluded because he has not told us anything about them. If, of course, he can assure us in his reply to the debate that these negotiations have been successfully concluded, to the satisfaction of both countries, that might alter my attitude. But a short while ago, speaking in the Other Place, he told hon. members there that he could give no details, and he also told them that to be specific (I quote his words)—

An hon. Senator then asked him: “When this Bill becomes an Act?” the hon. the Deputy Minister then went on to say—

Sir, I want to know what has happened in the interim and whether the Minister can give us any further information about these negotiations, because I think for us to pass this Bill without knowing the details of those negotiations would indeed be rather reckless and so I intend to oppose it. Particularly do I intend to oppose it because only on the 11th of this month the Information Department issued a statement in connection with measures for control between South Africa and the High Commission Territories, and in conflict with what the hon. the Minister said in the Other Place on the question of the Protectorate Africans, the South African Digest said the following—

Sir, these are two conflicting statements. I want the hon. the Minister to tell us whether it is in fact the intention to allow the Basuto, Bechuana and Swazi Africans who have been domiciled in this country for many hears to apply for permanent residence in South Africa as other British subjects were allowed to do. Apart from this question, which is my main reason for opposing this legislation—i.e. the untimely nature of it, together with the fact that it falls into the category of retrospective legislation—I also think that the position of other foreign Africans has not yet been properly established despite what the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) has just said. First of all, there are many foreign Africans from Rhodesia, Tanganyika and other territories in Africa who also have been working in the Republic of South Africa for many years. A great number of those people were not, of course, at that time required to be in possession of travel documents, but they came into this country and they have been given permission to work here; they are not here illegally. I am not talking now about illegal immigrants. Every country obviously is entitled to deport illegal immigrants, so I am not discussing that category of persons at all. But these are people who have been in the Republic legally for many years. Many of them have worked here for 15, 20 or 25 years. They have married African women from South Africa. They are now in a position where they are probably going to be deported since for some time now—for at least two or three years to my knowledge—they have had to have these six-month permits.

Have you read the second clause?

Yes, I have read the second clause. How does this Bill affect the position of people who have been here legally, because again in the debate in the Other Place the hon. the Minister said that as far as he was concerned such people could apply for permanent residence. They have to apply first through the Department of Bantu Administration. I want to know exactly what provision has been made for foreign Africans outside of the Protectorates who have been here for many years, who have been working here under six-month permits which have been constantly renewed, to be able to apply for permission to stay in South Africa. As far as I know no such provision has been made through the Bantu Administration Department; they cannot apply for permission to stay here permanently and I believe that this is also an unfair clause.

Finally I want to say something about this rather absurd reason (if I may use the term) given by the hon. the Deputy Minister for increasing the maximum sentence from three months to six months. I can understand the reason given by the hon. member for Heilbron and that is that it takes some time to establish the identity of the country from which the illegal immigrant comes. That I can understand. I realize that negotiations between South Africa and countries such as Rhodesia or Tanganyika or Portuguese East Africa to establish the country of origin of the so-called illegal immigrant—a person who now becomes an illegal immigrant because he has not got the necessary travel documents and permit to be in the Republic—would take a long time. However, I do not see how it is going to help the hon. member for Heilbron when every state in fact denies responsibility for such a man, which might well happen; he is still landed then with a man with no identification. But I will grant him that these negotiations do take time and that it is necessary possibly to keep such a person in custody while the negotiations are being conducted. But, Sir, for the hon. the Deputy Minister to come along and to make the same absurd statement in this House that he made in the Other Place, that the maximum sentence is being increased out of the goodness of the heart of the Government in order to prevent neurosis developing amongst people, is rather far-fetched; it is straining one’s credulity a little too far. Perhaps I would not have been quite so adamant in my opposition to this particular clause if the hon. the Deputy Minister had at least advanced what I call a practical reason for this increase in sentence such as that advanced by the hon. member for Heilbron. The Minister surely does not expect us to believe that the reason for extending the sentence from three months to six months is to make sure that such persons can be kept occupied during their custody. Why one cannot keep a person occupied for three months as well as six months I do not quite know, but the Deputy Minister then went on to say—

Sir, a lot of people in South Africa are becoming nervous wrecks, not because they are not kept in custody for six months but for other reasons, mostly engendered by the present Government. The Deputy Minister then went on to say—

Well, a great many people in this House sit around with nothing to do and they sit around for as long as six months, and I see that many of them too are probably on the verge of becoming nervous wrecks. But I simply mention this to show the absurdity of the reason advanced by the Deputy Minister. It is my intention therefore to oppose the second reading of this Bill for the reasons I have mentioned, namely its retrospective nature, which I object to in principle, and secondly because I think this is a most untimely measure which should not be introduced while negotiations are still being conducted with regard to the High Commission Territory Africans, and thirdly because I believe that the position of foreign Africans who have been legally in South Africa for many years, who have spent most of their working lives in service in South Africa and who are being rewarded therefor, which I believe is the natural side of the bargain—the labour given and the reward therefor—has not been properly established, and until this position is clarified I believe that it is wrong for us to rush this piece of legislation through the House and I shall oppose it.

Both the last two speakers, the hon. members for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) and Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), seem to have read this Bill only in so far as it applies to Bantu people. Sir, as I read this Bill there is another very important group of people dealt with in this Bill and I will come to them a little later: they happen to be about 260,000 citizens of the Commonwealth who became aliens in this country when the Commonwealth Relations Act came into force in May last year. I think this Bill makes a provision for them which is also worth some consideration. The hon. member for Heilbron has, I think, rather confused this issue. He does not seem to realize that there are two types of persons dealt with in this Bill; one is a prohibited person and the other is an alien who is in the country without a permit. I would like to know from the Deputy Minister whether the hon. member for Heilbron is correct in assuming that all Bantu will in fact be prohibited persons; I am not so sure of that. You see, Sir, when the Commonwealth Relations Act came into force in May, the only persons whom it really affected, as I see it, were those Bantu who resided in the Protectorates bordering South Africa. They became aliens in the same way that European or White members of the Commonwealth became aliens in South Africa at that time.

They are protected persons, not British subjects.

Well, the point is that they were members of the Commonwealth, just as the hon. member was. I want to know from the Deputy Minister when he replies whether automatically every Bantu from the Protectorates and the other African territories who are Commonwealth members, became prohibited persons, because I do not know of any provision in this Bill which automatically makes such a person a prohibited person.

They are not British subjects. They are British-protected persons.

What I want to know is this: Does Clause 2 also apply to Bantu from the Protectorates and other Commonwealth African territories who are found in the Union without the necessary permits; have they the right—and I believe they have under this Bill—to apply immediately for a temporary permit when called upon to do so by an officer? I believe that they have the same right as any other alien who is not a prohibited person who is found within the Union. I should like the Deputy Minister to clear up these two questions in his reply because I think they are very important.

I want to come back now to Clause 2 in regard to which I think the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) is going to encounter some difficulty if she votes against it, because you will remember, Sir, that just before the recess the hon. the Minister of the Interior, in reply to a question that I put to him, told me that some 42,000 who became aliens whilst resident in the Union have availed themselves of the opportunity of notifying their intention of residing permanently in the Republic or to apply for a permit of any kind. Sir, it is estimated that at that time there were possibly 300,000 of those people resident within the Republic, which means that there are some 260,000 Commonwealth citizens and citizens of Northern Ireland who are resident in the Republic to-day and who are affected by Clause 2 of this Bill because they have not notified their intention of residing permanently or even temporarily in the Republic. What happens under Clause 2? They are subject to the same treatment as any alien who is not supposed to be in the Republic. They are aliens and they are subject to arrest and deportation. But Clause 2 of this Bill obviously gives them some relaxation because it says that when an officer catches up with them he can supply, in fact must supply them with a form, and they can then apply for temporary residence and remain within the Republic. I think the hon. member for Houghton is going to encounter some little difficulty if she decides to vote against this Bill and put every one of those 260,000 people here in the Republic in a position where they are liable to arrest and deportation. That is another point that I would like the Deputy Minister to clear up in his reply. I think these are very important matters affecting a lot of people. I should like the Deputy Minister therefore to deal very fully in his reply with these two aspects which I have raised.

In spite of the fact that the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), who has been the chief spokesman for the Opposition, has said that they deplore this legislation, I am pleased that they will nevertheless support it because they regard it as essential. I should like first of all to reply to his request regarding physical machinery for the application of this legislation. We are realistic enough to realize that we cannot erect a Berlin wall to exercise this control. We are not going to erect a Berlin wall; that is physically impossible. There will be police posts, to which the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) has also referred, and officials of the Department of Bantu Administration certainly will also be of assistance in the application of these measures of control, but the main thing here is to give authority to the officials concerned, whether they are police officers at the police posts or Bantu Administration officials, to be able to take action against illegal entrants. That is really the main object of this. We consider that in this way we shall be able to combat this illegal influx. If after a year or two it appears that this measure is ineffective to stop this illegal influx, as the hon. member thinks, then he may be sure that the Government will not hesitate to come forward with other measures in order to close these gaps. I am sorry the hon. member has referred to the tension that will allegedly be caused by this measure. Mr. Speaker, if one were to speak about tension prevailing among the Bantu in the Africa territories or among the Bantu in general, then I think one should also have regard to the tension that could possibly arise among our own Bantu as a result of unemployment that results because one permits undetermined numbers of Bantu from African territories to enter the country. That is something we should really take cognizance of. If one is serious about the possibility of tension then one should think firstly of ways of relieving the tension among one’s own South African Natives, and I think this measure can help to relieve that tension.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) says she is opposed to the principle of the Bill. She regards this measure as premature, particularly in the light of negotiations that are taking place with the British authorities in regard to the Natives of the Protectorates. Those negotiations have not been concluded as yet, and the reply I gave in the Other Place applies here also. Because the negotiations have not been finalized, it is obviously not fitting that I should dilate upon it now. The administrative measure that will be applied in regard to the Protectorate Natives, will be announced in due course, but I should like to remove another impression that may possibly exist, and that is that Clause 1 is not in the first instance aimed at the Protectorate Bantu. It is aimed, as I said in my second-reading speech, at Bantu from African territories, for the statistics show that of the number of alien Bantu in South Africa, namely 836,000, half come from other than the High Commission areas; in other words, approximately half come from the Protectorates and the other half come from the rest of Africa. I have here a long list of the areas from which they have come, but I do not propose to take up the time of the House with that. The hon. member feels concerned because I referred to the neurotic effect this detention may have on the illegal entrant. That is not the main reason why they will have to be kept in custody for six months instead of three months.

There are two aspects I should like to put clearly. I have already stated this briefly in my second-reading speech, but perhaps it is necessary to state it more fully. The first aspect is this, that as the legislation reads at the moment, illegal entrants may be detained, but they cannot be arrested and if need be sentenced; in terms of the present legislation, you may merely detain them. We have found in practice that if they cannot do any work while they are under detention, it has a neurotic effect upon them. If they are sentenced, they could then be placed out during that period of six months to do useful convict work. It has been found to be much better for them than merely to detain them without their having to do any work. The main reason why the period is being extended to six months is to determine their identification, by contacting their territorial authority and to make arrangements for their transfer to the territorial authority concerned. That requires negotiations and administrative arrangements that sometimes take more than three months. But, as I have also said, if that identification and the finalization of the arrangements for transfer occur within six months, the sentence of six months is not served fully. As soon as those arrangements have been made, that Bantu is returned to his territory; he is not kept in custody here to first work in the Republic for six months. On the contrary, as soon as the arrangements are finalized he is sent back.

Now I come to the hon. member for Umhlazi (Mr. Lewis). The hon. member has referred to those persons from the Commonwealth countries who have not applied for permanent residence and in that regard he has mentioned the figure of 260,000. That of course is an estimate on which there may be great difference of opinion. Our own machinery does not enable us to say exactly how many there are in the country. But what is of importance in this matter is that after the Commonwealth Act was passed, all persons from the Commonwealth were given seven months’ grace in which to indicate their intention to remain permanently in South Africa. They were given seven months. They merely had to complete a form to indicate that they wished to remain here permanently. 42,600 people from those Commonwealth countries availed themselves of this. That period expired on 31 December 1962. Then further applications from about 1,600 latecomers came in and they were administratively granted indulgence by our Department. I really would like to appeal to the sense of fairness of the hon. member. If those people from the Commonwealth countries were given seven months’ time by us to indicate their intention to settle here, does the hon. member not think that that is as reasonable as any State could be with regard to the application of its measures of control?

I did not complain.

I appreciate your saying that you did not complain; but you have asked for this information. There is no certainty as to the number of these people; I am not going to mention the figure of 260,000, for that is an imaginary figure. But those who are here will now have to apply for a temporary permit under Clause 2. I think that this is a great indulgence, for as I have said, the present position is that according to the Commonwealth Act we have to deport people who are here without a temporary permit. Talking about tension, as the hon. member for South Coast has done, this will cause tension, something we also do not wish to do. We do not propose to deport people of Commonwealth countries who are here without a permit. On the other hand, however, we have to see to it, for the sake of proper control of the movement of aliens—for they are aliens—that they possess the requisite documents. That is why the obligation is now imposed upon them to apply for those temporary permits. That temporary permit can be obtained without much trouble. That is why I regard this clause as a very reasonable and a very indulgent measure, and therefore I move.

Motion put and a division called.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Mrs. Suzman) voted against the motion, Mr. Speaker declared it agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, apart from the short title this Bill consists of only two clauses which I shall deal with separately.

Clause 1 contains proposals for the extension of the power to remove restrictive conditions registered against title deeds of land while in Clause 2 it is proposed that acts by the provinces in contravention of the provisions of the Removal of Restrictions in Townships Act, 1946, be condoned.

In respect of Clause 1 I should like to explain that sub-section (1) of Section 1 of the above-mentioned Act provides that the Administrator of a province, with the approval of the State President, may amend, suspend or remove a restrictive condition registered against the title deeds of land or imposed in respect of land in terms of a law on the establishment of townships. In terms of subsection (2) of Section 1 the Administrator may not, however, amend, suspend or remove a condition of title which prohibits or limits the sale, lease or occupation of land to or by a non-White person. Before 1952 already cases frequently occurred where the title to land which the State wishes to acquire for public purposes contained a condition which prohibited or limited the lease of land to or the occupation thereof by a non-White. As such a condition may not be amended, suspended or removed by the Administrator of a province, the State is compelled to abandon the intention of acquiring the property, and then to commit itself to a less favourable proposition. The Department of Public Works has already been compelled in a particular case to apply for an Order of Court for the partial suspension of such a condition in order to erect a police station with the necessary facilities for the detention of prisoners, among whom there are non-Whites also—a service that is regarded as imperatively essential for the community concerned.

Sub-paragraph 3 (b) of Section 1 of the Act under discussion again provides that the Administrator may not issue any proclamation for the removal of conditions of title unless inter alia the land concerned is required by the State for the use of a building or for the erection of a building. Thus the section does not permit the removal of restrictive conditions on unimproved land so that the unimproved land may be used for State purposes as, e.g., the lay-out of facilities for recreational purposes at schools. The Department of Education, Arts and Science has on occasion acquired unimproved land subject to restrictive conditions for recreational purposes at a school, and the Court awarded damages to a complainant. This provision, as well as the provision dealing with non-White occupation, obstructs the activities of the State, as the House will appreciate, and some projects are paralysed. Sometimes less suitable land has to be acquired for public purposes while the State has available sufficient suitable land which however is subject to restrictive conditions that cannot be removed.

During the 1956 session a Bill was introduced that provided for the automatic removal of all restrictive conditions on land while being used by the State. After the publication of that Bill, all kinds of representations were made for further amendment of that Bill. The then Minister of the Interior thereupon withdrew that Bill with a view to having the whole matter inquired into and in order to determine to what extent the objections of the objectors to the Bill could be met. Since the withdrawal of the 1956 Bill my Department has been inundated with proposed amendments to this Removal of Restriction in Townships Act, but at this stage the interested parties have not yet achieved agreement on the proposals and apparently unanimity will not be achieved in the near future.

The proposals contained in Clause 1 do not evoke any opposition from the Government Departments concerned and other quarters, but are being delayed from year to year by the other proposed amendments some of which are of a very far-reaching nature, such as, e.g., that the whole question of the removal of restriction on land in townships as well as agricultural holdings, should be entrusted to the provincial councils to regulate the matter by way of provincial legislation. That is one of the matters on which unanimity has not been achieved as yet. The fact that only certain proposals are contained in this Bill, is not an indication that all the other proposals for the amendment of the Act under discussion that have been received, have been rejected.

The main object of this Bill is merely, as I have indicated, to meet urgent problems which are causing the State, the provinces, local authorities and the public unnecessary inconvenience and are causing unnecessary expense. The other proposals are still being examined and if it is decided to adopt them, further legislation will follow as soon as possible.

Now I come to Clause 2. The Cape Province has until recently construed the Removal of Restrictions in Townships Act as applying only to townships established before their own Townships Ordinance was passed, and not to townships established under this Ordinance. In this Ordinance there has also been inserted a section that gives the Administrator of the Cape Province power to modify conditions of title after certain formalities have been complied with, but during September 1962 the Appellate Division held that this section was ultra vires the provisions of the 1946 Act. As regards the Cape, an extremely confusing and impossible position has been created. Numerous owners of land are in difficulties on account of approvals that have been issued, and upon which they have already acted to a greater or lesser extent by entering into contracts and erecting buildings. The best solution to this problem appears to be as is proposed in this clause, to condone the acts of the Cape prior to 1 October 1962 and that the province shall in future adopt the construction of the 1946 Act given by the Appellate Division. Although the other three provinces are not in the same stew as the Cape, the Transvaal requests that the proposed condonation should also be made applicable to the Transvaal in case some time in the past there has been an act in contravention of the 1946 Act as now interpreted by the Appellate Division. In order to put this whole matter beyond any doubt, it is proposed that condonation be granted in respect of all the provinces in respect of acts of contravention in this regard perpetrated before 1 October 1962.

I may say at once that we on this side of the House are supporting this Bill. The hon. the Deputy Minister seems to be singularly fortunate this afternoon, if I may say so. For our purposes this Bill deals with the question of restrictions imposed by the Administrator of a province in terms of some Town Planning Ordinance. I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that we on this side of the House will always scrutinize with the greatest care any suggestion that power should be given to the Administrator to uplift restrictions imposed in respect of the establishment of townships or planning schemes. When there is an application for the amelioration of such restrictive conditions in respect of a certain property, we will always regard it with the greatest suspicion. You know the difficulties which municipalities have in getting proper Town Planning Schemes approved; we know the meticulous care that is exercised in the four provinces to see that the planning which is being done will be the best with the eye to the future. To have changes made in so far as restrictive conditions are concerned at a later stage can work a very great hardship on some people and we shall always look at any such proposal with the greatest suspicion. For all practical purposes we are providing here for the lifting of restrictive conditions where there are three types of authority, that is the ecclesiastical authority, State authority and the urban local authority and where the land is to be used for ecclesiastical or State purposes or municipal purposes for the erection of buildings by such authorities. It seems to us that it is not unfair or unreasonable to suggest that no harm is coming to people who have similar restrictions in their title deeds and who have purchased their property in good faith, erected buildings on such land in areas which have been planned and where it has been found necessary to erect municipal buildings or Government buildings or ecclesiastical buildings. We think that no real disability is suffered by anybody in the neighbourhood who may be brought within a Town Planning Scheme or under a private township where restrictive conditions have been applied and where, in terms of this Bill, they may be lifted. Because we think it is not unfair, we are prepared to support this Bill.

In regard to Clause 2, I wondered which of the provinces it was which had fallen foul of a Supreme Court judgment. I was not aware of the judgment in the case of the Cape Province. This clause makes the Bill, when it becomes law, retrospective to care for that particular case. That is the kind of thing that can happen to any of the provinces. There have been other cases where it was ruled that action by a Provincial Administration had been ultra vires. Here too, although we will look with great care at legislation which is made retrospective, we think there is little serious objection and that it is desirable to put the matter on a proper footing. We are accordingly prepared to support the Bill from this side of the House.

One is struck by the spirit of agreement prevailing in the House to-day. We can only hope that this spirit will continue to the end of this Session. It seems as if the recess has had a good effect upon the minds of hon. members.

Briefly I should like to say that I find no fault with the announcement of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) that they are going to keep a very watchful and critical eye upon the application of this measure; in fact, it is the duty of all of them on that side of the House and of those on this side to see to it that that is done. In the light of this agreement, therefore, I propose that this measure be now read a second time.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

It is a pleasure to me to move the second reading of the Retreats and Rehabilitation Centres Bill. This Bill replaces the existing Work Colonies Act, No. 25 of 1949. An Interdepartmental Committee under the chairmanship of a senior official of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions has made a thorough investigation in regard to the treatment of alcoholics and in its report, inter alia, proposed a Bill to give effect to certain of its recommendations. The Bill now being introduced is based on the Bill proposed by this committee. In regard to principle and policy, it does not deviate to any appreciable extent from the proposals of the committee. This Bill in the main envisages:

1. (a) Co-ordination on a national level of Government policy in respect of the treatment of alcoholics.
2. (b) The provision of State facilities in the community and in institutions for the treatment of alcoholics.
3. (c) The certification, approval and subsidization of private welfare organizations for the care and treatment of alcoholics in the community as well as in institutions.
4. (d) The provision of rehabilitation centres for the treatment of maladjusted persons who are not alcoholics.

Hon. members will remember that the existing legislation provided for alcoholics as well as other maladjusted persons, work-shy people, hoboes, beggars and people who are guilty of other offences. I have now given a summary from (a) to (d) of the special provisions covered by this Bill.

It is only recently that the public in general has become more conscious of alcoholism as a problem which can be dealt with. Attention has, however, been devoted to this matter for many years already. We in South Africa passed the first legal provisions in 1911. For the last 20 years interest in the problem has been increasing and legal provisions have been made for admitting alcoholics to work colonies. In 1949 the present Work Colonies Act was put on the Statute Book, providing for a variety of maladjusted persons and alcoholics, including criminals who could derive benefit from it. Since I took over this Department I have visited these work colonies regularly almost every year. I found that all kinds of persons were congregated in the same institutions. I even found persons there on whom the indeterminate sentence had been imposed and who had later been released and had been sent back to the work colonies.

During the past decade various bodies, official as well as private, have shown an increasing interest in the problem of alcoholism. During 1951 a national conference in regard to alcoholism was held, which was attended by Miss Marty Mann, the managing director of the National Council for Alcoholism in the U.S.A. A direct result of this conference was the establishment during 1956 of the South African National Council for Alcoholism. Furthermore, information offices and clinics for the treatment of alcoholics in the community gradually came to be established. Alcoholics Anonymous (generally known as the A.A.), made great progress and created great hopes for the rehabilitation of alcoholics. In the light of these developments it has become desirable for the State to review its policy. I therefore in 1959 approved the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry with terms of reference which were briefly the following— To investigate and report on:

1. (a) the methods of treatment applied in connection with the rehabilitation of alcoholics, taking into consideration the role played by the relevant official and private organizations;
2. (b) the efficiency and adequacy of these services;
3. (c) the form which national planning of a co-ordinated service ought to take and the scope thereof;
4. (d) the statutory provision which is considered necessary to implement a coordinated service, with special reference to the Work Colonies Act, No. 25 of 1949.

A comprehensive report was completed during the last recess and has recently been tabled for the information of hon. members. The committee consisted of the following members:

Hon. members will notice that in the terms of reference the expression “dranksugtige” (inebriate) is used. In the report of the committee and also in the Bill now being submitted the terms “alcoholism” and “alcoholic” are used. This is the more modern term and fits in better with the objects of this Bill. It will be noted that the committee’s terms of reference were limited to the treatment of the alcoholic. The problem of the control of the use of alcoholic liquor was therefore excluded. In the same way this Bill is also limited to the treatment of the alcoholic.

In reply to the question as to what the nature and scope of alcoholism in the Republic was, the findings of the committee were that there was a lack of scientific data which made it dangerous to quote figures and percentages or to try to make comparisons with the extent of alcoholism existing in other countries. It appears clearly, however, from information gained from various sources, the experience of the State, the churches, welfare organizations, employers and others who deal with this problem and who submitted evidence to the committee, that alcoholism has assumed such proportions and has such disastrous consequences that it should be regarded as a serious national problem. According to this committee, alcoholism further has ethical, social and medical aspects. It concerns the individual and his relationship to his social environment. Any programme of treatment must take into account the multiple aspects of the etiology of alcoholism.

The investigation of the methods of treatment indicated that where the problem is approached from a multiplicity of angles there can be reasonable prospects of success and that the rehabilitation of the alcoholics can be of great value to the individual, to the family and to society. In the light of this the committee is of the opinion that a national plan of action is necessary and that the coordination of such a plan, which requires the co-operation of the State, Provincial Administrations and private initiative, should be entrusted to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. My Department and I are prepared to accept this responsibility. Hence this legislation.

This national plan should include the following most important elements—

1. (a) The expansion of hospital and other facilities for the treatment of alcoholics in the community.
2. (b) The establishment of one centralized complex of State retreats for Whites and one for Coloureds where alcoholics may be compelled to undergo treatment.
3. (c) The expansion of private institutions for the treatment of alcoholics, separated from the community.
4. (d) The expansion of social, supervisory and aftercare services by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions in co-operation with private welfare organizations.

This is an important aspect of this legislation, the after-care services. We have so often had the experience that people, for example, went to a work colony for a period, or to a retreat, and then they returned to society, and particularly if under the old set-up they had gone to a work colony they came back with the stigma of a “prison” attached to them. Such a person cannot find his feet in society again. He again finds himself amongst his old acquaintances, and in many cases it does not take long before he goes back to the work colony again. Therefore we want to provide for after-care services and supervision by the Department, in co-operation with private welfare organizations which have already started this work—

1. (e) The continuation of an educational programme more fully to enlighten society, and particularly employers, in regard to the nature, consequences and treatment of alcoholism.
2. (f) The establishment of a National Alcoholism Advisory Board to advise the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions in connection with the co-ordinating of policy and planning.
3. (g) The review of the existing statutory provision. The Committee submitted a Bill, as a schedule to its report, the title of which is the Retreats and Rehabilitation Centres Bill.

The recommendations of the Committee were generally approved of by the Government, as well as by the South African Council for Alcoholism and the Rand Aid Association two bodies which make a particular contribution towards the treatment of alcoholics in the Republic.

I submitted this report to the present National Work Colonies Advisory Board which was appointed in terms of the existing Work Colonies Act to advise me on matters affecting the work colonies. Prof. B. Nel, the chairman, said the following, inter alia, in his comments—

The Committee’s Bill was submitted for comment to the relevant State Departments, the Provincial Administrations and welfare organizations concerned with the matter, and in the light of the comment received, and in consultation with the law advisers, certain amendments and improvements were incorporated in the Bill which did not appear in the original draft Bill. Most of these improvements are of a technical nature and are concerned with more effective wording, the more effective sub-division of clauses and the addition of consequential provisions and amendments of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In this regard I want to point to only three improvements to the Committee’s draft Bill. The Committee, for example, used the term “detainees” (aangehoudenes). It is considered more suitable to use the term “inmates” (inwoners) in institutions intended for the social rehabilitation of people who are not criminals. It is essential to make provision in the Bill for the temporary detention of persons dealt with in terms of the provisions of this Bill. Sometimes their temporary detention in a police cell or lock-up is unavoidable. It is undesirable to permit such detention for an unspecified period and it has therefore been decided, in consultation with the Department of Police, to impose a limit of 28 days for such detentions. The Committee further suggested that a person who voluntarily submits himself for treatment in a retreat should be detained there for 12 months. I have given serious attention to this provision and have decided to reduce the maximum period to six months, with the further provision that the management of the retreat may liberate the voluntary inmate at any time before the expiry of the six months. The reason for this deviation from the suggestions of the Committee is that the volunteer will be loth to sacrifice his freedom voluntarily for a period as long as a year. His employer will also be more reluctant to grant leave to an employee for such a long period. The family of the volunteer will also be able to manage more easily during the absence of the breadwinner for a comparatively short period.

Please allow me to discuss certain of the more important provisions of the Bill and to compare them with the provisions of the existing Work Colonies Act. In this regard I want to point out, firstly, that the words “work colony” now do not appear at all in the title or the content of this Bill. The existing Act provides for work colonies for the treatment of maladjusted persons, which includes alcoholics and certain categories of criminals. “Work colony” is not descriptive of what is intended under this new dispensation. Instead provision is being made for State retreats for alcoholics and persons addicted to drugs. The name “rehabilitation centre” is considered to be more suitable for a State institution intended for the rehabilitation of maladjusted persons who are not alcoholics par excellence. Furthermore the law is being changed so that no criminal who has been sentenced for an offence can now be sent to a rehabilitation centre or State retreat. (Clause 3).

This is one of the most important principles of the Bill. It provides that no court will convict anybody of a crime and then send him as a criminal to a rehabilitation centre or retreat. The canalization will take place in the court itself. I will set out further how it is intended to do so, but we now draw this distinction: The institution will not have the stigma of a prison; the persons there will be inmates; the treatment there will be concentrated on rehabilitating the person concerned to the greatest possible extent, both in the rehabilitation centre and in the retreat. At present the Department has two work colonies, in terms of the provisions of the existing Act. The one is at Swartfontein and the other at Sonderwater. I should appreciate it very much if during the recess hon. members would visit one of these institutions—Sonderwater is not far from Pretoria—to see what treatment is now being applied there, and to what extent many of the things we now seek to apply here are already being applied there. Unfortunately it was not possible during this brief recess to make such arrangements, but I hope that hon. members who are interested will visit these places after the present Session of Parliament. I think it will be very informative.

The intention is to convert one of them into a retreat and the other into a rehabilitation centre for the separate treatment of the two groups of persons to whom I have referred. It was found by the Committee that the problem of the alcoholic has a multiplicity of aspects and that the treatment should therefore be based on a complex approach. In view of this approach the objects of retreats and rehabilitation centres is described in the Bill as the physical, spiritual and moral rehabilitation of the inmates, to train them in habits of social adaptation and to be good citizens. (Clause 4).

It is not only the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions which will tackle the rehabilitation of the alcoholic. Other Departments, the Provinces and private organizations are also concerned with it. Therefore it is essential to establish central co-ordinating machinery to review national planning as a whole and to advise me. The present Work Colonies Act makes provision for a National Work Colonies Board to advise me in regard to the management of work colonies. This Board with its limited function will now disappear and in its place will be established a National Alcoholism Advisory Board. This Board will be constituted as follows:

That gives a maximum of 15 members. (Clause 6).

The existing Act provides for the classification of the inmates of these institutions. They are encouraged to assist in their own rehabilitation, and their progress from one class to another with the attendant advantages, as and when their adaptation and behaviour justify it, constitutes an important incentive to improvement. This Bill makes similar provision for this basic aspect of the process of rehabilitation. (Clause 8).

The Bill provides for the establishment of retreats for the accommodation and after-care of alcoholics. Although similar provision appears in the present Work Colonies Act, no such State retreats exist at present. It is regarded as of the greatest importance that there should be hostels particularly for the inmate of a retreat who has been allowed to leave and has no decent place to go to. It may easily happen that an unmarried man will again seek the company of his old drinking companions unless proper accommodation is provided for him. (Clause 10).

Provision is made for the certification and approval as well as the subsidization of retreats and hostels run by private organizations, as well as for the subsidization of organizations concerned with the treatment of alcoholics. Such institutions already exist in Johannesburg and Pretoria under the control respectively of the Rand Aid Association and the Diens van Barmhartigheid of the N.G. Kerk of the Transvaal. They do particularly good work and the need for after-care hostels in the other big centres is also felt. (Clauses 11 and 12).

Clause 12 of the Bill provides what type of people may be sent to retreats and rehabilitation centres. Here we have an important amendment of the existing Act. As the result of the present definition, difficulty is being experienced in regard to the placing of married women and other alcoholics who are not responsible for their own maintenance or who have sufficient means to maintain themselves. This defect is now being remedied. One finds the cases of married women. Under the existing Act they could not go there. They are not responsible for their own maintenance. They also say: “I am not responsible for the maintenance of my children; my husband is responsible for that.” There are people who say: “My children do not lack for anything and I have sufficient means; although perhaps I disturb the peace of the home and have a bad influence in my home, I maintain my children properly.”

The Committee further expressed the opinion that where in the sentencing of a convicted person the emphasis falls on the penal element, the rehabilitation of such a person should not be the functional responsibility of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. Apart from that, from the social point of view it is not regarded as desirable that criminal types should be housed together with non-criminal types in the same institution. That is not to the benefit of the rehabilitation of the non-criminal type. The system of corrective training under the control of the Prisons Department has in any case developed since then to such an extent that provision is now made there for the rehabilitation and training of the criminal types. Section 16 of the existing Act which provides for the placement in work colonies and retreats of persons who have been convicted of a crime is therefore not incorporated in this Bill. The stigma of crime attaches to such a person. On the other hand, the Committee expressed the opinion that there should in fact be provision for dealing with a certain class of criminal, e.g. the person who committed an offence while under the influence of liquor, not as a penal measure, however, but with a view to social treatment.

In this regard I should like to refer to Clause 42 which provides for the substitution for Section 341 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1955 by a new provision. It is expected that these new provisions will draw a clear distinction between the alcoholic on the one hand and the maladjusted types on the other, between the criminal on the one hand and the noncriminal on the other, and that it will help considerably towards rehabilitating maladjusted persons.

To summarize, the Bill provides for the accommodation in retreats and rehabilitation centres of the following categories of persons. The retreats will provide for alcoholics and drug addicts, and the rehabilitation centres will provide for the non-maintenance cases, for beggars and for persons who do not earn a honest living, or persons who lead idle or dissolute lives. That is a summary of Clause 14.

Clause 16 contains one of the most important principles of the Bill. It provides for methods of treatment which will not result in depriving a person of his liberty or in breaking up the family. A great defect in the existing law is that it does not provide for the treatment of maladjusted persons in the community. This clause provides that a magistrate may suspend for a maximum period of three years any order committing a person to an institution. The magistrate now holds the inquiry. and he finds that the person falls in one of these categories, but instead of summarily committing him to an institution he is now empowered to suspend the commitment for a maximum period of three years, and he may impose a suspended sentence subject to the conditions mentioned in the Bill, or conditions which the magistrate himself may impose. Some of the conditions which may be imposed are that the person will co-operate with some or other organization dealing with the rehabilitation of alcoholics, or that he must submit himself to treatment in a clinic for a certain period. The merit of this proposed provision is that the family will not immediately be broken up. Such a person can go back to his family. In many cases such alcoholics who are receiving treatment will retain their employment and will be able to maintain their families. and that will relieve the State of the obligation to do so. The family itself, the wife and the children, may assist in the treatment. This provision may equally well be applied to other classes of persons, such as those who are guilty of not maintaining their families. Strong representations were made by certain welfare organizations for the introduction of legal provisions to exercise statutory supervision over this type of person and his family.

You will allow me to revert for a moment to Clause 14 and once again to set out the whole procedure. This clause provides the procedure by which persons to be committed to a retreat or rehabilitation centre may be brought before the magistrate. A very important and forward step provided for in this new clause is that the public prosecutor cannot issue a summons or apply for a warrant of arrest for such a person before first obtaining a report from a welfare officer, except in cases where urgent action is demanded. In the past the public prosecutor charged the person. He appeared before the magistrate. The magistrate might ask for a report by a welfare officer. The whole country is divided into welfare divisions with regional offices and these regions are again divided into districts. Under the old Act the magistrate could ask for a report, and many of them did so, but now he has to ask for it. The proposed new provision now makes a preparatory examination compulsory. The benefits of this preparatory examination are the following. Cases of alcoholism can now be brought to light earlier. Preventive services can be arranged in cases where matters have not yet got beyond control and the person concerned or his family are prepared to cooperate. That will assist the prosecutor in deciding whether an investigation in terms of the law is justified, and in that way it will eliminate unnecessary investigations. Therefore this whole process, from the court back to the community, extends a helping hand and it will help very much to relieve the position.

In so far as court procedure is concerned, I want to point out that proceedings may take place in camera. It is not practical to provide that all cases should be heard in camera because there are also other considerations. It is, however, intended administratively to inform magistrates as to the desirability of using this power as far as possible in suitable cases to have the inquiry held in camera. Hon. members will note that the magistrate institutes an investigation; it is not a trial. He does not impose a sentence but orders a person to go to an institution. A person is sent to a retreat or rehabilitation centre for three years. He may, however, be released earlier. This provision is in line with that governing work colonies in terms of the present Act. There is a system of screening and they may be released on grounds of good conduct, to the extent that these persons are able to adapt themselves. It is necessary to lay down a fixed period of three years and to give the power to the management of the institution to terminate the detention earlier in view of the fact that it is not possible to decide beforehand how long the rehabilitation process will last in any particular case. Every person who goes there is an individual with his own peculiar background and problems, and every case will be dealt with on its merits. In that institution there is social and psychological analysis, and wherever necessary, psychiatric diagnosis and treatment. This treatment is of great value. Social and psychological group therapy are supplied as a basic part of the treatment. In addition there are personal interviews which are followed up with the family and the community, to promote the inmate’s adaptation to society. We also tried to retain the co-operation of the churches and the welfare organizations. At Sonderwater provision is made for church services, personal interviews by visiting ministers of all church denominations with members of their particular churches. Other bodies like the A.A. and social workers visit those institutions and contribute their share. It is not my intention to give details of the medical, social and mental programme of treatment. The important point I wish to emphasize, however, is this. It has been found that the creation of a favourable therapeutic atmosphere as the background to rehabilitation attempts is a prerequisite to success. That is the experience in other countries. The environmental factor is deliberately created in such institutions. Hon. members will agree with me that I have dealt at fairly great length with the aims of this Bill. Alcoholism is not a disease which is easily curable. One needs the co-operation and goodwill of the patient himself. Success is achieved in an encouraging percentage of cases. In spite of the provisions in existing Acts, it still happens that people are wrongly committed, particularly in the case of alcoholics. One perhaps commits an alcoholic to a rehabilitation centre. One commits the other type of a man to a retreat. In order to remedy these wrong commitments, provision is made for the transfer of the inmates of one rehabilitation centre to another one, or from one retreat to another. Persons serving prison sentences may under certain circumstances be transferred to a rehabilitation centre. There is also a provision that a youth of over 18 years who is in a reformatory may be transferred. There are two restrictions in regard to such transfers. The one is that an inmate who voluntarily enters an institution in terms of this Bill cannot after a time say that he wants to be transferred to a different one, because he volunteered to go there. The second restriction is that a person serving a sentence of imprisonment, and who has been transferred from a prison to a rehabilitation centre, may not be transferred from there to a retreat. Experience has shown that the intermingling of these people is undesirable and right throughout this legislation we have tried to avoid it.

I just want to summarize briefly what is being done. We have this danger in regard to the intermingling of people there, and the danger if perhaps one allows those people to leave too soon. The Bill provides for the release of inmates as a concession and the granting of leave of absence to them. This is a procedure we have followed throughout. We grant the inmate a short leave of absence to give him the opportunity to contact an employer. Before his release employment and accommodation are arranged for him through the Department of Labour. After his release as a concession the inmate is placed under the control of a welfare officer. The person released is brought into contact with church organizations and with organizations like the A.A. and others. A person may be released at any time by the management of the institution on the recommendation of the welfare officer. One releases a person after a year or eighteen months, but if it appears that he has abused this concession he can be brought back at any time.

In my exposition I have tried to give hon. members a survey of the most important aspects of this Bill. There are provisions in this Bill which I have not touched upon. They can be dealt with in the Committee Stage. The provisions to which I have referred cannot of course by themselves ensure the successful treatment of alcoholism. They comprise only those measures for which legal provision is necessary. To combat the problem of alcoholism in all its aspects requires the joint action of the Central Government, of the Provinces and of the private welfare organizations. I have no hesitation in recommending this Bill to the House. The success of the proposed plan of action will depend on the measure of cooperation we get from society and from the various interested bodies. The recommendations of the Committee have been brought to the notice of all the official bodies concerned with the problem. I want to express the hope that the matter will receive serious consideration and that we shall succeed in providing a service to combat alcoholism of which the people of the Republic of South Africa will be proud. Having given this somewhat lengthy exposition of a very serious matter in which we are all interested, that concludes my remarks.

The Minister has made his speech and he has broken much new ground, and therefore I move—

I second.

Agreed to; debate adjourned.

Order of the Day No. XII to stand over.

I move—

The object of this Bill to amend the Veterinary Act of 1933 is to smarten up the professional code of the profession and to introduce greater order. I just want to say by way of introduction, Sir, that when you think of it that this Act was passed by this House in 1933 and has not been amended since then, you realize that it is necessary to-day after 30 years to amend it so that it can conform to the new circumstances which prevail in the country. I think that our veterinary profession is one of the scientific professions which has distinguished itself with great dignity in South Africa and at the outset I wish to pay tribute to the veterinary surgeons of our country, those who are employed by the Department and those who practise privately, and to thank them for the services which they have rendered in order to keep the livestock in South Africa in good health and to assist in increasing our animal population till it has become the important and great economic factor which it is to-day. In 1933, when the Act was passed, there were altogether not more than 131 qualified veterinary surgeons in the country, of whom 44 practised privately. Today there are 498 registered veterinary surgeons of whom 217 practise privately. The protection which the profession was accorded in the 1933 Act has had a great deal to do with the fact that the veterinary profession has developed to the extent it has. Last year facilities were established at our faculty of veterinary science at Onderstepoort to train 45 veterinary surgeons per annum whereas we were only able to train 30 in the past. I wish to make this point because people may be under the impression that there is still a terrific shortage of veterinary surgeons. I wish to state that with the existing facilities we shall be well able for a considerable time in future to meet the veterinary needs of the country.

I wish to deal briefly with the most important principles contained in this Bill, Provision is made in Clause 1 to increase the Board by the addition of one member and he has to be somebody with legal knowledge, somebody who, unlike the other board members, need not necessarily be a registered veterinary surgeon. This is a board which has to make certain recommendations to the Minister; it also has to apply disciplinary measures at times and the board feel that not only do they need the advice of such a legal assessor but that he will be able to contribute a great deal to the activities of the board. It is furthermore proposed that the Minister should be empowered to designate a vice-chairman of the board because it sometimes happens that the chairman is absent, he may be overseas, in which case the board cannot function properly.

The following matter of importance is contained in Clause 10 which provides for the registration of veterinary surgeons. We want to effect an amendment in this respect. The principal Act only makes provision for the recognition of veterinary science degrees obtained at certain universities which are specifically named, but only when they are obtained by South Africans. The principal Act furthermore provides for the registration of veterinary surgeons who have obtained their degrees in other countries provided we have reciprocity with those countries. The only country with which we have reciprocity is Britain. It happens that there are well qualified people who are not South Africans and who wish to emigrate to South Africa, people who have obtained their degrees in other countries and at other universities and we wish to make provision for the board, after it has satisfied itself that they have been well trained—if the board wishes to do so it can ask such a person to write a re-examination—to recommend to the Minister to authorize the registration of such veterinary surgeons. The position to-day is that there are four such people in the country who have already been in South Africa for five years but who cannot as yet practise. They have already been working here for five years because they have a temporary permit to be in the country but they cannot obtain registration as veterinary surgeons. We are now making provision for the board to recommend to the Minister to approve such registration for a period not exceeding six years. We want to protect our own veterinary surgeons who are South African citizens and if those people who are registered have not yet become South African citizens after the six years the registration will be cancelled.

Another principle is that the Veterinary Board will in future have the right to obtain information in connection with the courses offered at universities, degree courses or even diploma courses. Normally the university lays down its own standard but if the Veterinary Board is of the opinion that there are blatant shortcomings in the veterinary courses it will be in a position to make representations to the institution in that regard, something which it cannot do at the moment. If the board has to recommend registration to the Minister it ought to be able to acquaint itself with the standard of training because the same principle also applies in other professions.

Clause 14 abolishes the protection which medical practitioners enjoyed under the old Act where they had rendered veterinary services. The principal Act provides that nobody can go to court to collect payment for veterinary assistance or advice given unless he is registered as a veterinary surgeon or medical practitioner. It is felt, also by the Medical Council, that there is no longer any justification for medical practitioners as such, who are in any case not very interested in animal diseases, to be specifically protected by law to be paid for veterinary services which they may indeed render. It may be argued that you should at least allow the medical practitioner to render services in an emergency. The law does indeed make provision for that but what is not provided for is that the medical practitioner who renders such an emergency service can charge for it. If the person for whom he renders the service wants to give him a little present—not as payment—he is at liberty to do so. This amendment also provides that a farmer who assists somebody else with the inoculation of animals, with the cutting off of lambs’ tails or with castration, he can do so as long as he does not pretend to be a veterinary surgeon and as long as he does not do so for payment. The medical and other professions enjoy that protection and it is only right that the veterinary profession should enjoy it as well. Clause 15 is linked up with this and states clearly that it will be a contravention if a person who is not registered, irrespective of whether he has a degree or a diploma, practises as a veterinary surgeon for profit or who gives treatment which falls specifically within the scope of the veterinary profession.

Finally we have Clause 16 which empowers the board to promulgate regulations in respect of the whole profession as such, just as in the case of medical practitioners and dentists and pharmacists. Sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) of Clause 16 deal with the regulations in respect of the registration of veterinary students, the standard of education to enroll for such a course and the minimum requirements such a course should comply with, etc. The remaining amendments need not be explained and in conclusion I just want to say that this Bill has been referred to the S.A. Medical Society, the Veterinary Board, and the Pretoria University which also controls the Faculty of Veterinary Science and they all approve of it.

We on this side of the House support this Bill. The hon. the Minister said that there was ample provision for the training of veterinary surgeons. I wish to say that that is a very good thing and that I also believe that the veterinary surgeons who are trained in this country are equal to those trained in any other country. Our veterinary surgeons are very well qualified. I wish to state, however, that I do believe that there is still a terrific shortage of veterinary surgeons in the country. Large sections of the country are still very poorly catered for. Naturally we also approve of the provision which is made here for the registration of veterinary surgeons from other countries with which we have no reciprocity. Certain conditions are attached to it but we welcome the fact that they will be able to come here in order to augment the number of veterinary surgeons in our country. We are perhaps not in full agreement with the hon. the Minister in regard to the period which he has laid down within which they should apply for South African citizenship. I think that period is rather short. In principle we are not against this provision but we think the period is a little short. We may perhaps say something more about that at a later stage.

The hon. the Minister also said that a medical practitioner could previously be paid for his services whereas that would no longer be the position under this measure but that he could be given a small present. I take it that it will practically be illegal for him to accept it.

I can give somebody a present; that does not mean that I am paying him.

Well, that is one way of doing it. The point I wish to make, however, is this: Use is still made in this country of people who are not veterinary surgeons, people who do not pretend to be veterinary surgeons. In other words, farmers render certain services to their neighbours. Animals are inoculated, etc. In many instances the farmer cannot do these things himself and he avails himself of the services of his neighbour. The law now provides that his neighbour can render these services provided he does not charge anything for it, but one does feel, Sir, that one should at least pay such a person for his services and in these circumstances, seeing that veterinary surgeons are still as scarce as they are, I feel that we should not lock the door completely. We should encourage the veterinary profession as much as possible in all respects but I do not think we have quite reached the stage where we should close the door completely with the result that it will be completely impossible to make use of the services of these people. Otherwise we support this Bill and during the Committee Stage we shall make a few suggestions.

I am extremely grateful for the remarks made by the hon. the Minister in the Other Place about veterinary surgeons and research officers. May I add to that that they have made the most valuable contribution that can possibly be made towards farming in this country. It is due to them that we are able to control both external and internal parasites as we are able to do to-day, but there is an enormous amount of work still to be done. Our losses as the result of both external and internal parasites and poisoning amount to something in the region of no less than R40,000,000 per annum. Sir, we have to meet a very urgent need in this respect and I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he really thinks that he is making a sufficiently great contribution towards the production of field veterinary officers and research officers who are so essential to bring about a reduction in these losses and to provide the service which is so necessary for the farmers of this country. In parts of this Bill the Minister is in a sense only paying lip service to what is required for this country. I want to ask him if he is conscious of the fact that highly intelligent students have made application for the course in veterinary science at Onderstepoort. but because their names happened to be drawn in the ballot for defence service they have to spend nine months in training. This makes their position very difficult for them and may affect their future career. The Minister is aware of the fact that these veterinary science students have to pass four very difficult science subjects in the first year of their studies. After an idle period of some nine months, does the hon. the Minister realize what has happened to those youths and their ability to study? Sir, veterinary science is no less important than medical science is in the case of human beings. The medical student whose name is drawn in the ballot gets exemption and, what is more, he is able to study for some seven years before he is called up for military training. The veterinary science student, however, has to go and do his training if his name is drawn in the ballot. He cannot get exemption; the board simply says that it is sorry it is not able to create a precedent. Why create a precedent in the case of medical students and not in the case of veterinary students? Are the veterinary services which are required for the 60,000,000, 70,000,000 or 80,000,000 head of stock in this country not of sufficient importance to warrant exemption for veterinary students? I think it is extremely important, and I say that as far as that part of the Bill is concerned the hon. the Minister is merely paying lip service because he is prepared to import veterinary surgeons and to accept them in the service after five or six years. Sir, it is extremely important to our country that something should be done in this connection. Some of our brightest students are at present undergoing nine months’ military training, but what happens to those students if they are selected as officers and have to be called up every three months in order to complete their officers’ course? Is the Minister going to intervene once they have started? I would like to ask the Minister whether he is taking the necessary precautions to ensure that these students who wish to study, will have their applications for enrolment at Onderstepoort accepted after their nine months’ training. Is he prepared to give them an assurance to that effect? And if they are accepted how is their seniority in the service going to be affected? Are those students whose names have not been drawn in the ballot this year going to enjoy seniority over those students?

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I think he is going very far afield now. Those are matters which should be raised under the Vote of the Minister of Defence.

Sir, I thought that I could raise this matter under Clause 6 where reference is made to studies. However, I am prepared to leave that alone. Whatever the case might be, I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to take the necessary steps to see that we are protected for the future in this country. There is so much that still has to be done. I will not say that little has been done because much has been done, but there is so much to do and there are so many research officers and field men required that I am going to ask the Minister to take the greatest care to see that these students get the necessary openings in the future.

We all welcome this Bill. It is definitely an improvement which is aimed at removing certain anomalies but those of us who are engaged in the agricultural industry are probably all aware of the real shortage of veterinarians with which we are faced and we should like to know whether the hon. the Minister is convinced that this legislation is sufficiently far-reaching eventually to bring about a position in South Africa where we shall be able to say that our stock raising industry is secure. Mr. Speaker, you will be surprised to learn that along the border from northern Transvaal up to the border of South West Africa, there are not many more than three veterinary surgeons, along a distance of probably over 1,000 miles—and that area is of cardinal importance when it comes to the state of health of our animals. From Ramathlabama, down past Mafeking to the border of South West, there are two or at the most three stations, if they also operate from the direction of Kimberley. I submit in all humility that that is not sufficient. You ask yourself the question, Sir, why we are in this position. I want to suggest to the Minister whether we should not make bursaries available on a larger scale to students who are prepared to follow this difficult course, because it is a well-known fact that you have to be an outstanding student to conclude this course successfully and those who are able to take this course find other fields open to them in which they can render services which are perhaps much easier than the veterinarian services they will have to render one day when they are qualified. We simply have to consider those facts and if we do not place the student who is financially able to take that course in a position to do so, we shall lose the opportunity of expanding our veterinarian services so that they will really meet our needs in combating stock diseases. We shall never have the necessary veterinarians in South Africa unless we are prepared to consider that aspect in particular and unless we see to it that every boy who has the ability to follow this course is placed in a position to do so by granting him a sufficiently liberal loan or bursary. If we do that I am convinced we shall find the necessary students. We often find that veterinarians, as soon as they have qualified at Onderstepoort, go to the cities where they do necessary though less important little jobs which are perhaps also necessary but the farming community of South Africa is in urgent need of veterinarians in the farming areas. I know that the Minister is as convinced of that as anyone of us but I think the time has arrived for us to be prepared to exert all our energies to train and to build up a sufficiently large army of veterinarians in South Africa strong enough to protect our stock raising industry. I appeal very earnestly to the Minister and I want to thank him for the progress which is made in this Bill; we all feel that this is necessary.

I wish to thank hon. members on both sides of the House heartily for the support they have given in principle to this Bill. There are minor matters in regard to which there may be misgivings but those are matters which can be thrashed out in the Committee Stage. I do, however, want to say this to the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) that compulsory military service is naturally something which is concerned with the safety of your country and I want to suggest to the hon. member that he should settle it with himself which is most necessary for a country—to guarantee its safety and the safety and future of its people or to guarantee the safety of its animals. As far as I personally am concerned, if I knew that exemption would mean less safety for my country and my people I would not grant it but that is not a matter which falls under my jurisdiction. It is the Minister of Defence together with his board, of course, who draw the ballottees and who grant the exemptions. The hon. member says that medical students should be granted exemptions. I do not even know whether that is the position but I accept it. That is in any case a matter over which I have no control but I can assure the hon. member that where we are now extending the training facilities at Onderstepoort from 30 to 45 students per annum. I am pleased to be able to state that we have had more applications from students to enroll for the veterinarian course than the number we can accommodate. That is encouraging in spite of the facts which the hon. member has just given us. I think the improved salary scales also have something to do with that.

I wish to inform the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Labuschagne) that the Public Service Commission offer bursaries; various boards give bursaries to the Department of Agriculture; the Meat Board etc., give bursaries. We try to encourage by way of bursary schemes as many students as possible who wish to qualify in scientific directions so that they can take this course and I may say to the hon. member that the bursaries are fairly liberal.

That disposes of the few questions of importance which have been raised by hon. members. I want to conclude by saying that I wholeheartily endorse the tribute which the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) paid to the qualifications and the training of our veterinarians in South Africa. I think our veterinarians are outstanding; in the scientific field they need not take second place to veterinarians trained in any other country in the world.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

Hon. members will recall that last year when we were dealing with the Continuation of War Measures Act, 1962, the Minister of Finance indicated that all war measures, the continuation of which were still necessary, would be translated into permanent legislation. There are still two such war measures which fall under the control of the Department of Commerce and Industries, namely War Measure No. 146 of 1942 (Proclamation 319 of 1942), which deals with Import and Export Control, Internal Controlled Materials and the External Procurement Fund, and War Measure No. 49 of 1946 (Proclamation 185 of 1946), in terms of which price control is applied. This measure before the House deals with the conversion of Part E of War Measure 146 of 1942 and is concerned purely with import and export control. The proposed legislation in connection with the other aspects which I have referred to above will still be introduced either this Session or next year as soon as they are ready and as and when circumstances permit.

Although in the first place this Bill sets out in rather more detail the provisions of the existing portion of the War Measure referred to, it actually contains no new principles, and in the second place its provisions have been adapted to normal circumstances.

I should like to outline briefly the background to the more extensive powers which are provided for in the Bill. Regulation 8bis (3), promulgated under Proclamation No. 201 of 1939, granted the Minister of Economic Affairs the power to regulate, prohibit or limit the import and export of classes and types of specific goods from or to specific countries. In other words, the Minister had the power to make specific arrangements with regard to specific goods and specific countries.

In 1948, however, these powers lapsed in the process of revising and/or repealing certain war measures with the result that the only powers which the Minister of Economic Affairs has in this respect at present, are those granted to him in terms of Regulation 24, promulgated under War Measure No. 146 of 1942 (Proclamation 319 of 1942). According to legal opinion, the powers contained herein briefly amount to this, that the import or export of goods of a general or specific nature can probably only be prohibited, regulated or limited generally to or from countries. Hon. members should clearly note therefore that discriminatory powers exist only in respect of goods and not in respect of countries. As a result of this the Government, if it wished to prohibit, limit or regulate the export or import of heavy machinery, for example, would not be able to discriminate between the countries to which or from which that heavy machinery is exported or imported. According to legal opinion the position in all probability is that it will only be possible to apply such a prohibition, regulation or limitation to all countries.

In order to remove this doubt. Clauses 2 (1) and (2) of the Bill have been worded in such a way that the Minister will again have more or less the same powers as those he had in terms of Proclamation 201 of 1939. For the rest this Bill contains no new provisions.

This measure is necessitated by the fact that the Government must have the power legally to be able to apply certain of its present export control regulations. Thus, for example, it is provided in these regulations at present that no export permit will be required when goods are exported to Basutoland, Swaziland or Bechuanaland, while in certain cases no export permits are required for exports to, amongst others, the United Kingdom, any Commonwealth country or the U.S.A.

As far as import control is concerned, this same concession applies at present to certain goods which are imported into South Africa from the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, Basutoland, Swaziland or Bechuanaland.

In the absence of this regulation, the export of strategic goods to the U.S.A., Britain and other Commonwealth countries, which are exempted from permits at the present time, would have to be placed under permit control. Similarly, in the absence of a suitable regulation such as the existing one, the Government would have no authority to prevent the exportation of strategic goods to Iron Curtain countries.

It may continue to be necessary from time to time, as in the past, to distinguish between dollar and sterling countries with a view to controlling and building up South Africa’s foreign exchange.

A final example that I want to mention to emphasize the necessity for this measure and for the granting of these wider powers to the Minister is the fact that the Government ought to be in a position to stipulate and to put into effect savings clauses in commercial treaties which may be entered into. What I mean by this is that South Africa should be able to reserve the right to take protective steps in cases where competition from any country, which may be involved in a commercial treaty with South Africa, detrimentally affects existing internal industries or hampers the economic establishment of new industries or even disrupts South Africa’s pattern of trade with other countries.

The material requirements for the effective implementation of such a savings clause are that South Africa should be in a position, in cases of this nature involving particular types of foreign goods, either to impose higher protective import duties on the goods in question or to impose discriminatory quantitative import restrictions on such goods, or to require the country concerned to impose quantitative export restrictions on such goods. Even if such a country agreed to place a quantitative limitation on the export of particular types of goods to South Africa if and when necessary, the South African Government would still have to have powers for the imposition of discriminatory import restrictions on the goods of the country concerned, particularly if that country’s export control measures are not being applied in a satisfactory way perhaps, or if that country’s goods are being exported to South Africa from other foreign countries. In this connection it may be mentioned that Section 79 of the Customs Act, 1955, provides for the imposition of discriminatory import duties against countries which impose discriminatory duties, levies or restrictions on South African goods. In any event this legal provision has already been applicable for 29 years, ever since its inception in terms of Act No. 40 of 1934, and it is considered desirable that there should be a parallel provision in the proposed import and export legislation.

I do not think it is necessary for me to enlarge upon the necessity for this measure, and I am sure hon. members will agree with me that the government of a country ought to be in a position legally, even in normal circumstances, to regulate its imports and exports according to the requirements of the situation. Holland, for example, passed a measure of this kind three years ago. Although the Netherlands Act was largely a consolidating measure it also amounted to the taking of wider powers to enable the authorities, by way of a prohibition on the import and export of goods, by way of any other arrangement with reference to the import, export or transit of goods, or by way of the imposition of levies, to take steps “in normal circumstances”, in the interests of the internal and external security of the country, to safeguard its national economy and to eliminate any stumbling-blocks which may occur in international trade and the implementation of international trade obligations. Actually therefore the Netherlands legislation in question goes much further than the Government proposes to do in the measures now before the House, but in South Africa’s case quite a number of the provisions incorporated in the Netherlands Act, are already contained in the Republic’s Customs Act.

I am surprised at the summary manner in which the Deputy Minister has introduced this legislation because from what he said it would appear that the Government is making an important departure from the attitude which they always adopted in the past. In the past we have repeatedly heard from Ministers and members on the other side that they regard import control as a necessary evil as an extraordinary, temporary measure. It has been temporary for a very long time; it has been temporary for 24 years now, and 15 of those years have been years of peace, but nevertheless until to-day that was the attitude of the other side. To-day, however, the Minister seems to indicate that we are going to live with import control from now onwards; that it is going to be a permanent feature of our economic landscape. At any rate, that is the impression that I gained from his speech; the Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I submit that that is the only inference which can be drawn from what he said here. Sir, I say that in the past import and export control was regarded as an extraordinary measure, as a necessary evil. I think it was generally understood in the country that import and export control was only a temporary measure to be used as long as we have balance of payment problems. As recently as the 2nd of this month the hon. the Deputy Minister himself rather indicated that, despite his complete switch-round to-day. In the Burger of 2 April 1963 the Deputy Minister is reported to have said as follows in opening a textile factory in Randfontein—

Sir, I do not have all the quotations with me but I think the Deputy Minister will agree that we have repeatedly had statements of that nature in the past from all Ministers of Economic Affairs who have indicated that they regard import control as a temporary, necessary evil and that as soon as possible they would like to go back to the orthodox fiscal and financial measures which are used when you run into trouble with your balance of payments and which I believe all international agencies like the International Monetary Fund and G.A.T.T. prefer rather than quantitative physical control. Ministers on the other side have repeatedly in the past pointed out the evil and the bad consequences of physical control compared with other forms of protection such as tariffs; for instance that it cuts out competition in an arbitrary manner and therefore increases the cost structure generally in the country in an arbitrary manner too. We also have the position that the Minister of Finance is almost over-cautious every year in our opinion in an effort to keep the cost structure down as much as possible through very conservative financial policies. He follows that policy because he realizes the importance of keeping the cost structure as low as possible of our important export industries such as our gold-producing industry and other export industries. To-day we see this change which the hon. the Deputy Minister apparently envisages that import control is going to be a permanent feature in future. I think hon. gentlemen on this side of the House will quote what past Ministers of Finance and Economic Affairs have said in the past of how undesirable physical control of imports really is and how import control should be lifted as soon as possible.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has quoted the case of Holland which has apparently three years ago taken special measures to give their Minister powers along the lines which this Minister is seeking to-day. Surely he will agree that generally in Europe and in the Common Market the tendency has been to abandon physical control as soon as possible. to restore freedom of trade as soon as possible. In a country like Germany in particular, they have progressed far along those lines. Countries that were devastated 15 years ago compared with South Africa have in the meantime made such economic recovery that they have been able to dismantle their physical controls completely and rely, where necessary. upon fiscal and financial control to balance their balance of payments. I say therefore that it is remarkable that we should at this stage see this type of measure being introduced into this House. What has happened in South Africa during the past 15 years? It is not only remarkable that we should be introducing this type of measure and give it a permanent character but it is also remarkable that this should be done in a country like South Africa. After all we are the leading gold-producing country in the world. If ever there was a country which should have as little physical control as possible it is this country by virtue of the fact that we are the largest gold-producing country in the world. It is therefore directly in our interests to have free trade. Not only are we the largest gold-producing country in the world but comparatively speaking we are a very important export country. We are a very strong export country. Our export industries are all what can be termed very strong export industries, such as diamonds, wool, gold and many other minerals.

Do not forget mealies.

Yes, mealies as well. What is more, during the last 15 years the value of gold production has tripled. With normal good management of our economy you would have thought that South Africa would have been the last country in the world that would still require import control 15 years after the end of the war. As the Minister himself has said in the speech which he made at Randfontein a couple of weeks ago, the primary purpose of import control is to safeguard our balance of payments position. What has happened to our balance of payments position in South Africa? If you look at the balance of payments position of the current account you will find that since 1959 we have consistently had a very favourable balance. Import control can hardly be necessary therefore at this stage to peg our balance on current account. If you look at the capital account, you find, of course, that just as consistently as our balance has been favourable in the case of our current account, our balance on capital account has been very unfavourable mitigated over the last two years by the special measures that were taken to regulate the outflow of capital from the country. In the net result we have had a favourable balance of trade over the last two years as is indicated every week by the rapid rise in our foreign exchange reserves.

On the face of it, therefore, Mr. Speaker, this would hardly seem to be a propitious moment to impose a system of permanent import control because over the last two years the balance of trade has been favourable taking both capital and current account together. To judge from present-day trends we should in future also have a favourable balance on current account. If there is any fear of that not being the case then surely the correct method would be to introduce fiscal and financial measures and not physical control measures. As I have said Ministers on the other side have committed themselves to this policy in the past. If the Minister comes at this stage and tells us that he needs these powers as badly as he says he needs them, it can only be for one reason and that must be that he still feels that overseas foreign investors have no confidence in South Africa. That can be the only reason because to impose permanent control measures on account of the current payments situation is not necessary. Hon. members opposite always tell us that we should show confidence in South Africa. Surely there could be no better method to show confidence in South Africa than to do away with all import controls. Surely that would show the world how much confidence we have in this country. Thanks to the cumulative effects of the Government’s policies the Minister, implicitly if not explicitly, recognizes through this measure the fact that overseas investors have no confidence in South Africa. That is why he must take these steps. Because we think his implicit reasoning might be correct we on this side feel that we cannot oppose this measure. We do feel however that it should be limited at least in one very important respect. We do feel that far from giving the Minister permanent powers we must make it clear to the world at large and to the business community in this country that we have confidence in the future of our country and that we do not regard import control to last for all time. At a later stage we shall therefore suggest an amendment to the effect that this measure will only be of limited duration, say for a period of two years. I am only suggesting two years; we need not be tied to any specific period. We shall suggest in our amendment that the law should be reviewed after two years by Parliament and if it is still found necessary to extend these measures for a further period from time to time, that will be done. That is one amendment that we shall move at a later stage.

We should also like to suggest to the Ministers to consider another amendment. After all he has certain obligations under G.A.T.T. when it comes to this type of measure. In terms of one of the articles of G.A.T.T. physical controls like those suggested to-day by the Minister should only be used to forestall an imminent threat of or to stop a serious decline in the Republic’s monetary reserves. In other words, we shall move an amendment that will seek to limit the Minister’s discretion when he seeks to exercise it to extend import control. to those cases where he feels it will be necessary in order to forestall an imminent threat to or to stop a serious decline in the Republic’s monetary reserves. Subject to those two amendments we propose to support the second reading.

I am also surprised at the hon. the Deputy Minister trying to elevate import and export control to a normal function of government instead of, as it has always been, an extraordinary function of government. The Minister must realize, as my hon. friend has indicated, that it is the actions of the Government itself which have necessitated a continuance of what was introduced originally as a entirely temporary expedient to deal with the situation during times of emergency.

Export control by its very nature is simply an arbitrary method of control which is only justified as an emergency measure and which, in those circumstances, should not be seen as a normal part of Government administration. My hon. friend from Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) has made the point—and the Deputy Minister has confirmed it himself—that the mechanism of import and export control is being used today very largely to enforce exchange control under the currency laws. I can do no better, in support of the stand which we on this side of the House will take (that is not to oppose the Bill in principle), than to suggest that we should make sure that a limitation is put on its endurance. Nor in saying that I can do better than to quote the remarks of a well-informed authority who said this—

That, Sir, was only five years ago. The authority that I have quoted is none other than the then hon. Minister of Finance. He said this on 16 July 1958. As hon. members know the hon. gentleman who made these remarks is now the President of the Other Place. Having made those remarks and having stressed them as forcibly as he did he went on to indicate that because South Africa did not rely on expediencies of this nature it was possible to get financial aid from those two international institutions. He concluded that portion of his remarks by saying this—

I would therefore urge the Deputy Minister to take serious note of the suggestions which are being made from this side of the House, namely that there should be a time limit in regard to which this piece of legislation should operate and that it should be possible for the Government to extend it only with the concurrence of Parliament itself for the future. The quotation which I have given is, of course, in accordance with what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said outside this House. I can do no better than what has been suggested by my hon. colleague and that is to ask the Deputy Minister to have regard to what he said then in preference to his present justification for this measure.

The quotation which I have given the House stresses three points: The first is that import and export control constitute a temporary expedient which is designed only to bridge a gap. As the then Minister of Finance indicated “it cannot permanently solve our problems but can only suppress them at the risk of rising prices and costs”. The second point which he stressed so forcibly was that import and export control were frowned upon externally and regarded as justifiable only as a stop-gap and then only if those steps were taken by a Government which, and I quote again—

Lastly, of course, it also reflects on the country’s credit standing. As the hon. member for Jeppes has said, we on this side of the House at any rate should show confidence in the country. If the Government is serious in its statements that the economy of this country is sound, we must not go on fortifying control measures of this nature; we must make it perfectly clear, both to the external investor and to the internal investor, that this type of arbitrary control is merely of a temporary nature and not, as the Deputy Minister has now indicated, a normal function of government.

I think it has been made quite clear that the immediate need for this measure is accepted notwithstanding the fact that the Deputy Minister now tries to make a virtue of what, from the point of view of this Government, is just a necessity. We accept at this stage that we cannot do away with the expediency of import and export control but we do say that it must be made perfectly clear that it is not a permanent measure but that it will continue to remain a temporary expediency.

I do not want to argue very long with hon. members on the other side. The hon. member who has just sat down has said that they have no objection in principle to the fact that we are giving the hon. the Minister the power to apply better import control measures. When hon. members opposite were in power they also found it necessary to make use of import control. No country likes to make use of import control, just as little as it wants to make use of tariff protection. But these are two recognized measures that are used throughout the world in the economic sphere to-day. South Africa is not the only country that makes use of restrictive measures; the United States which has a far stronger economy than this country also does so. The hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) mentioned the example of G.A.T.T. and he quoted one provision out of a whole series of provisions. But one cannot simply take one provision; there is a whole series of measures and one should consider all of them. The hon. member told us that there was a war on at the time and that they had to apply control but my attitude is this: When they applied these measures the circumstances obtaining at the time were certainly exceptional. I also contend that there are exceptional circumstances existing in international trade today. In this connection it is not so much import control that is involved but the judicious application of import control. In applying these measures this Government has always recognized the fact that import control throughout the world is not popular just as tariff protection is not always popular. That is why any sensible Government will be very careful in applying these measures. By means of this measure the hon. the Minister is putting his position beyond all doubt so that when he finds it necessary to do so, he will be able to make use of these provisions. The hon. member for Jeppes will agree that just as little as circumstances were normal when they applied these measures, so little is the economic position in the world normal to-day. That is why the hon. the Minister wants to make use of this legislation to put his position beyond all doubt. I cannot see how this side of the House can accept the proposal of the hon. member. To say now that we should apply this measure for only two or three years is impracticable. If the hon. the Minister wants to put his position beyond all doubt as far as the principle is concerned, why should he do so for only one or two or three years? He should put it beyond all doubt permanently. Because as long as an abnormal position exists in regard to international grade, this Government, like any other government in the world, will have to make use of these recognized measures. Hon. members opposite must not suggest that South Africa is doing an extraordinary thing under extraordinary circumstances. These are not extraordinary circumstances and every country in the world makes use of these measures. That is why I do not think that the hon. the Minister should take any notice of the attitude of hon. members opposite.

The hon. member who has just spoken said that we were merely following the pattern of all countries in the world including—this was the only country he mentioned specifically—the United States of America. I challenge the hon. member to produce any evidence whatsoever that the U.S.A….

The hon. member cannot just jump up and “challenge” …

Order!

On a point of explanation …

The hon. member has had his opportunity.

The hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha) said clearly and specifically that no Government liked imposing import control but that countries had to impose it. He quoted as an example the U.S.A. I challenge the hon. member or any other hon. member on that side of the House to show that the United States of America has import control by virtue of import permits granted under an import control system. It is not true. That hon. member comes to this House and tries to create the impression that we are merely following the example of a country like the magnificent …

May I accept the challenge …

Yes, the hon. member can ask a question …

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) is not in control of the proceedings of this House.

The hon. member asked whether he could ask a question.

No, he did not ask for permission to ask a question.

I wanted to give him an opportunity, Sir. He made a statement here which I maintain is incorrect. The object of that statement was to try to create an impression, [interjections.] I hope the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) who has so much to say, will stand up and prove that the U.S.A. has import control. I challenge the hon. member for Vereeniging to prove that.

[Inaudible.]

I am not interested in the hon. member trying to wriggle out of it. I am interested in facts. The hon. member for Vereeniging can get up and make a speech. There is nothing to stop him except his Whips. He can get up and prove to this House that the United States have import control.

There are no Whips.

He has no Whips to stop him. The hon. member for Soutpansberg, apart from this claim of his, did not reply to the request by this side of the House that this should be regarded as a temporary measure with a limited lifetime, a lifetime which this Parliament, if need be, can extend. The proposal put forward by the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) supported by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) was that this measure should have a limited lifetime. I intend to give reasons why this sort of legislation and the regulations which will flow from it should be avoided as far as possible. The member of Soutpansberg agrees that it should be avoided. He agrees that it is undesirable. He says that no Government likes using this type of measure. If that is so—and I assume that it is the Government’s attitude—why did the hon. member for Soutpansberg not react to the concrete proposal put forward from this side that this Bill should recognize the undesirability of this type of legislation and the undesirability of forcing legislation of this nature on the country by making it a temporary measure at its inception? It is no use saying that the Minister can withdraw the control. Obviously he can withdraw it. But the terms of this Bill contemplate a permanent control over imports, permanent control which will have hampering effect on the economy of this country. It will have a hampering effect particularly upon private enterprise. I intend to give the facts and the figures which will indicate how that hampering effect takes place. I feel it is entirely reasonable that a limitation be placed on the duration of this measure. It should be stated clearly in this Bill that this is a measure which we do not want to see continued, a measure which we do not want to see as a permanent part of our economic legislation but a measure which we accept as a temporary measure to get the Government out of a position which they themselves have created. That is the issue which this Minister has to face. He is introducing an undesirable Bill. We are obliged to support it because his Government has created a state of affairs where he, as Minister of Economic Affairs, has no option but to impose restriction. I know he will prefer not to do this; I know he will prefer not to introduce this type of legislation but he and the Minister of Economic Affairs are being made the scapegoats for the circumstances which their Government have created.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

When the business of the House was suspended, I had said that the hon. Deputy Minister who is piloting this measure was the victim of the shambles which his own Government had created of the economy of South Africa, that he was the man who was introducing unwillingly a measure which he did not wish to introduce but which was forced upon him by the lack of confidence, the lack of security which there was in the economics of this country, and I said that I intended after the adjournment to substantiate my arguments in favour of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) that this measure, an admittedly unwanted measure, a regrettable measure, should have no permanency in the legislation of this country. If you wish to protect the industry of South Africa, then you use the acknowledged channels of protection which this Government and this Deputy Minister himself acknowledges to be the correct channel. This Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs himself stated on the Rand, only a few days ago, that import control was not intended as a protective measure to industry. It is the view of this Minister that import control is not a protective measure, and I challenge the hon. Minister to deny that. It is the opinion of the Minister and his Government that import control is not a protective machine to be used to stimulate industrial development. Accepting that—and I accept the Minister’s bona fides— then you eliminate the only possible justification for the introduction of a measure such as this which could carry public support; but in fact, I submit, despite the Minister’s assurance that this is not a measure to protect industry, that that statement is not correct. I want to say here immediately that we on this side of the House are fully in favour of every possible encouragement being given to the build-up of South African industries, but that encouragement must be along the lines of accepted economic policy: Tariff protection, after investigation by the Board of Trade and Industries we accept as an acknowledged method of protecting industry.

And you voted against it in the past!

The hon. member is as confused as he always is on any issue.

I shall prove it to you from Hansard.

Mr. Speaker, we are not discussing Senegal. We are discussing economic affairs, and that hon. member does not know what he is talking about. This side of the House has always, on every occasion, supported any measure for the build-up of South African industry along accepted economic lines, and we stand by, and always have stood by, the system of tariff protection to encourage the build-up of new industries and the protection of existing industries against unfair competition. Therefore I say that both sides, the Government with their tongue in their cheek and our side in all sincerity, accept that this measure is an unwanted measure on the Statute Book of South Africa. Yet this Minister is in the position that it is forced upon him in order to deal with the outflow of capital from South Africa; he must build up artificially balances to enable him to meet demands which do not apply to his department, and that is done at the cost of private enterprise. We can talk glibly in theory of the application of import control, but this hon. Minister ought to know that in practice it is a very different story. The hon. member for Karas (Mr. von Moltke) laughs. He apparently thinks that we are talking of the import of diamond concessions into somebody’s pocket, but we are not talking about anything to do with internal affairs. We are talking about import control as a measure affecting the economy of South Africa.

Order! What does the hon. member mean by diamond concessions going into somebody’s pocket? What does he infer?

I am not inferring anything.

The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw those words, Mr. Speaker. The Minister must know, Mr. Speaker, that in practice import permits in this country have become negotiable. It is common talk in any commercial circle that if you want to, you can obtain import permits at a price. Quite legally.

Bring that evidence!

Quite legally.

I challenge you to bring the evidence.

I say that quite legally, within the four corners of the law of South Africa, you can obtain import permits if you do not have your own permit, and you can do it by going to an importer with permits and saying: Will you import this for me, I will buy it from you at cost price plus 10 per cent or 5 per cent, or whatever the rate is at the moment when you enter those negotiations. It is perfectly legal. Every single person in commerce and industry in South Africa knows that it is going on. I am not prepared to mention names of firms across the floor of the House, but I will give to him the name of a firm which has closed down and that firm’s permits are being used to import goods for another firm.

I will give him the name in private.

Do so!

It is a perfectly legal transaction. If you have a licence as an importer and a person comes to you and says “Will you import for me these goods and I will buy them from you at cost price plus 10 per cent”, it is perfectly legal, provided that the person with a permit has a licence as a wholesaler or as an importer. If I go to any wholesaler or to any firm in South Africa with an import permit to spare, and I say “I want to import Rx thousand worth of goods, have you got spare permits?”, and he says “Yes, he will import those goods”, then it is perfectly legal. He is importing the goods, they come into his warehouse, my lorry pulls up and loads them up, and I pay him landed cost plus whatever the negotiable rate of the permit is at that time. The Minister should know. He as Minister of Economic Affairs should know that that is going on. Does he deny that that is going on?

If you give me the name or names to-morrow, I will make an appointment with you at nine o’clock to-morrow morning.

I will see the hon. Deputy Minister. But does he deny …

Give me the names, and I will withdraw every one of them.

Do you deny that it is happening?

You give me the names and I will withdraw everyone of them.

Why should we give you the names?

I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he is aware of any traffic in permits, legal traffic?

The Minister said “No”.

In other words, he as Minister of Economic Affairs wants to tell this House that he has no knowledge that people with surplus permits are importing in their own name and handing over the goods to other people?

In every case that has come to our notice, such permits have been withdrawn. I am asking you to give me that information.

As I say, I am not prepared to bandy names across the floor of the House, but I can give the Minister one specific instance, and it is not the only instance. It is common knowledge that if I happen to be in the agency business and a customer says to me “I will place an order with you, if you can find me a permit”, the permit is found in many cases. They come back and say “We have arranged the permit and we have booked the order in the name of a different firm, but the goods will go to you”. If the hon. the Minister says to this House that he has no knowledge that this is going on in South Africa, then I submit that he is failing in his duty as Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs, because if he is supposed to be in touch with the economic circumstances of the country, then he and his department should have knowledge that this is going on, as every person in commerce knows. I am sorry that this hon. Minister should say that he has no knowledge. I would have preferred if he had said: I do have knowledge of this, and this is my solution for the problem. Instead of that he says that he has no knowledge, that I should give him the names, and then he will stop it. In other words, we as members of Parliament have got to act as private detectives for that Minister’s department, we have to act as informers, so that he can stop a perfectly legal, but I maintain, unethical use of permits. And that is not the only problem which arises from this system of import control. In theory you can argue yourself blue in the face, but in practice there are other disadvatages which flow from this system. I want to give him the example now of one particular aspect of import control. I refer now to textile import permits. Last year that industry was allowed an import on the first round of 50 per cent; they were given a second round permit of 25 per cent and a third round permit of 10 per cent; a total of 85 per cent import permits based on their 1959-60 imports into South Africa. This year we are already in April of this year and the permit allocation amounts to 50 per cent. That is to say, 50 per cent was granted on 28 November, last year. Over four months ago that permit of 50 per cent was granted. Now the hon. Minister knows that there has been approach after approach to him, pleading with him to announce what the second-round allocation is going to be, and the Minister says “in due course”. It may be next week, or next month. It is always just a little later. But does the hon. Minister realize what he is doing to those people who must import? That is the tragedy of this sort of legislation. He can sit there happily in his office or in his bench and say “After all it is only April, we have still got eight months to go”. Has he no concept of the mechanics, the practical mechanics of how a businessman has to work? He is granted a 50 per cent permit on the first-round issue of permits for textiles. That 50 per cent has gone because the European season is six months different to the South African season. So people have had to place their summer orders already for shipment in February, March, April, May. Your textile importer into South Africa has already utilized his complete summer-buying availability. Those goods are shipped from the middle of February until May. Summer in South Africa is at least 60 to 65 per cent of your textile usage, because your whole coastal stretch has no real winter season as such. So the bulk of South Africa’s textile importers are summer imports. People have been granted 50 per cent to cover their imports for a period now reaching its end. It is too late to order any more. It is much too late to place orders now for the past season’s European summer textiles and these are textiles not available in South Africa; they are not goods which could be bought in South Africa. They are goods which are not available and cannot possible be available in South Africa for many, many years to come, because of the technical problems in the production of those particular lines. Now those people start in April to place their winter orders. Those winter orders have got to be placed within the next few weeks for delivery in October, November, of this year, and they have been to the Minister time and again; I challenge the Minister to deny that the Textile Wholesalers’ Association has approached him on this issue and he has said “I will announce in due course what the second-round issue is going to be”.

When did they approach me?

This year.

No.

This year towards the end of February, or the beginning of March. [Interjections.] The hon. members can interject, but they know that I am dealing now with facts. It is a fact that your textile importer has to start placing winter orders now and the Minister sits there and is not prepared, or has not up to now been prepared to announce what his second-round permit is going to be. So your man in commerce and your man in industry lives in uncertainty, except that industry can take a chance—because I must say that on the whole, and I will deal with the exceptions in a moment, industry has been able to obtain its raw-materials. But commerce cannot plan because they do not know what they are going to get, and they are having to let opportunities slip, opportunities to buy goods at prices which would be to the benefit of the consumers. They can obtain goods at specially cheap prices, but they cannot buy them because they do not know what permits they are going to have. The result is that this Minister by his policy is pushing up the cost of living of the housewife and the family in South Africa. He is forcing commerce to hold back, he is preventing them from taking economic opportunities which offer, and as a result when they finally buy goods, they have to buy what is available. Often at the end of a season there are special offers at special prices, but at other times because they can get nothing else, they must take what is offering. The result of that comes through the importer to the consumer and the consumer, the housewife who has to make a dress for her child or for herself is forced to pay a higher price than necessary because this Minister as part of an overall Government plan is not willing to be open and frank with the people who have got to import. There are other issues: The question of the restricted list, the restricted list which the Deputy Minister has been asked to withdraw, a restricted list plus an A list—let me just give the picture: You have a general textile permit, you have a general A-group permit, you have a general B-group permit. The A-group permit which covers mostly minor things, things not of major importance, is all right. They have already had an allocation in December of 60 per cent and a second-round permit of 50 per cent has been announced; that is to say, 110 per cent of the 1959-60 imports. But the B-group. the more important group, have had an announcement of 30 per cent plus 15 per cent to follow. In other words, where it does not matter, the little bits and pieces, the Minister does what is necessary in the interest of free trade and free opportunity, but in respect of the things that matter, except in the case of industry, he is not giving people an opportunity to exercise what we accept as a fundamental economic principle: The right of private enterprise. I want to say this, perhaps harsh words: What this Government is doing, is imposing a communistically inspired straight-jacket on the principles of free enterprise in South Africa, because you obtain a permit to-day to import at the whim or wish of the Minister and his Department. They have the right to grant or to reject your application, and a new person trying to start up a new business, or a small business trying to expand, is in this position that their future expansion or their very existence is at the complete whim and wish of the grant of an import permit. If that is not a communistic concept, a communistic alternative to free enterprise then I ask what is, because no man to-day can go and start a business which requires the import of any raw-materials, whether it be an industry or whether it be commerce, unless he goes cap in hand and on his knees to the Minister and says “May I please have the permit?” And if the Minister refuses that application, that person cannot start his business and cannot start his industry. I mentioned “industry”. On the whole industry gets its requirements of raw-material, but where a firm is expanding, or where a firm is wanting to start, application after application is rejected or is cut down. When the matter is taken up with the Minister or with the head of his Department, then a concession is granted. My experience has been on the various occasions that I have taken up a specific case that in that specific case the application is met to a degree and a portion of the requirements are supplied. But why should it be necessary for a person trying to expand his business to have to come to a Member of Parliament and go cap in hand to the Minister and after a two or three months delay eventually get part of what he requires to expand his business? That is not the spirit of free enterprise in South Africa; it is not the spirit in which we want to see our economy grow. Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that our economy is not growing at the rate at which it should grow? Is it any wonder that people who contemplate starting up something new think twice before they do so? They do not know where their future lies, they do not know what is going to be available to them. The hon. Minister knows that I have come to him—and I thank him for his assistance— with specific cases. In most cases he has been able to meet me. But the principle is all wrong. It is wrong that you should have to come to the Minister cap in hand and say “Please here is a genuine case”. How many hundreds of other genuine cases are there who do not happen to go to a Member of Parliament, or who do not happen to know the way in which to deal with their problems. There must be hundreds of people for everyone that comes to one of us for assistance, hundreds who do not know, people who had not the knowledge or who do not know the channels through which they must work. I believe, as I have said right at the outset, that this system of import control is intrinsically bad because it places the whole future of private enterprise in the hands of a Minister and his Department, and however sympathetic that Department may be, they have got to work to rules. They have a set formula and they deal with every application in accordance with that formula. They do not know the problems of a man who has got to order a particular raw-material a year ahead. That man comes and says “I want a permit for Rx thousand”. The Department says: You do not get it, you do not need it, you have had your first-round, you may get it under the second-round permit, but we cannot tell you how much. It is a raw-material which a man has to order eight or ten months ahead in order to keep his factory going. Does the Minister know of the problems he is creating for the small man? Not for the big man. The big man knows what to do. Your big businessman whom this Government is supporting—and I give it credit for that—your big industrialist can get along. This Government to-day is a Hoggenheimer Government, because the big industrialist and the big retailer and the big wholesaler can get things he wants out of this Government. It is the small man who is suffering, the man who cannot get on an aeroplane and come to Cape Town and demand an interview with the Minister and get an interview. I ask the hon. Minister how many interviews he has per year with big industrialists? It runs into hundreds. The big man is being looked after. It is the small man that I am pleading for, the man who is trying to build up something from small beginnings. Every time he builds it up a little bit, he gets a set-back, and he has got to come back and back again. Take the paperwork alone; the paperwork is pushing up the cost to the ordinary consumer in South Africa. I spoke to a firm only this afternoon and I asked how things were going. The proprietor said “I do not know whether I am coming or going; I spent the last two weeks working on figures for import control permits”. It is not easy for a small firm to sit down and work out on seven different grades of goods, according to weight, according to textile content, according to price, according to width per yard, according to yards per lb., to work out all the statistics that are demanded; but if they do not submit the statistics, they do not get the permit. So instead of getting on with the job of selling things at the cheapest possible price they have got to sit there and spend weeks and weeks working on figures, taking out figures, making calculations, filling in forms. It is easy for the Minister to work out a two-page foolscap form and ask for your imports of each type of item, item by item over the past few years. It is not so easy for the small business without a full-time secretarial staff to provide that information. That firm instead of being able to operate efficiently, has to use either its existing staff or additional staff to give that information which is desired. I say again that this type of legislation which we have before us is hampering the whole advance of private enterprise, is influencing the whole freedom of our economic system, and we on this side of the House, although we must, because of the shamble which this Government has created of the confidence of South Africa, the mess which it has created in the eyes of people whose money we need, because of the lack of confidence which it has, I say, deliberately, through its policy created, we have got to meet the Minister in accepting this measure. It is a measure which he does not want and South Africa does not want, which his own Government has forced upon him, and which we hope he himself will stand up and accept as being a temporary measure, an emergency measure, designed to meet the emergency of his own Government’s creation.

We have had a typical example of United Party propaganda this evening, an example of the extent to which they usually exaggerate on the platteland and throughout the country. But one does not convince anybody by exaggerating the position; one does not make converts, one simply makes oneself look ridiculous. That is what the hon. member has done. He has merely exaggerated.

Deny it.

He would make an audience of old men weep about the price of old sheepskins if he spoke to them in the way in which he addressed this House to-night.

Deny what I said.

I say that he exaggerated in everything that he said. I want to mention just one point that he made here because I cannot reply to the nonsensical things that he said towards the end of his speech. He told us that the textile importers want permits to enable them to import their winter stocks into this country. But he knows that that is untrue.

Order! The hon. member may not say that.

But he ought to know it. One can walk down any street here in Cape Town and one will see every shop window crammed with winter goods. The same thing applies to Johannesburg and Pretoria. Mr. Speaker, the large-scale clothing manufacturers in Europe sell their surplus winter stocks as early as December and January. These people with the 50 per cent permits whom the hon. member mentioned here purchased these goods as far back as December and January. They want to buy their summer stocks in June and July and they need permits for those stocks. They do not need those permits to-day. The hon. member has no knowledge of commerce at all.

What you know about it is dangerous.

If the hon. member realized how little he knew about it he would say very little about it in this House.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Is it not true that the winter goods that he is discussing now were ordered in April of last year for delivery in October/November of last year? Is that true or is it not true?

It may possibly be true in the case of the Natalians who are out of fashion but our women in the Cape and the Transvaal are not two years behind the times. We do not want to be out of fashion.

The hon. member spoke about import permits and he said that import permits could be obtained even though one did not have a permit; one can buy an import permit from somebody else. I wonder what happened to import control when the United Party was in power? I know just what happened. If we started telling one another what happened, we could keep this House occupied for a week and I know who would come off second best in that regard. I do not deny that administrative mistakes can be made. But let me put this to the hon. member: If I approach a dealer who has an import permit and I want the type of article with which he trades and I say to him: “Look here, I want to buy this, that, or the other article,” and he says: “I do not have it in stock but I have a permit and I can import it for you,” what is wrong with that?

I said that it was done legally.

That man imports it for me as his client. I buy from him legally. There is nothing wrong with that. The hon. member spoke about dealings in permits and the hon. the Minister said to him by way of interjection: “Give me the name of any firm that deals in permits and I will immediately withdraw all its permits.” I want to ask the hon. member to keep his appointment with the hon. Deputy Minister for 9 o’clock to-morrow morning and to give the hon. Minister those names.

I will be able to mention specific cases.

I shall be pleased if he will do so because where those cases have come to light, action has been taken against the firms concerned and their permits have been withdrawn. More than that the hon. the Minister cannot do except that he may also be able to prosecute these people.

I want to point out that this Bill does not deal with countries, it deals with articles, specific articles for which import permits are issued, not articles which one may purchase from certain countries and not from others. That is a very important point. The hon. member challenged the hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha) to prove that America has import control.

I say that America does not have it.

Yes, but the hon. member challenged the hon. member for Soutpansberg to prove it. And that question comes from a man representing Natal! Has he forgotten that America cut off her sugar supplies from Cuba and that Natal is now able to sell her sugar in the U.S.A.? How does he think they managed to do that? America has in the past applied discriminatory measures against particular countries, not merely in regard to certain articles as we have done. America discriminated against Cuba: she discriminated against Czechoslovakia and other countries, notwithstanding the fact that they are also members of GATT, the organization that he mentioned here. The hon. member can obtain this information from the Natal Sugar Producers; he need not get it from the hon. member for Soutpansberg.

Tell me what import control legislation America has.

The fact remains that America did take these steps and she would not have done so without some legal provision or other empowering her to do so. It is possible that she took these steps under regulatory powers, but they have to be legal. That is what we have had here. For 24 years we have had measures of this nature under which import control has been applied. I still remember how the previous Government applied import control long before the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) or the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) or the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) came to this House. These war measures were extended for a year or two from time to time and periodically the United Party members asked the Government to replace those war measures by a permanent law because they pointed out that we had to accept the fact that those measures had become part of our economy. Here we are giving them that law, but now they want to limit its operation to two years. Why then have a law? We might just as well say then that the war measures will be extended for a further two years. The hon. member for Jeppes advanced a number of very fine-sounding economic theories here and he suggested that only the United Party knew anything about them. He said that we must remember that we were an exporting country and a gold-producing country and that we must ensure that production costs and living costs were not increased. For this reason he said that a Bill of this nature was a pernicious measure because import control might well result in increased living costs. But nobody has ever said that this Government wants to make use of import control to build up new industries which will market goods at very competitive prices. It is nonsensical to suggest anything of that nature. The hon. member ought to know that any government that deliberately took steps in South Africa to increase the cost of living in this country and particularly to increase the production costs of the gold mines, would be cutting South Africa’s throat economically, and the National Party Government would certainly not do that. Hon. members read something into this Bill that is not there. It is not the intention of this Government to do anything of that kind. Every government in the world will take steps to protect itself in times of emergency. Take the position about two years ago. The foreign exchange position of the country was completely sound, but three years after that it deteriorated considerably as a result of crises which had arisen in the international sphere. It was at that time that hon. members of the Opposition predicted that within three months we would be bankrupt and would have to devalue. If those emergency regulations had not been in existence then in terms of which import control could be strictly applied, as well as financial measures to protect our foreign exchange, what would have happened? One always needs a measure of this nature. Parliament is only in session for six months of the year and a crisis may arise very suddenly. We see this happening abroad daily. There were reports in an American periodical recently intimating that if the effect of that country’s Budget was what many people in America predict it will be, they will be forced off their gold price policy. We see these same reports in connection with England. These are all factors which show that the Governments in those countries, just like our Government, need measures of this nature. If it suddenly becomes necessary to do something, one cannot waste even a few weeks or months in convening Parliament to have these measures passed. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister is introducing this measure so that we will be able to have a permanent law on our Statute Book as a safety valve to ensure the protection of our country’s foreign exchange and its economy, and to avoid panic in the event of a crisis because we will then have the power to take counter measures immediately.

I must say I am very surprised at the speeches of the hon. the Deputy Minister and of hon. members opposite on this Bill. It is the first time that we on this side of the House and the country have heard such expressions as “this legislation is permanently required”, by the hon. the Deputy Minister; “that it must be a permanent part of our economic structure”, by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever). This is a concept that is contrary to everything that has been said inside and outside this House over the past 24 years in regard to import control. We know that there is a conflict between the different sectors of business in this country. There is a conflict between industry and commerce, for example, as to whether import control is required, and how it should be applied, but both industry and commerce, throughout the years that import control has been part of the law of this country, have regarded it as a temporary measure. I am sure the Minister and the Deputy Minister will be the first to agree that in every discussion with commerce and industry the whole basis has been that it is a temporary measure. But to-night we hear for the first time that here is something permanent.

Where did I say that? I never said that.

The hon. the Deputy Minister said so in his opening address, and also the hon. member for Pretoria (Central).

I said there should be a permanent measure on the Statute Book.

The hon. member wants us to legislate for all sorts of things that might happen in future. I can give him a list of 50 things that might happen in the next 25 years, but does he want us to legislate for all of them now? But now we are not using controls only for imports, but also for exports, to adjust our position in regard to countries that boycott us, and this is an entirely new concept, because the whole idea of import control was brought into being to protect our foreign exchange. That was the basis on which we worked for years and we on this side of the House agreed that import control was necessary provided that was the basis of it. The hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) has pointed out that on our current account we have had a surplus of exchange for many years now. The problem has been in regard to our capital position. There have been more outgoings of capital than incomings. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to reply to one simple question. Let us assume, and hope, that over the next year or two the capital position will change; that confidence will be restored in the Republic and that capital will flow into this country to a greater extent than it goes out, so that we will have the position of having a surplus on our capital account, and also on our current account; and let us assume that this position persists for a reasonable period, and that it is no flash in the pan. Then what is the policy of the Minister in regard to import control? Does he intend to abolish it, or does he intend to continue it despite the fact that we have more money coming in than is going out? [Interjections.]

The second most amazing thing to-night is the lack of knowledge the Deputy Minister reveals about what is going on in his own Department. Now that he is bringing in permanent legislation, is the Minister satisfied that import control is working as it should? The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) has raised certain matters. I want to raise them in a different manner and ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether import control is working.

The first question that was dealt with by the hon. member for Durban (Point) was the question of firms, previously large importers, which are to-day in effect not importing for their own requirements. Let us not get hot under the collar. There are no allegations against anyone or any suggestion that anything that is being done is unlawful. But what is happening is this, and I am quite sure that the Minister and the Deputy Minister are well aware of the fact, because they have a problem which as far as I can see they cannot solve. I am not blaming them, but the position is this. A firm has been in existence for many years and has a large number of permits, issued according to the formula used by the Department. Up and coming young firms create a situation where the old and large established firms find their turnover going down, and they cannot use their permits for their own direct business. There is nothing to stop those people from becoming importers. The Minister cannot stop them from importing for other people. There is nothing wrong in it. I do not want the idea to be created that there is a slur being cast on anyone’s character. It is a normal business procedure. But what is happening is this, that the younger firms, particularly on the manufacturing side, who want to get permits and cannot get them because of their short history, then have to go to the firms which have a surplus of permits and ask them to be their importers. They agree to import and when the goods arrive they sell them to the younger firms. The problem that arises is this. You have firms getting permits they do not need, and you have firms which do not get the permits they need, and the bridge we have to try to cross is, that where a firm is buying goods, using its permits to sell to another firm, then that firm should be able to buy the goods direct. I say that where no question of agencies is involved, that firm should be able to import the goods direct.

I will give an example of what happened four or five years ago. There was an industry which was growing very rapidly and it found that it was not obtaining sufficient permits, so they went to an importer of this particular product and said: Will you buy for me and I will buy from you? The goods were then imported and the manufacturers took them over. This industry found that it was costing them 8 to 10 per cent more because they had to have their raw materials imported by other firms. So they went to import control and told them the story, and the reply of the Controller was the correct one. He said: I will give you the permits you require provided you will give an undertaking to stop getting other importers to buy for you when they really do not need the imports for themselves. That was arranged, and it was adhered to, and the result was that there was a drop in the cost of production of the products of this particular industry. Sir, it is a very difficult problem and I do not know how the Minister will get over it, because what is being done is all above board, but I would like the Minister to tell us whether he thinks it is satisfactory.

There is another matter I wish to raise. There are many firms who to-day are in fact only shells. They have an office and almost their sole business has become that of an importer, whereas basically their permits were granted so that they should buy and sell. There are companies changing hands to-day merely because they have permits. I am not criticizing the Minister. I do not know the answer, and I do not know how we will stop it, but that is what is going on and it is pushing up prices, and it is denying to the legitimate importers the right to permits which are being obtained to-day by people who should long have ceased to obtain them. A permit has a commercial value—not from the point of view of trafficking in permits, but if you have a permit you can import for someone else and make a profit. It may be that the view of the Minister is that it is not legitimate to interfere with a man’s business if he has been in business for so many years, and even if he does not want the goods for his own use he must still be allowed to import them. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister will tell us what the position is.

Another point is this. We know that to-day the manufacturer is really given whatever permits he wants. He is well looked after. I know from personal experience that if one is a manufacturer one can get the permits one requires, but it seems to me that an enormous amount of work is being done by the manufacturer unnecessarily when he is using what I might call a specific permit. In other words, if a manufacturer manufactures—let us say— maces and his sole occupation is to manufacture maces, and his permit is for maces, why say to the manufacturer that he must apply for a permit every month? There is nothing else he can do with that permit, except manufacture maces for the Transkei and Zululand, etc. Why not simply give him an open permit restricted to the commodities he needs? It will save import control trouble, and also the manufacturer. He has to give his figures every month and take stock every month to be able to apply for his permits, and it is not necessary because he can do nothing else with those permits. If you have a permit for producing maces, you cannot use it to produce ladies’ stockings. So it seems to me quite unnecessary that this manufacturer should have to apply for a specific permit 12 times a year to enable him to keep six months’ stock on hand.

I do not think that position has been changed, but I hope the Minister will tell us whether provision has been made for fluctuations in seasonal trade in regard to this six months’ stock one is allowed to accumulate; because if you work on a six months’ basis you provide in the fat period for the lean period and one does not build up stocks unnecessarily, because the Minister knows that to maintain stocks is an expensive business.

I think a little more attention might be given to the new business man. It is true that permits can be obtained by people starting in business for the first time, but there are many businesses which are started and in regard to which some imported goods can make all the difference. We are not dealing with huge organizations in commerce and industry now, but with the little man. I know the little man can apply, but I think it should be made known to the people concerned that they can get permits.

Another thing is this. When you go to the Controller for a permit, he asks you whether any of the components you want to import are manufactured locally, and if you say “no” you get your permit. If you say that certain components are manufactured locally you cannot get an import permit. The difference between the imported price of a product and the difference between the quality of an imported product, as compared with the price and quality of the local product, is sometimes enormous, and there is no doubt that many local manufacturers are being supported by import control, which is not to the benefit of the country. We all agree that whatever assistance can be given to allow virile and well-run businesses to prosper should be given, but when other sectors of the economy have to suffer because a manufacturer producing a poor article at an expensive price is being protected, that policy is wrong. All of us who are in business have found from time to time that where import permits have been available to the importer of a particular product which is being protected locally the imported product is often better and cheaper. But it has another effect, namely that the local manufacturer begins to see to it that his product is as good and as cheap as the imported one. In other words, he begins to do a job of work instead of saying that he has the Minister behind him to protect him. I think that where a case can be made out for the importation of goods, even though they may compete with the local product, more attention should be given to that aspect of it. I know that in many cases you can get a permit if you explain the position, but I do not think we go far enough.

Another matter is that in regard to permits, orders have to be placed by the end of December and shipments made by 31 March, but the Minister will know that in many instances shipment is delayed by the overseas supplier. You can place an order any time from July to October and find that the goods have not been shipped by 31 March for various reasons, and I hope that in such cases sympathetic treatment will always be given. It is no use saying that you must use next year’s permit because your whole operation is put out of gear.

Another matter which we in the Transvaal do not feel very deeply about, but which I know industrialists and manufacturers in other parts of the country feel deeply about, is the fact that all applications for permits have to go to Pretoria. If the manufacturer in Cape Town wants to see the Controller, he has to go to Pretoria. The Minister will know that when you go to the office of the Import Control in Pretoria you meet people there from all over the country. Does the Minister not think, now that this is to be permanent legislation, that something should be done to enable the manufacturer who does not live on the Rand to have his needs attended to without having to go to Pretoria? Sir, I know you can write letters and perhaps in 99 per cent of cases the manufacturer can put his problems to the Controller by correspondence, but consideration should be given to that 1 per cent of cases.

I think that now that we are changing the form of the law from a war measure to permanent legislation, the Minister should make a complete survey of what is going on. Import control has been going on for 24 years. It differs very little to-day from what it was many years ago, but there is much room for improvement. I am not criticizing the people who administer import control. They do their best within the limit of their authority. They are always available and helpful, but there are some problems which have shown their ugly heads over a period of years and which perhaps should now enjoy the attention of the hon. the Minister and his Department.

Mr. Speaker, whenever Bills of an economic nature such as this come up in the House, it is always very difficult to get them debated in a reasonable manner. Speaker after speaker on this side of the House has got up and made out a reasonable case, but we have had just two speeches from the opposite side. I want to mention the hon. member for Pretoria (Central), who is not here now, and I want to say that he put our case perfectly. He is obviously in favour of the removal of import control as soon as possible, but then he thanks the Minister for introducing legislation which will perpetuate import control. We all know how import control was forced on us. We all know the arguments and the discussions that went on and the points of view put by commerce on the one hand and industry on the other hand. We now that certain industrialists said that the removal of import control would cause hardship and possibly unemployment. There is no question about it that in many cases to-day those claims are being used to provide an excuse to keep inefficient industry going. In addition, as was mentioned by previous speakers, there is a lot of talk about trafficking in permits. As far as I know, that is quite legal, but I think it is undesirable, and the position should not have arisen. I cannot see that it is fair that an old-established business should be helped by these regulations against an up-and-coming new business by means of import control. It is the view of commerce that these industries which are inefficient are pushing up the cost of living, and there is a lot to be said for that. It is continually being denied by the Minister that import control is intended to be used as a protective device for industry in this country. Ministers have said, and we all agree, that the correct method of protecting industry is by making the normal application to the Board of Trade, and if the application is warranted they will receive the protection that the Board of Trade recommends to the Minister, through the normal method of protective tariffs. I have not heard in my experience of any industry which has put up a reasonable case to the Board of Trade that has been refused assistance in establishing itself. Import control was never intended to protect inefficient industries, and this has been stated by the Government over and over again until to-night when, if I can believe my ears, I thought I heard the Minister say that he now wanted to perpetuate it. He could not see how, for the forseeable future, there would be any possibility of removing import control. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van der Heever)—I will not even deal with the hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha), because he gave us incorrect information—who after all is a senior member of this House, reversed all the previous statements made in regard to import control by stating that he wanted it firmly entrenched in our legislation. I think that is a most extraordinary statement. I realize that he has to support his Minister, but those of us who have some inkling of these matters realize that under present conditions we cannot eliminate import control completely. Our case was stated by the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje), that we do not want it entrenched in any form of legislation. We ask that it should be regarded as something temporary, as something which is unfortunately necessary but which should be got rid of as soon as possible. Although certain control is applied all over the world, there is no question about it that import control acts as a stopper on the even flow of trade, and it is something which should be got rid of as soon as possible, instead of being entrenched in law. It ties up with our currency difficulties, and those currency difficulties were caused and are being perpetuated by the policies of this Government, and because of those policies import control cannot be removed entirely. As the hon. member for Jeppes pointed out, we are one of the few countries in the world with a favourable balance of trade, and yet nearly 20 years after the war we still have to keep import control in force, together with the very drastic currency restrictions from which we suffer. My main objection to the maintenance of import control is that no matter what anyone says it is bound to increase the country’s cost structure. Nothing can slop that, and as our main export is gold, which has a fixed price, any increase in our cost structure must bring about inflation, which leads to increased costs to the mines, and we all know what that means. It will be remembered that during the Budget debate the Minister of Finance was forced to admit that an increase of 25 cents per ton in the production costs of the mines would cost the country something in the neighbourhood of R300,000,000 in the form of gold which could not be produced. Any measure such as this which seeks to entrench import control must be opposed strenuously. I repeat that it will lead to inflation, and I know personally that it is keeping inefficient industries in existence. I say that our object in this House should be to work together to remove import control as soon as possible. I must repeat my surprise that a measure like this is being introduced to perpetuate import control and it is something to which we should not agree. [Interjections.] I hope the Minister will accept these amendments of ours which are only intended to keep the removal of import control within the hands of Parliament.

After having listened to various speakers on the other side I can only conclude that in the first instance they are not at all acquainted with the true nature of our economy. In the second instance they are heading in the direction of advocating a policy of laissez-faire. Nothing else will satisfy them than that all forms of control over imports should be done away with completely and a policy of laissez-faire followed. That is after all what the Opposition is advocating here this evening and they advocate it well knowing that we are one of the countries importing most goods. I think I am right in saying that we import goods to the value of one-third of our national income. In any case, we are one of the countries importing most goods. That is why it ought to be obvious that it is necessary for us to resort to the type of measure that we are dealing with now. It does not place a damper on the initiative of businessmen at all. On the contrary, it offers businessmen protection in business and industrial development.

If the policy advocated by hon. members opposite were to be applied, we would be helping to ruin our eonomy and thus completely destroy the interests of those persons for whom they are pleading here this evening. It appears to me as though they are not acquainted with the fact that we are one of the countries which, on a pro rata basis, imports most goods, and that under these circumstances it is absolutely essential for the Minister to have the powers for which he asks. After all, the fact of the matter is that although there are times when steps can be taken to promote imports, there are other times when it becomes necessary to apply the brake—everything depends upon the circumstances prevailing. All that the hon. the Minister is asking here is for certain powers that he will be able to use in the interests of the country. I simply cannot associate myself with the Opposition and their propagation of a policy of laissez-faire. Our economy has long passed that stage. We have become the giant of Africa precisely as a result of the application of a sound system of control where necessary. After all, that is all that the hon. the Minister is asking for in this Bill; but now we are told that all sorts of liberties are being restricted! According to the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross), the Opposition knows all there is to know about economics; they are the only ones who can judge whether a measure is sound or not. I do not want to test their attitude in this respect against their past—that is sufficiently well known. The fact remains that it is measures of this kind which have brought our economy to the stage it has reached to-day— the strongest on the continent of Africa.

I am amazed at the conclusion to which the hon. member for Mayfair (Dr. Luttig) has just come. He knows very well that this particular measure was a wartime measure introduced during a time of great difficulty when the country was being severely strained. He also knows very well that it was reviewed from year to year by the previous Government during the immediate postwar years when that Government was still in power. Since that time, however, our economy has developed to an amazing extent. The very fact that our economy has developed to such an extent, should be one of the most important reasons—as the Minister in fact has said from time to time—to lessen the restrictions on import control…. [Interjections.] There has so far been such a lack of interest on the part of speakers on the Government side, that one can hope that the hon. member who interjected just now will stand up and speak to this measure. Apart from one hon. member on the Government side who spoke for five minutes during which he came to the most extraordinary conclusions, no member on the Government side has shown any interest—perhaps because this measure deals with an economic problem in which hon. members opposite, it being a bread and butter matter, do not show much interest. That is to be deprecated. That is why I hope that the interjector will take part in this debate instead of trying by interjections to introduce red herrings into the debate.

If you are against the measure, why do you not vote against it?

Other members on this side have already indicated that we are prepared to support this measure because we realize that the Government is experiencing certain difficulties. We accept that it has certain temporary difficulties and therefore we are prepared to support it as regards this Bill but we ask the hon. the Minister to take into account his own viewpoint in the matter, namely that even if it is translated into law, its use should be temporary because it should be brought to an end as soon as possible.

Let me give the hon. the Minister some examples of the liberalization of import control. There is, for instance, Japan, a country which had to build up its economy after a great defeat. In the departmental publication Commerce and Industry the public of South Africa are being advised that the rate of liberalization of imports in Japan had reached 88 per cent by 1 October 1962. Let me give another example of Government publicity. In the issues of this publication for December, January and February, the public were given details of the trade of various countries with a view to encouraging different avenues of export for South Africa. If one looks at these countries, one finds that most of them are countries where import control does not exist. In the few cases where it does exist, it exists only in respect of very few items. Let me give examples. South African exporters are encouraged to export to the Fiji Islands for instance because—

Let me mention a country such as Greece where—

Quite a number of further instances can be extracted from these very publications I have mentioned—examples of where commerce and industries are encouraged to export to certain other countries particularly because those countries have no import control.

But where would we be if the rest of the world joined us in our policy in regard to import control and that to protect what? Is it to protect our industries? Will the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us whether he is not using protective tariffs in order to protect our industries? And that import control will not be used for that purpose? To my mind, import control is obviously being used here to support our foreign exchange and our reserves. If we are going to build up our economy on the strength of these artificial measures, measures which are becoming somewhat archaic in the light of world economic trends, then in the final result a disservice will be rendered to this country because our economy will be built on a very unstable structure. We have resorted to import control but we have year after year criticized the necessity of extending it. We have, however, accepted the assurances that it was necessary. What we ask here is that any further extensions should be at the behest of Parliament and not in the discretion of a bureaucracy like the Cabinet.

Let me give a simple example of how new enterprise is being restricted in this country. I believe that it is important that if a new enterprise can show that it can contribute to the lowering of prices and to the improvement of quality, if it can show that by the importation of sufficient raw material it can make a contribution to our national income, such an enterprise should be given an import permit. A tendency has grown up in certain directions that certain industries are building up a monopoly as a result of the difficulty of getting import permits. This should not be allowed. That is something on which any administration should frown. It is all very well for the hon. member for Mayfair to decry the principle of laissez-faire. He should realize that for the internal economy of the country laissez-faire is a very important principle. If we are to encourage the continual development of new industries, then surely if we can have the raw materials but not the technicians, we should not do anything to prevent us getting the benefit of such technicians in order to translate our raw materials into exportable goods.

Let me put before the Minister another point of view. If we are to increase our exports, we have to make our prices and quality competitive. In order to develop their export trade on a competitive basis, other countries have ensured an enlarged consumer market. One of the greatest difficulties from which this country suffers is that the rate of progress in our consumer market is very very slow indeed. This is not an original thought either because industrialists and mining magnates have drawn attention on more than one occasion to the importance of improving our consumer market. Industrialists can tell the Minister that if the internal consumer market were greater, we would produce a better quality article at lower cost—the demand and consumption will then be so much greater. That would then enable this country to export on a much more competitive basis and instead of restricting imports would be in a position to expand exports to a greater extent than has been done in this country over many years. It is all very well to rely on gold, diamonds and other base minerals. We know that through an improvement in grade and by an increase in tonnage, the quantity of gold can be increased phenomenally at any time. It is only the question of ensuring the life of mines which acts as a brake in this respect. So any increase in exports of these minerals is in a sense a false basis on which to build up a stable economy for South Africa. The soundest basis on which we could establish our economy is to increase the export of goods produced by the industries of our country. That we can only do when we can compete on a competitive basis on world markets. What will happen, for instance, if we join the Common Market? As a matter of fact, this is something the Minister is very keen on, and I do not blame him for that because it will create opportunities for other countries to increase their imports from us. But in order for that to happen, we have got to be more competitive both as regards quality and price of our products. Protective tariffs will become a very important aspect; we cannot hide behind protective tariffs for the protection of our industries.

I can mention a number of industries which could with an enlarged consumer market be put on a basis where their exports can be increased tremendously. Because they have the goods. We are losing markets in Africa and we are consequently forced to look for markets elsewhere. Let us not delude ourselves with an economy which is based on one or two articles only which we can control just as we wish.

Our object from this side of the House is not to deny to the Minister the powers he is seeking here, but our object is to appeal to him to appreciate—which I am sure he does because we have a high regard for him; he knows his subject—the necessity, as he himself has stated from time to time, of bringing to an end something which every other country is doing everything in its power to remove as soon as possible. I was amazed when an hon. member on the Government side had the temerity to suggest that the U.S.A. had import control. That indicates the strength shown by speakers opposite in their response to the points of view of the Opposition. Instead of relying on the very brief address with which he introduced this measure, the hon. the Deputy Minister should be a little more expansive and answer some of the questions which we have put to him: he should give us some indication of the policy of the Government with regard to import control and what his object is in maintaining a strict import control under which a considerable number of business people in this country is suffering. If one could get more information on this question, one would perhaps be in a position to form a better appreciation of what is intended and perhaps even understand a little more of the intentions of the Government in this regard. Then it might not be necessary to subject it to the stringent criticism to which it has been subjected this evening. It is not a question of our being the only people who know all the answers economically, but more a question of our bringing constructive points of criticism to the notice of the hon. the Deputy Minister which we feel he should deal with not only to satisfy us as an Opposition, but also the country. We are concerned with the country and with the future of the economic life of the country. Our industrial and commercial entrepreneurs should know a little more of what the Government’s intentions are instead of facing the Government on more than one occasion with criticisms of import control, criticisms which we know in many cases to be unfounded because they themselves are caught up in the cogs of this machinery. If the Minister takes the public into his confidence, however, and tells them a little more than has been done hitherto, it will lead to a much healthier appreciation of the Government’s policy and also perhaps to a much more healthier attitude in their approach to various undertakings and in the final analysis to an improved basis for the economic life of South Africa.

First of all, I should like to deal with what has been said by the hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. Luttig). He suggested that because we criticized import control we were not in favour of protecting our industries. That is not so, Mr. Speaker. I should like to remind the hon. member in this connection that both the Minister and the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs have on previous occasions said that it was not the policy of the Government to use import control as a weapon for protecting our industries. They made that clear from time to time.

But we are a member of G.A.T.T.

We support that point of view because we do not feel that import control should be used as a means of protecting industries. For that there are other means, for instance the orthodox method of protection through tariffs. Both the Minister and his Deputy will agree that protective tariffs afford the best means for protecting our industries.

The discussion so far has had the effect of focusing the Minister’s attention on his Department. I think it is as well that we did ventilate this question of the administration of import control. But by “ventilation” I do not mean criticism of the staff, because wherever difficulties were brought to their attention, they managed eventually to unravel them and sometimes they did take a lot of unravelling! I noticed that the hon. the Deputy Minister got indignant while the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) spoke about dealing in permits. I am sorry to see that the hon. the Deputy Minister did not know anything about this matter but I think he will, on reflection, realize that here there is a case for an inquiry. I accordingly hope that he will seriously consider the appointment of either a commission or a departmental committee to go into the whole question of the administration of imports and exports. I submit that this has always been regarded as a temporary administration; import and export control has always been regarded as a temporary measure. Now, however, it seems to have become a permanent measure. The machinery created for it has grown while there has been no decentralization. One hon. member from this side has made the suggestion that there be a certain amount of decentralization. That might be difficult but nevertheless contains some merit. The continual trips to Pretoria, travelling costs, hotel bills, time taken in lunches and discussions— all add to the cost structure for which somebody has to pay.

What is happening to-day is this—I say this in support of the point made by the hon. member for Durban (Point): You have a small energetic agent who may have an import permit for direct import of goods to the value of, say, R5,000 per annum. He gets that permit legitimately after due consideration has been given to the necessity of encouraging new business. The Department has gone into all the details of his case and decided to give him this permit for R5,000. But say for instance that in the second year of his existence as a businessman he finds that the R5,000 is sufficient only for the first three or four months. He will then go to the Department and ask for a further allocation, but the Department, quite rightly, will say that he cannot get a further allocation because imports are restricted. Perhaps they give him a further allocation of R2,000. The agent, however, is dissatisfied. So what is he going to do? He is not going to let it rest there. He will search about for large wholesale houses having in mind that he holds an agency for a very good line. He may come across a wholesale house with, say, 10 departments which has made out a legitimate case for import permits on the 1959-60 basis to the value of, say, R100,000 per annum. Between 1959-60 and the present time, however, three or four of the departments of that wholesale house may have been closed down without a corresponding reduction in the value of its permits. Those are still available in full. So this newly established agent who cannot get permits, will go to this wholesale house and say that he has got an order which he cannot import because he has no permits. The wholesale house might then say to him that they have the permits and that they will import the stuff. They proceed to import it, hand over the documents to the agent who hands them over to his new customer. All the original wholesaler does is to endorse the documents for which he gets 10 per cent. This dealing in permits is in fact going on; it is going on every day; and if the hon. the Deputy Minister does not know about it, then there is all the more justification for an inquiry. The Minister will find this going on in every city of South Africa. I hope he will not deny it. If he says that should be encouraged, then I say that that is putting up the cost structure. I have no quarrel with a merchant who is a genuine importer and who finances a transaction; but where such merchant performs no service other than endorsing documents for which he gets 10 per cent, an unhealthy state of affairs is created. With that, I think, the Minister will agree. But in fact this state of affairs flourishes when there is a shortage of import permits and not when there is a surplus, because when there is a surplus the commission the wholesaler gets out of it may be as low as 2\ per cent. But that such a state of affairs does obtain is known to about everybody in the commercial world. The suggestion has been made that that is legal and the Minister says that if he knows about a case, he will stop it. But he will be surprised if he institutes an inquiry.

I am not suggesting that import permits should be stopped, but I do suggest that there is room for inquiry to see whether the entire import control machinery cannot be placed on a better basis. As it is, some large wholesale houses although they have gone out of business, are kept going just to cover the expenses of younger and progressing organizations. I do hone that the Minister will agree to make enauiries into the matter. Such an enquiry should, first of all, consider the question of raw materials. Raw materials for industries are given generous treatment by the Department. This, however, is done on a yearly basis only. In planning industry, it is a common feature that provision has to be made for a longer period than 12 months. The Minister should, therefore, consider whether the time has not come to require industries particularly those contributing to South Africa’s export market, to give an indication of their requirements a few years ahead, especially after they have proved that they are here to stay.

A further aspect such an inquiry can deal with is partly processed materials. The Minister knows that industries have grown up in South Africa which import partly processed goods. To this they then add South African raw materials and skill. With the course of time the percentage of the latter has increased. Here, too, I suggest there is justification for considering a longer period than 12 months. The export market is a competitive one: and as the Minister will know, it is not an easy one. There should be a review of the A and B list. The inquiry should cover this point. Evidence should be obtained from commerce and industries to see to what extent this list is still a practicable one in the light of present world conditions. That list was formulated, after all, some considerable time ago. I think it was last reviewed in 1959-60. I suggest that in view of the new industries which have been established in this country and in the light of new developments, that list should be carefully reviewed.

I also suggest that the yearly basis for the allocation of permits should be very carefully considered. Under present conditions orders placed at the end of December have to be executed and shipped by the end of March. It is not always practicable to take the end of March as a suitable shipping period. In this respect there should be a certain measure of elasticity. For certain seasonal types of business the end of March might not be a suitable shipping date. Here I have in mind goods to be shipped from Canada. If Canada experiences a late winter, it is quite possible that goods cannot be shipped on account of the fact that the Saint Lawrence River is frozen. Similarly, each type of business has special circumstances which have to be taken into consideration. I suggest, therefore, that consideration be given to the yearly basis for the validity of import permits.

As regards the question of dealing in permits with which I dealt earlier on, I suggest that it should be clarified. Many firms regard the dealing in permits as illegal and they fear that if they do so, they will have their other permits cancelled. Other firms, however, quite blandly say that it is legal. They argued that they got their permits legitimately and that they are entitled to the ten per cent out of consideration for the risk they take. That may or may not be a legitimate argument, but there is necessity for clarification. It may be the Department’s attitude that all dealing in permits is illegal. I do not know. Therefore I think the position should be clarified beyond doubt so that if it is illegal the whole commercial world should know and if not the question arises of what is a reasonable margin? Is it ten per cent, or 20 per cent?

Finally I suggest that this committee of inquiry should go into the question of the allocation of permits for new businesses. I hope South Africa will always be a country where young men can go into business on their own and start new ventures. It will be a sorry day for South Africa if we do not have any more young men prepared to venture, it is, however, very difficult for them to do so. It is easier for established businesses to hang on to the permits they have got. Some of these businesses got their permits in earlier years but their business have been stifled by new businesses to such an extent that they have to make use of the ten per cent commission in order to remain in business.

I hope the Minister will not regard this discussion as destructive. It is a constructive effort on our part in an endeavour to show that while the Minister is coming with a Bill to provide for import and export control, there is justification for an examination of the whole structure of the system. It should be brought up to date so as to free itself from criticism.

During the course of this debate in which we are asking to place on the Statute Book in the form of legislation something which already exists by way of regulation, quite a number of matters have been discussed affecting our import policy generally, matters to which I shall try to reply as far as possible. I want to say immediately that right from the beginning a dummy has been set up here by most of the hon. members opposite which they try to knock down again. Because we have introduced legislation to replace the regulations, they assume that that is tantamount to our intimating that import control is there as a permanent institution and that that is the policy of the Government. There is absolutely nothing in what I have said or in the mere fact of the regulations being put on the Statute Book in this form which can serve as justification for such an inference. The fact is that it is the declared policy of this Government to replace by permanent legislation the war measures introduced by that side of the House. This is one of the things which still remained over. I said in my introductory speech that this was the reason for the introduction of this Bill—not that we regard it as a permanent policy which we will apply, but because it is a war measure, a legacy from that side of the House, which we want to place on the Statute Book. Now the inference has been drawn that this means that we are going to apply this as a permanent policy. Sir, hon. members opposite did not have the elementary conception to realize that to embody our import policy in an Act and the import policy one applies in terms of that Act are two completely different things. The power to do so is placed on the Statute Book permanently, but it depends on circumstances as to how the Government will apply it, and that basic difference was not appreciated by hon. members opposite.

It has always been the policy to adapt our import control to our balance of payments position. That is why appreciable relief has been granted from time to time.. Considerable relief was granted in the year 1958, I think. After that it was tightened up again and last year it was once more relaxed. This year the policy is. more liberal than it was in the past, just because our basic standpoint is: What does our balance of payments allow of? That is the standpoint we have adopted throughout in this regard.

The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) objected to this policy and said it was against all recognized principles. What he forgets is that what we are doing here is what we inherited from that side of the House. He asked how it would be applied. The fact is that it is now applied much more liberally than it was at the time when we inherited it. We now have fewer shortages than we had then. He referred to new businesses. We know that at the time when the Opposition applied these regulations there was hardly any room for any new businesses. To-day the position is different. We give the opportunity to any person to start a new business. We give him a basic import permit. I admit that it is a small one, but he can increase it every time he applies, which is twice a year. It depends on the South African materials he sells, and if he increases his total turnover additional permits are granted proportionately. We try as far as possible to apply basic principles in the implementation of this policy. I think that to a large extent we have succeeded, particularly when we consider the small percentage of representations made to the Minister or to the Department in regard to the application of the policy or the granting of additional permits. I need only point out that in 1961 import permits to the value of more than R 1,000 million were issued. There were objections to only a very small proportion of those permits issued. They concerned the limited list of luxury goods. They concerned the A group of luxury consumer goods not manufactured in this country; they concerned particularly the B group, which represents the goods that can be supplied in this country. It concerned only a very small percentage of the permits granted. The main objections were in that regard. The fact remains that this is a rule we apply because we have balance of payments problems. It is true that our reserves are appreciably larger than they were in 1961, but currency control was applied. That was one of the great factors which contributed to our currency position being as favourable as it is. The question still remains as to what can be done in this regard. That is why one cannot act recklessly. The argument is often used that it is as the result of our policy. But it is not only the Republic of South Africa which has balance of payments problems. Other countries also have them. The hon. member for Florida referred to Fiji and said that there is no import control there although there are restrictions on importations from the dollar countries. It is just because they have balance of payments that they apply those restrictions. We have no restrictions on imports from the dollar countries. We were one of the first countries in the sterling group to abolish that restriction. Australia has import control. We, it is true, cannot export certain types of goods to an unlimited extent to some countries. I do not want to mention the names now, although I can do so. There are countries in Europe to which we can export more of our goods, but there are quotas which apply. In America we have the same problem. The U.S.A. is at present experiencing balance of payments problems, and so are Canada and Britain. Balance of payments problems are things which come and go. Every country has those problems, but when South Africa has that problem there is only one reason for it, and that is the policy of the Nationalist Government.

The hon. member for Florida also said that we should expand our exports. We can expand our exports by stimulating our internal consumption. He said that when there is greater internal consumption we can export so much more easily. That is a proposition which can be accepted. Britain is also keen on joining the Common Market because it will give her the advantage of producing not only for herself but also for the Six. The Six now enjoy greater advantages than Britain when we take into consideration their mass production factor. All of us would like to increase our internal consumption. The hon. the Minister of Transport has increased Railway wages; he has thereon increased the purchasing power of the railwaymen. In the Public Service and other institutions salaries have been increased. We get that pattern of higher wages throughout, but it still remains the Government’s policy that productivity should be increased proportionately. There are, in fact, signs in industry that this is the case. It is the policy of the Government as far as possible to stimulate internal consumption. When we do that it places us on a more competitive basis with foreign countries.

The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) referred to undertakings which, as he said, “have established a legitimate case for import permits”. It is the policy throughout to investigate every application as thoroughly as possible. That is the reason for those questionnaires, but the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) now objects to those lengthy questionnaires. That list is however there to control the position. We try to ascertain what the bona fide claims of the person are. That is done in order to prevent persons with permits from obtaining goods to which they are not really entitled, or which they do not use. When one is dealing with such a large turnover, as I have already indicated, of over R 1,000 million, one must try to ascertain as far as possible what claim such a person has to a permit. It happens perhaps that certain people have unused permits. Now objections are raised and it is said that we are aware of the fact that there is trafficking in permits. I have pointed out to the hon. member for Durban (Point) that our standpoint as far as that is concerned is that there should be no trafficking in permits. We strongly disapprove of it. What is more, if any case comes to our notice inspectors are sent out to investigate the matter. If it appears that something like that is going on, the permits are reduced or withdrawn. We have no knowledge of any firm or firms which act in this way and against which action has not been taken by the Department. In other words we definitely deplore such action. That is why permits cannot be issued for four years in advance. We have already considered the suggestion of the hon. member for Pinelands. It will certainly save the Department a lot of trouble if we do so. but then we would really be creating the problem which the hon. member objects to. If one grants a permit to an entrepreneur for four years to import certain goods, the possibility exists that perhaps those goods may in the meantime become obtainable locally, and then he sits with an import permit far in excess of his needs. Then he has a surplus, which lends itself to the abuses the hon. member deplores.

I have tried to indicate that our policy is not that it should be there permanently; that we apply the policy with due regard to what our balance of payments position is. Now it is said that we should announce the policy earlier; we must state earlier what our import policy will be. It is, however, announced twice a year, usually in October-November, and the second announcement is usually made in May. Now we are told that we should do so earlier. But the problem is that it is not only my Department which determines it. The Treasury must be consulted and the Reserve Bank must see what our balance of payments position is. That is why it cannot be determined at will long before the time. We do it as soon as circumstances permit. When applying it regular consultations are held with the Chamber of Commerce, because it is particularly they who adopt the standpoint that more import permits should be granted. We have good relations with them; they state their case and wherever possible we meet them. The hon. member for Durban (Point) said that we must announce it earlier so that the importers may still have time to import the goods from overseas at “specially cheap prices”, as he said. That is just the problem. If we issue a permit so early that they can still dump the surplus of Europe’s supply here after the season is over there, then our own products must compete with it.

I was not referring to the B list.

No, the A list, goods which are available here. Goods which are not available here, viz. the A list, can practically enter freely. The objection of the hon. member for Durban (Point) is not to those goods in regard to which he himself says there was a 113 per cent increase over the previous year; his objection is to these cheap goods, these out-of-season goods, piece goods, materials. Those are the goods for which the hon. member pleaded. It is those goods the hon. member wants to enter the country to compete with our industries, those goods which are landed here so cheaply. It is difficult to apply import control. There is the conflict of interests between the people who just want to import goods here at any price….

Is the way of controlling that not by means of dumping duties, and not by way of import control?

The fact is that we do apply dumping duties. We apply it as soon as it comes to our notice, but it takes time to determine that there is in fact dumping taking place. It requires an investigation in a foreign country, and by the time the investigation is completed the goods have already been dumped and sold here. One cannot always control it effectively in that way. If I could effectively control it only by way of dumping duties, well and good, because it is the policy of the Government to combat it. I am referring specifically now to those goods which the hon. member for Durban (Point) said can be sold here at “specially cheap prices”.

The fact remains, Mr. Speaker, that it is no easy matter to apply import control. There are broad lines on which we work and which are applicable to everybody. The hon. member for Durban (Point) said it was only the large firms which are assisted. No, Sir, if any firm has a problem it is free to come to the Department and to the Minister. In that regard there is no distinction. I again emphasize that very few of them make use of it because they do not need to do so. It is our policy throughout to assist new industries in regard to raw materials. There is no problem in that regard. That is why since this Government came into power, and in spite of the fact that there was import control, we have had such great industrial development, because we could import the basic raw materials from overseas without imposing unnecessary restrictions. Even the largest firms make much less use of permits to-day than they did formerly, because they can obtain the goods locally. The standpoint stated by some hon. members opposite is that of some importers who are only too keen to import, but who do not want to make use of South African products. That is not a standpoint which is supported by the South African industrialists.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

Before I proceed to explain the provisions of the Bill, I should like just briefly to outline the background against which this measure must be viewed.

Thirty-six years have now elapsed since our principal diamond law, namely the Precious Stones Act of 1927, was placed on the Statute Book. At that time we were faced with overproduction. Discoveries had already been made in Namaqualand; greater discoveries in that area and in the Lichtenburg area were to follow, and with the slump which the diamond market had already experienced during the preceding years of depression, further price deterioration had to be guarded against assiduously.

The whole trend of the Diamond Act of 1927 was of a restrictive character therefore, and just the following year (in 1928), as one of the first steps to check production, a proclamation was promulgated under that Act, in terms of which prospecting for precious stones was forbidden on all unalienated State land throughout the country. The following year a further proclamation, No. 75 of 1929, was published placing a prohibition on prospecting for precious stones on all classes of land in the Namaqualand area. The prohibition was extended therefore to cover privately-owned land as well.

This step and other steps that were taken contributed a great deal towards bringing about order in a position which about four decades ago threatened to become chaotic. Demand and prices gradually improved again, and after the conclusion of World War II in particular there was such an unprecedented increase in the world demand for diamonds that in spite of increased production in practically every producing country it was impossible in most cases to meet the demand.

This increase in consumption is clearly demonstrated by the difference between the sales in 1935 and in 1962. In 1935 the value of the total sales by the Central Sales Organization was R 12,400,000 of which South Africa’s contribution was R5,800,000 or approximately 47.2 per cent. In 1962 the sales reached the record figure of R 192,500,000, of which South Africa was responsible for R36,400,000, or approximately 19 per cent.

We see therefore that the pendulum has now swung in the other direction. There has been a relative deterioration in South Africa’s position in the world market as a diamond-producing country from approximately 47 per cent in 1935 to approximately 19 per cent in 1962.

The Government therefore considers it desirable that steps should be taken to encourage diamond production in the Republic so as to stabilize the leading role that we play in the world diamond industry—particularly as far as marketing is concerned—and also to meet to a greater extent than is possible at the present time the requirements of the South African diamond cutting industry. This industry, which came into being with a great deal of assistance and encouragement from the authorities in the Republic, finds it difficult to cut and to market economically rough diamonds of a size smaller than 1 carat. Apart from that, the industry is also unable to obtain its full quota. In 1959 333,409 carats were provided to cutters and in 1962 the quantity dropped by 20,000 carats. By the middle of last year it reached a very low level.

In order to increase diamond production in the Republic legislation was therefore introduced in 1960 to provide, inter alia, for the granting of leases to prospect for precious stones on unalienated State land.

In terms of the relevant provisions, namely Section 21 of the Precious Stones Amendment Act, No. 12 of 1960, such prospecting leases may be granted to any person (including a company or partnership) who satisfies the Minister of Mines that the scheme in terms of which he proposes to prospect is satisfactory and either that his financial resources are adequate for proper prospecting under such a lease or that the arrangements by which he proposes to obtain capital for the said purposes are satisfactory.

An unexpected result of the passing of the 1960 legislation was that the Department of Mines was inundated with applications for prospecting leases (particularly in respect of certain pieces of unalienated State land in the Namaqualand area) and it soon became apparent that it would be an impossible task for the Department, with the existing machinery at its disposal, to choose between the large number of applicants (something like 2,000) on an equitable basis or to group them together in a few strong companies with any reasonable prospect of general satisfaction. In this connection, territorial, historical and even racial claims (in respect of the Coloured Reserves) come into the picture and it is considered advisable that the establishment or screening of these bodies should be entrusted to a body or bodies such as advisory committees, which it should be possible to constitute in such a way that they consist of people who are acquainted as far as possible with the claims (imaginary or otherwise) of the inhabitants of the relevant areas or of other applicants, as well as with the broader aspects of the diamond industry.

This measure therefore represents a departure from the previously announced intention to entrust the prospecting for and the development of precious stones on the relevant pieces of State land to some kind of State corporation. It was visualized at one stage that such a corporation would also take over the State diggings at Alexander Bay but having regard to the limited life of the diggings referred to as well as other considerations, such a takeover is no longer considered practicable. It also appears now that there is sufficient capital available from the private sector for the prospecting and development of the land in question so that it is not necessary to utilize State funds for this purpose via a State corporation.

The proposal embodied in the Bill which is now before the House therefore is to insert a new section, Section 21 bis, in the Precious Stones Amendment Act, 1960, which will enable the Minister of Mines to appoint at his discretion a committee or committees in respect of any piece or pieces of unalienated State land in the country to advise him in connection with the granting of prospecting leases for precious stones in respect of such lands [sub-section (1)].

Sub-section (2) deals with the term of office, the remuneration and the conditions of service of the members of the committee while subsection (3) provides that Members of Parliament and members of Provincial Councils shall not be members of such a committee. Furthermore, no person who has a direct or indirect interest in an application or tender for a prospecting lease shall be a member of a committee appointed in respect of the land to which the application or tender relates.

Sub-section (4) describes the object and the functions of the proposed committees while sub-section 5 provides for the temporary secondment of officers of the Department of Mines to such committees to assist them to carry out their functions.

Sub-section (6) makes it clear that such committees will not be concerned with the financial conditions and stipulations of prospecting leases and may not therefore interfere with the work of the Mining Leases Board. It is the function of the Mining Leases Board to lay down the terms applicable to any mining lease as well as the contributions to the State.

In terms of sub-section (7) the Minister may abolish such a committee if, in his opinion, its continued existence is no longer necessary.

It will be observed from sub-section (4) that these committees will not be acting in a purely advisory capacity, but that they will also be able to help positively with the establishment and/or amalgamation of companies to undertake prospecting activities on the relevant pieces of land.

There are something like 20 such pieces of unalienated State land situated in the divisions of Namaqualand and Van Rhynsdorp in respect of which the appointment of such a committee or such committees is visualized. These pieces of land, which include quite a number of Coloured reserves, comprise a total of more than 1,500,000 morgen, and, as I have mentioned already, a very large number of applications has been received in respect of these pieces of land.

It will be the duty of these committees to sift, to classify and to screen this vast number of interested parties and in particular to group them together and to establish from their ranks bodies or companies to the satisfaction of everybody (or with the greatest possible degree of satisfaction), with whom negotiations can then be entered into with a view to the granting of prospecting rights.

In this connection I want to emphasize that it is not the intention to dictate to such a committee how it should set about its task. I also want to make it clear that the Minister of Mines will not be bound legally by any recommendation of such a committee.

It will be observed that it is visualized in sub-section (4) that these rights will be granted to companies. Present-day prospecting costs are so high that any individual who tries to operate independently will have little success in undertaking prospecting on the relevant pieces of State land. In this connection I caused an estimate to be made by the management of the State diggings as to what it will cost to undertake proper prospecting operations on one of the relevant pieces of State land of average size, and it is estimated that it will cost from R 1,800,000 to R2,600,000, depending on how much time is devoted to the prospecting. That is what it is estimated it will cost to undertake prospecting operations on only one of the pieces of land in question and there are 20 such pieces altogether.

It must be fully realized also that diamond prospecting and development (particularly in such vast and relatively remote areas which have not been intensively investigated as yet) is a highly risky and speculative undertaking.

The Department of Mines cannot guarantee the presence of diamonds in payable quantities on any of the relevant pieces of land; as a matter of fact, in some cases we do not even have reason to believe that any diamonds at all will be found on this land, and rumours to the effect that great discoveries have been made in this, that or the other place, are usually found on closer examination to be exaggerated.

In conclusion may I just say that we fully realize that the committee or committees which are to be appointed are going to have an unenviable task. I would therefore ask the interested parties in advance to exercise a little patience and not to expect such a committee to come forward with a recommendation within a few days of its appointment. These committees will have to do very thorough work and deliberate very carefully and we would ask therefore that they be granted the necessary time to tackle and to carry out their difficult task with success.

It was very interesting indeed to listen to the story which the hon. the Deputy Minister of Mines has told the House this evening about the development of future diamond mines in South Africa. It is quite true that he knows quite a lot about the subject. This side of the House is not opposed to this Bill but we do feel that much more information should perhaps be given and that the Bill itself should undergo certain changes. The functions of the committee are defined in subclause (4) of the proposed new section. The functions which are disclosed there are general functions enjoining the committee to promote prospecting and to assist in establishing companies. In sub-clause (6) certain functions are reserved for the board. My difficulty is this that if you read the clause as it stands it gives no indication of any other functions such as are disclosed in Section 21 itself. I cannot understand why sub-section (6) removes certain functions when no functions at all are ascribed to this advisory committee save those indicated in sub-clause (4). What we should like to know is whether this advisory committee is to report to the Minister, whether it has any positive and operative function itself, whether it can initiate what it proposes to promote and whether it can assist in the formation of companies. We feel that the clause itself seems to indicate a certain vacuum unless the hon. the Deputy Minister can explain to us what the operative work of the advisory committee will be. Reading this clause as it stands one cannot read it, in my view, in conjunction with Section 21, because Section 21 prescribes the powers which the Minister himself has. All this clause does is to take certain administrative work in respect of the land described in Section 21 (1) (a) and put that under the control of the advisory committee whose functions seem to be circumspectly described in sub-clause (4). I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain why it has not been necessary to set out what actual operative functions this committee will have. Will it grant licences; will it arrange the terms of licences; what part will it play in the establishment of companies; will it advise the Minister or will it itself have some statutory functions whereby it can actually bring the new organization that it proposes to establish into life.