I move—

On behalf of this side of the House and particularly on behalf of the hon. members on this side of the House representing constituencies in Port Elizabeth it is a pleasure for us to be able to say that we wholeheartedly support the third reading of this Bill. We were very pleased that the hon. the Minister was prepared to accept certain amendments from this side of the House at the Committee Stage in order further to improve this legislation. In taking a step of this nature to establish this type of university, which is a new type of university, I believe that Parliament must succeed in obtaining the greatest measure of co-operation. I think that we as a House have succeeded in doing so.

It was stated repeatedly by hon. members opposite during the previous stages of this Bill that some of us on this side of the House were opposed to the principle of a dual-medium university. The hon. the Minister even went so far as to quote from a newspaper the statements made by some of us on this side and in doing so he sought to suggest that we were opposed to the Bill. Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would like to read to the hon. the Minister a paragraph or two from those statements from which he quoted but I want to read out what he did not quote. He simply read out the headlines appearing in the newspapers and said that this proved that we were opposed to the principle of this Bill. I would like to quote this paragraph to him—

In view of this statement I think that we have done the people a great service by directing their attention to the fact that this matter could possibly be dragged into the political arena. The report goes on to say—

That is the full statement; that is the full picture of the attitude of this side of the House. Nowhere in this statement will you find that the representatives representing Port Elizabeth on this side of the House had any objection to dual-medium education in South Africa. For that reason I want to repeat on behalf of this side of the House not only that we want to protect this new university, not only that we wish them every success but that it is also our task to help to protect every university in South Africa.

It was also our duty to protect the interests of Rhodes University in South Africa, particularly in the Eastern Province. We want to give them this assurance that we on this side of the House will do nothing to harm any university in South Africa, including Rhodes. We have too much respect for the institutions for higher education in South Africa because we know that our youth of the future must receive the training that they need in this modern scientific age. That is why this side of the House will do nothing to oppose any attempt to establish more institutions of this kind. Our primary duty, a duty that we have fulfilled in this case, is to try to improve legislation so that a new institution of this kind will have the opportunity of functioning successfully. We know that it will achieve that success because it enjoys general support. I want to conclude with a short quotation from two newspapers, one English-language newspaper and one Afrikaans-language newspaper. Both these reports dealt with the question of a university at Port Elizabeth. The reports did not appear during the discussion on this Bill but were published some months ago. I want to quote firstly from the Eastern Province Herald of 8 October which had this to say about the question of this university—

That was the opinion of an English-language newspaper in the Eastern Province. I also want to quote what was said by a leading member of the Port Elizabeth City Council in an interview with the Oosterlig, Mr. Adolph Schraeder is reported to have said on 7 October 1963 (translation)—

We agreed to make a success of it. With these few words I want to say that we on this side of the House also support this legislation wholeheartedly.

I want to express my thanks and appreciation to the Opposition for having supported the third reading of this Bill, which is the final stage, in this way, through the hon. member who has just sat down. But I cannot refrain from mentioning the political aspect which the hon. member brought to the fore, and strongly objecting to the fact that the hon. member intimated that this legislation was initiated and forced on people in a very high-handed manner. I also want to say very clearly that the political element which entered into the matter certainly did not emanate from me or my Department or from the supporters of the Government, but was dragged in by members of the Opposition parties. Having said that, I want to express my regret that this happened, because I want to agree with the hon. member who has just resumed his seat that this is not a matter which should have been dragged into politics. When we are dealing with higher education, or with any facet of education, it is a pity that party politics should play a role in it.

A request was made, and in my introductory speech I tried to explain that this request had been made early in the 1950s already, and that in Port Elizabeth voices were raised and requests made for the establishment of an independent university for at least the past 12 years. I also tried to explain that at one stage the requests by Rhodes for an extension of further faculties became so urgent, whilst the inhabitants of Port Elizabeth, as against that, were pleading for an independent university, the Government at the time appointed a committee to investigate the question of what should be done in the Eastern Cape in respect of university training. I also pointed out that eventually the Wilcocks Committee recommended that Rhodes should not be given a medical and/or engineering faculty. This request was, however, complied with to the extent that we said that until such time as an independent university was established in Port Elizabeth, Rhodes would be allowed to continue its classes there. When that was instituted in 1960 a serious warning was issued by the Government through the then Deputy Minister of Education, Arts and Science, that it should not now be regarded that the inhabitants of Port Elizabeth and its environs would now not be entitled to have their own university. When these requests were repeated recently, this urgent need was again submitted to the Cabinet on a departmental basis, and again not in the least on a political basis, and only after the investigations had been completed. Now the hon. member has admitted that politics were dragged into the matter and that Mr. Schraeder asked that politics should now be kept out of it. I just want to say that if politics entered into the matter, it did not come from the side of the Cabinet nor from me—I never took any notice of all the political agitation—and it did not come from the National Party either. There was never any quarrel even on the basis of Afrikaans-English; but in fact it came from people who play a prominent role in the organization of the United Party and of the Progressive Party, plus the two newspapers in Port Elizabeth, the Evening Post and the Eastern Province Herald. That is where these politics emanated from.

Now I am glad that hon. members opposite to-day feel as I do and say that it was an unpleasant struggle and an unnecessary one, and that they rejoice together with us because to-day we have come to the final stage and are saying: Port Elizabeth will now get the university for which they asked 12 years ago. They have proved that they are willing to put their hands deep into their pockets in order to bring it about.

I wish to conclude by saying that no experiment is going to be made here in connection with the question as to whether it is possible to establish a bilingual university. That proof has already been furnished, in as far as the universities are concerned. I am told, for example, that at the University of Stellenbosch more than 400 English-speaking students are being trained. They receive assistance. Although the official medium of that university is Afrikaans, any unilingual English-speaking student is enabled to complete his studies there and at the same time to become bilingual. I therefore say that at Port Elizabeth we are not going to conduct an experiment. The fear expressed here that it will not succeed and that sooner or later it will become an Afrikaans-medium university is quite unfounded, in my opinion, and at this stage it is also very impracticable and far from the truth. I predict that if there is mutual confidence, if there is a feeling of co-operation in respect of this matter, it will not be an experiment, but it will prove that it is possible in this country of ours for us to live together and stand together as one nation with two languages, and it will show that our bright youths who during their school careers attained a measure of bilingualism will in fact be able to follow all lectures and classes in either of the two languages.

Finally, I want to congratulate the people of Port Elizabeth and wish them every success, and I want to give them the assurance that what will be accomplished there will actually put the crown on what this side of the House will eventually have achieved, viz. the bringing about of real unity between the two groups.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

It is a pity that it has been necessary to come to Parliament with a Bill of this nature because the expenses in connection with the marketing of wool are already extremely high. Some people estimate these expenses to be as much as 10 per cent of the value of the clip. But it is necessary that the request which the wool farmers made to the Government through the medium of their organization should be acceded to by means of this Bill. The request of the wool farmers is based on the realization of certain facts. Firstly, apart from the value of the price of wool to the farmer himself, the farmers realize that wool is also of vital importance to the economy of the country and that for this reason every effort must be made to stabilize the wool industry, and not only to stabilize it but also to protect it, to build it up steadily and to allow it to expand. It is a fact that wool farmers not only in South Africa but throughout the world appreciate this important fact. That was why this report appeared in the Wool Farmer of October 1963—

In other words, he asked them to commit themselves to this high levy for the next five years because they also realize the value of wool and the price of wool to the economy of the country. We find a good indication of the value of wool and the importance of the wool industry to the economy of a country in a book by J. A. Henry which recently appeared entitled “The First Hundred Years of the Standard Bank”. This is a historical review of the Standard Bank over the past 100 years, up to 1963. In this book he points out that as early as in the first half of the nineteenth century, wool prices were called “the barometer of the country’s economy”. Throughout this particular book reference is made to the very important role which the wool industry and the price of wool play in every sphere of a country’s economy. Amongst other things Mr. Henry refers to the role played by wool and the influence that wool had on the country’s rates of exchange during the depression years from about 1860 to 1870. Amongst other things, Mr. Henry has this to say—

This proves the influence that wool prices have and had at that time on the economy of a country. When there is an improvement in wool prices it is also immediately reflected in an upsurge in that country’s economy. This entire work to which I have referred contains ample proof of the influence of wool on the economy, but I do not want to take up the time of the House any further in this connection. I say therefore that the wool farmers asked for this legislation because they are aware of the fact that the weal and woe of the country’s economy is very closely connected with the weal and the woe of the wool industry. They also realize that enormous amounts of money are spent by the manufacturers of artificial fibres in their competition against wool, in their striving to oust wool from the world market. Those concerned in the wool industry will have to put their shoulders to the wheel more and more in this struggle and more and more will have to be done in the sphere of research and advertising. They simply have no choice. Moreover the wool farmers realize the great danger that lies in the fact—as has already been said by the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo)—that in the manufacture of material in the world only about 10 per cent of wool is used. In other words, if such a small quantity of wool is used on the world market, the danger of its being completely ousted is so much greater. For example, synthetic fibres are already being used to the extent of about 22 per cent. The wool farmer also realizes that when the price of wool is as high as it is at the moment, it gives the manufacturers of synthetic fibres a golden opportunity to compete with wool and eventually to oust wool from the market.

Everything will therefore have to be thrown into the struggle to ensure that the wool industry continues to make progress. Research and advertising and more research and advertising are needed for this and such research and advertising cost a great deal of money. It is because that is so that the wool farmers have asked for this measure to be introduced. The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) has objected to the fact that there is no access to the accounts of the Wool Board. I accept that in this sphere there is tremendous scope for wasting money. In the nature of things the hon. member for East London (City) ought to know this. That is why it is necessary for us to know what is going on and how the money that is made available in this way is spent. One would not be so readily inclined to pay higher and higher levies if the money is being wasted. The hon. member for East London (City) says that there is no control whatsoever, but that is not true. On the contrary, the International Wool Secretariat frames its estimates every year. But apart from that the accounts and the financial statements of the Wool Board in this country are referred each year to the Select Committee on Public Accounts. These accounts are studied very carefully; they are thoroughly investigated and through the medium of the Select Committee on Public Accounts this House also has full control over this matter.

The accounts are also audited by the Controller and Auditor-General.

Precisely. The argument that there is no control over the manner in which this money is spent holds no water. It is because these funds are so necessary that I give my wholehearted support to this Bill.

It is with a certain amount of trepidation that I rise to participate in this debate because unfortunately I happen to be one of those people who know something about what is going on in the wool industry. As hon. members probably know, or perhaps do not know, I was the representative of the Wool Board in London for four years. I was responsible for the spending of the farmers’ money. On the other hand I am in the unfortunate position that as a wool farmer I now have to pay for the money which I spent in the old days. I can therefore give the House the assurance that I have an interest in this matter and that I am approaching it as objectively as I possibly can.

There is no doubt that wool as a fibre, as an export fibre, requires research and publicity as has correctly been said by hon. members on both sides of the House, particularly in view of the great programme of scientific research in connection with synthetic fibres and the tremendous propaganda which is being made for those synthetic fibres throughout the world. In other words, I as a wool farmer am not at all opposed to any form of expenditure that will ensure that wool prices remain as high as possible. It is not for that reason therefore that we oppose this levy. The criticism expressed by this side of the House was not directed against the levy as such; it was directed against the possibility of lack of control over the way in which the money is spent. One may be in favour of something, but one may nevertheless have one’s doubts as to whether the money is wisely spent. Although we are in favour of expenditure on research and advertising, we may nevertheless have certain misgivings about the results achieved through such expenditure.

In the first place I cannot help feeling, although I do not want to accuse anybody of improper conduct as far as the expenditure which the wool farmers have to incur in respect of their product is concerned, that the expenditure on research into the methods of production with a view to improving the quality of wool has been disproportionately low in comparison with the tremendous sums of money which are being spent on advertising wool as such. The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) has already pointed out that the best thing that we can do in South Africa is to increase our wool production. We are one of the few wool-producing countries in the world in which the production of wool has not risen sharply over the past ten years. As a wool farmer and as a man who I believe also knows something about agriculture, I cannot help feeling that there must be fairly great possibilities of increasing the production of wool considerably. If we can improve our techniques of production, if we can improve our processes of production, we ought to be able to increase our wool clip considerably. That is why I agree with the hon. member for East London (City) that to a large extent we have failed to provide the farmers with enough technical knowledge to enable them to increase their production. When we take some of our leading wool growers and we see the enormous amount of wool which they are already producing on a certain area in comparison with the production of the average wool grower, then I think we must all agree that the potential that we have to increase our wool production must be very high indeed. But this depends in the first place upon the Government and on the Department of Agricultural Technical Services which has to provide the farmers with more information in regard to the most economic and effective methods of wool production. Moreover, I think that the Wool Board is perhaps giving too little attention to this when we think of the large sums of money which are being spent in the world as a whole.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Is the hon. member aware of the fact that overgrazing and overcropping were practised in South Africa in the past and that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services recommended that farmers should first build up their land before increasing their flocks?

That is a very elementary question. It is possible to increase your production and at the same time to combat overcropping. One usually finds that good farmers who do not practise overcropping, who do not have an inferior grazing system, have a very much higher production. So the one does not exclude the other at all. I may say that although I am not a full-time farmer I have increased my own wool production considerably. I have greatly increased the carrying capacity of my own farm by following grazing methods which may perhaps not be followed by farmers generally. That knowledge ought to be disseminated more generally amongst the farmers. I am a particularly fortunate farmer because I studied agriculture and took B.Sc. (Agriculture), but I do not think that that knowledge which a few farmers have is available to farmers generally. I think the hon. member for Somerset East ought to realize that the one does not exclude the other at all. One can increase one’s wool production without practising overcropping and without having soil erosion.

There is of course another great change which has taken place and which hon. members opposite ignore. When I was a member of the Wool Secretariat each of the countries which at that time were dominions had a representative on the Wool Secretariat and to a certain extent those representatives had the special duty of ensuring that the money that was obtained from their particular dominions was used in the most economic way. To-day of course we do not even have a representative there. The South African Wool Board has no representative there. The hon. member for East London (City) has pointed out that we have been taken in tow by Australia, and as I know the Australians—I do not want to provoke an international incident—they will look after their own interests first, just as we would if we were in control of the Wool Secretariat. The hon. the Minister should not therefore lightly reject the criticism of somebody who over a longer period had a far more intimate knowledge of these matters than I had because I severed all my connections with the International Wool Secretariat as long ago as 1948. I still have a certain amount of interest in it but my interest to-day is that of a wool farmer. I do not mind paying the levy but then I want to know that the money will be used in the most effective way and I am afraid that under the present set-up the hon. the Minister does not have the control over this money that he ought to have. It does not help to say that there is an “audit” and that the accounts can be studied. It is not a question of irregular conduct in the spending of money; the test is whether the money is being used in the best possible way. We are not suggesting that the money is being used in an irregular way. The question still remains as to whether that money is being spent in the most effective way. I cannot help thinking that as far as wool is concerned, the emphasis should be placed more and more on research in order to increase and improve the volume and the quality of the wool produced in South Africa and also to improve the fibre. We are continually hearing of the tremendous sums of money which organizations like I.C.I. and Du Pont are spending on research, but the important difference is that their fibres require a great deal of research. Synthetic fibre cannot be made unless tremendous sums of money are spent on research. On the other hand, wool is a fantastic fibre. It has so many qualities that I personally doubt—and my authority for saying this is one of the leading experts on wool, Professor Speailman—whether a fibre can ever be made that can really compete with wool. Wool is such an intricate fibre and it has so many good qualities that synthetic fibre will never be a complete substitute for it. Artificial fibre may perhaps be more durable and water resistant—there is also a fibre that does not shrink—but artificial fibres will never be the ideal thing with which to clothe the human body. I should say that the emphasis ought to be placed on the production of better and more wool in the wool industry. I am not arguing with the hon. the Minister; it is simply a question as to where the emphasis should be placed and how the wool farmer can spend his money in the most economic way. I still think that the most economic use for that money is by way of research. In my opinion the emphasis is far too often placed on advertising and not sufficiently on research, particularly in South Africa.

Where do you get that from? [Interjections.]

If one studies the tremendous prosperity and the rising living standards throughout the world, I have no doubt that the future of wool in South Africa will always remain good whether it is advertised or not. I do not know why hon. members make such a fuss and say that the percentage of wool used in the manufacture of clothing is constantly decreasing. That is unavoidable, but the areas where wool can be produced in the world are not unlimited either. It is an extensive form of farming and the larger the world’s population becomes the smaller those areas will become and wool will become scarcer and scarcer. I do not think therefore that we should feel too anxious in this regard because the scarcer wool becomes the more expensive it will become and the more it will become a speciality fibre. The eventual price of wool will not depend on advertising as much as it will depend on how good a fibre it is in comparison with other fibres. When we see how little wool prices have fluctuated over the past 10 years in comparison with the pre-war period, we know that that is a sign that to a large extent the price of wool is to-day determined by the price of artificial fibres which are possible substitutes for wool, such as nylon and dacron. If the prices of those fibres drop, the price of wool too will inevitably drop. That is happening to-day. If the price of wool rises too high more mixtures are used but if the price of wool drops, the pure wool content of materials is higher. For that reason too I say that the emphasis in South Africa ought to be placed more on the production of a better fibre. The people abroad and we at our universities here must try to eliminate the few drawbacks that wool has because eventually the price of wool will depend not so much on advertising but on how good a fibre it is in competition with the new artificial fibres which are continually being developed.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) became so enmeshed in his own statements that I was not quite able to follow his reasoning. The reason for the increase in the wool levy is to enable the International Wool Secretariat, after the wool gets into the hands of the buyer, to do more research and promotion. The hon. member says that he supports the increase in the levy for those purposes but at the same time he says that he does not believe that advertising will have any effect because South Africa’s wool will in any case be bought whether advertising is done or not. If that is so, then we will not need the levy for advertising purposes and he should therefore have opposed the levy. But the hon. member goes on to say that the levy funds should be used to promote local methods of production, that is to say, to produce more wool. But the increase in the levy is for a specific purpose. Better farming methods are being promoted and farmers are being supplied with information but that is not being done by the International Secretariat. Technological research is being done in this country, also by means of funds made available by the Wool Board, but now the hon. member for Jeppes and also the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) came along and blamed the Government for the fact that our wool production has decreased in recent years. But in farming, where you have free enterprise, as we have in South Africa, we can give the farmers information to guide them and that is already being done. The hon. member says that because he is a good farmer and has made use of that information, he has increased his production, but if there are other farmers who are just as good as he is but who do not make use of that information and so do not increase their production, he cannot expect the State to force them to do so.

The State should make that information more generally available.

But the hon. member has said that that information was available to him. I take it that he has other information as well, but surely he will admit that there are adequate training facilities in South Africa for the wool producers and that the farmers are enabled to acquire this knowledge. Even if this knowledge cannot be acquired through the Department the farmer can still acquire it through his own organizations or through the Wool Board or through the brokers—of whom the hon. member is one—who take steps to inform the farmers. The hon. member says that the Minister should ensure that more wool is produced. It is all a question of economics. Even the organization with which the hon. member is connected contributes its share in disseminating more knowledge amongst the wool farmers. The hon. member knows, of course, that his statement is not correct.

I agree with hon. members opposite in regard to the control of the available funds. This control is necessary and we are all concerned over the possibility that in an international organization of this nature funds may be used in such a way that they do not achieve the desired purpose. But what is the set-up of our Wool Board? Our Wool Board is made up of wool farmers only, except for two or three manufacturers who are also members. But the farmers who serve on the Wool Board are the representatives of the wool farmers, the people who put them there, and the same applies to the representatives on the International Wool Secretariat. One expects those people who are the representatives of the wool farmers on the Secretariat to pay proper attention to the money spent on promotion and research, and the Minister cannot be expected to control the financial statements of the International Wool Secretariat. That would be impossible. But up to the present moment the farmers in South Africa have shown so much confidence in their representatives there that when those representatives have submitted a programme to them dealing with expenditure on research and promotion, they have accepted that programme and have been prepared to spend money and to pay a higher levy for that purpose.

As far as the expenditure of the Wool Board in this country is concerned the Minister does, of course, have some measure of control and I am pleased that the hon. member for East London (City) made such a strong plea that the Minister should exercise that control. There was a time when the hon. member held different views on this matter. When the Wool Act was amended a few years ago I moved an amendment in this House to the effect that the financial statements of the Wool Board should be subject to inspection by the Controller and Auditor-General.

And I heartily supported it.

The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) seconded the amendment. At that time the hon. member for East London (City) was chairman of the Wool Board. While I was having coffee with him he said to me, “What is wrong with you? Why do you want to subject the actions of the wool farmers to parliamentary approval?” [Interjections.] I am even more pleased that the hon. member adopts that attitude because three or four years ago, when I had just become a Minister, I asked the hon. member to come and see me about something that the Wool Board had done. The hon. member said to me then: “The Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and the Minister have no authority over the Wool Board; the Wool Board is a research and promotion body; it has nothing to do with marketing and you have no say over it therefore.” My reply to the hon. member was, “You may be right but when the Wool Act was amended to make provision for the collection of levies for stabilization purposes, the position changed and you also became a marketing body.” I am pleased that the hon. member has changed his attitude so radically over the past few years because I believe that we must have control over the various boards—parliamentary control or ministerial control. I am very pleased that the hon. member has been converted.

The other statement which you made is untrue, and you know that it is untrue.

On a point of order, is the hon. member allowed to say to the hon. the Minister, “You know it is not true”?

Order!

Never mind, Mr. Speaker, I accept that the hon. member knows that it is true. I am pleased that we have the general support of the wool farmers on both sides of the House and that we can impose this levy at the request of the wool farmers in general. We all realize that the levy is fairly high but I just want to correct one statement. An hon. member has said here that this levy already represents 10 per cent of wool prices. That is not correct. On our average price for last year the maximum levy which is now being proposed represents only about 4½ per cent. The people who have most control over this levy which is to be imposed and particularly over the expenditure which is incurred in connection with the Secretariat, are the wool farmers of South Africa themselves and they have that control through their representatives. I am convinced that our wool farmers and their organization will have enough sense to ensure that this money that they will be paying is used in the correct way in the future.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, the amendment this Bill seeks to bring about is of a minor nature and does not contain any new principle. The existing Section 2 of the principal Act empowers the Minister of Economic Affairs, with due regard to the Public Service Act, to appoint such officials as he may deem necessary to assist him in the application of the provisions of the law and to protect our breeding grounds. In terms of this provision honorary sea fisheries officials were in the past and still are, appointed by the Minister. Although these officials have certain powers in terms of the Sea Fisheries Act they simply serve in an honorary capacity, they receive no salary, nor are they under contract or appointed on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. The Public Service Act, however, requires that recommendations should be obtained from the Public Service Commission when officials are to be appointed and that they should be appointed by way of a written contract.

In the case of the honorary sea fisheries officials the intention was never that that procedure should be followed, and appointments were simply made by way of letters of appointment by the Secretary for Commerce and Industries, after approval by the Minister. The law advisers have, however, now pointed out that these appointments are invalid in the light of the existing legal provisions.

The object of the amendment proposed is simply to give legal effect to the real intention namely that for the purposes of the Sea Fisheries Act only full-time officials should be appointed in terms of the provisions of the Public Service Act and that the appointment of honorary officials, simply with the approval of the Minister, will in future, as in the past, be legal. I move.

Mr. Speaker, for the reasons advanced by the hon. the Minister this side of the House supports this legislation. There are certain hon. members, however, who would like certain implications of it to be explained to them.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister has given a perfectly satisfactory explanation of the reason for this amendment. We have no quarrel with the reason for the amendment, and we support it. It is one of those things which sometimes come to light after many years, and in this case we see no reason why we cannot support it. But these appointments we are now asked to legalize do give rise to certain other points affecting the fishing industry, and one would use this opportunity correctly, I think, to get from the Minister certain information which we feel we require in connection with these appointments. In reply to a question put to the Minister a few days ago, we have had a list of the appointments and I understand that under the old Act 212 honorary officers were appointed to assist in the control of fishing. The Bill will now validate those appointments, and there is no objection to that being done, but the matter goes further than merely validating the appointments, because to-day there is no resemblance at all between the very tiny fishing interests which were in operation at the time when Act 10 of 1940 came into operation, and the fishing industry of the Republic and South West Africa as it is to-day. It means that the volume and scope of the work of these officers must be tremendously more important to the industry now than could have been envisaged 24 years ago when the Act was passed. I would ask the Minister to give us a little more information first of all, with regard to the 212 officers whose appointment we are now validating. Ninety-four of these officers were appointed before 1954, some ten years ago. One knows that one has to be fairly fit to be of much use in the arduous fishery occupation. We would like to know whether all those 94, or all the 212, in fact are still functioning as honorary officers, or are we merely validating the appointment of persons who are now too old to do the work, whether in fact they are all still with us. The Minister might also give us a general idea of the areas in which these officers operate, and on what basis they are appointed, what is the real scope of their duties. The Act, which very meticulously details the responsibilities of these officers, puts very onerous duties on their shoulders, and one would like to know just how they are being employed because there is plenty of scope in to-day’s fishing industry for most beneficial use to be made of them. If one refers to Act 10 of 1940, it lays down very far-reaching power for these officers, more far-reaching than even the average Member of Parliament realizes. With the great expansion of our fishing industry, their responsibilities may cover not only the fishing vessels themselves and the handling and catching of fish, but also the factories and processing plants ashore. Under the Act these officers have authority to supervise every type of net, equipment, implement or device used for the capture of fish, to use the words of the Act itself. They can deal with every type of sea fish or sea mammal, porpoises, dolphins, whales, turtles and rock lobsters and all sorts of spawn and eggs and the young of all the different species of marine life, something which is to-day of paramount importance to the fishing industry of South Africa. Their authority also covers all forms of shellfish and practically all forms of bait used in the fishing industry, particularly marine worms. The Minister is no doubt aware that there has been a steady destruction of that type of marine life. Certain marine worms which are very necessary in the fishing industry have become almost extinct through wasteful exploitation by people who have no interest in protecting this type of marine life. One would like to know whether any of these officers are used for that particular purpose, and also to protect certain types of mussel which are also used for bait and which are almost becoming extinct through the wasteful inroads made on them. These are merely some of the many matters I could mention.

I want to touch on one more, and that is the protection of shellfish, like perlemoen. We all know that a tremendous industry was built up in that regard. I have seen during the last year that despite the protective regulations, over ten tons of perlemoen were landed at Simonstown jetty by one team of divers operating from a boat in False Bay over the course of a fortnight, with the result that that bed was entirely destroyed and there are no perlemoen to be found there any more. Can these inspectors afford some form of protection in that regard? How long can these forms of marine life last if that type of wastage continues? The matters I have mentioned here merely touch on the fringe of things. One could quote many more examples, but I do not want to waste the time of the House on that. The Minister and his Department are no doubt aware of them, and they know that there is ample scope for the fullest possible employment of all people who are prepared, either voluntarily or officially, to give their services to help to protect and preserve what is a great heritage of the State.

But there are other branches of the fishing industry, each of tremendous importance to the country, and here again one would like the Minister in his reply to tell us to what extent he makes use of these inspectors, and what value the Department actually receives from their employment; whether the services rendered by them warrant their appointment, and what assistance if any these honorary officers receive from the State to enable them to function. No man, unless he possesses certain resources, can get very far in protecting fish unless he gets some material assistance, e.g. by way of transport, etc. The Minister himself last week referred to the difficulties his Department encounter, even with the resources they have at their disposal. Therefore one would like to know what assistance is given to these inspectors in their protective work.

I wish to touch on another aspect which is most vital to the fishing industry and which also falls within the ambit of the employment of these inspectors. Since 1940 when the Act was passed, the fishing industry had made phenomenal advances and to-day it is probably one of the most flourishing industries in the Republic, but it is an industry also which can be damaged and come down almost as quickly as it went up unless properly safeguarded. We only have to see the tragic monuments that exist on certain bits of the American coast to see what can actually happen if the industry is not properly protected and supervised, ghost monuments of empty factories, and the complete absence of fish. We have not reached that stage here yet, and we do not want to reach it. This country is only now experiencing what other nations have long experienced, the encroachment in and off our waters of other world interests, driven here by the world hunger for fish food. We now have the fleets of other nations operating here. The Government themselves have shown that they are alive to this by the existence of the limits of our territorial waters, but it needs far more than that. Acts of Parliament, words written on paper, are not going to protect the fish. They need actual physical protection and some of the bigger nations of the world—Scandinavia and Britain—have found what it means to them to try to protect their fisheries. I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister, when he replies, could give us some indication as to whether the inspectors, both the permanent and the honorary people, are able to take an effective part in that protection or whether it is not time some further steps were taken in that direction. Sir, one of the biggest industries built up in our fishing world in the last 12 or 14 years is what is generally known as the big shoal fishing industry or what is popularly spoken of as the pilchard fishing industry. When one has a look at some of the figures regarding this industry one realizes the importance of the appointments that we are now being asked to validate and the new ones to be approved of in relation to their terrific value to this pilchard industry, to say nothing about the dozen other sidelines existing in the fishing world. A quick comparison between 1940 and to-day emphasizes this point. In 1943, three years after Act 10 of 1940 was promulgated, the total catch of that type of fish—I am talking now about the shoal fish (maasbankers, pilchards and mackerel)—was plus-minus 7,500 tons per annum. There were about a dozen small vessels engaged in that section of the industry. By 1948, only five years later, the catch was increased to 84,000 tons per annum. In 1962 the pilchard boats, based on the Cape ports and Walvis Bay, landed 980,000 tons of fish, only 20,000 tons short of 1,000,000 tons, and of those, pilchards, one of our most profitable types of fish, comprise roughly three-quarters of the catch, so one can appreciate the value of these inspectors in preserving an industry such as this. South Africa’s pilchard fleet at the present moment, as far as statistics are available, is plus-minus 120 vessels and the number is still growing very fast. This is a big increase over the dozen which operated when the original Act was passed. There is a two-mile limit imposed in False Bay inside which this type of trawling or purse-seine netting is prohibited, but the purse-seine nets which the vessels use now are up to 1,000 feet long and in some cases over 150 feet deep. The depth at the two-mile distance is in most cases well under 150 feet. Therefore the nets are touching and dragging the bottom when they are being used within that distance of the shore. That again constitutes a breach of the fishing regulations because you are not allowed to drag a trawl net which touches the bottom of the bay, according to our own Act 10/1940. These are points, Sir, which the inspectors already appointed and those to be appointed will need to closely examine. But it is not only the fishing industry which is concerned with protection. One might find it difficult to associate agriculture with the catching and canning of fish, but let me mention an example: Fish-meal, canned fish and oil alone over this period (1932) netted the Republic something like R35,000,000 in sales of their catches. All told in the fishing industry, that is to say, in all spheres of the industry, including deep-sea trawling, line fishing and all the other forms of fishing, there are plus-minus 1,000 vessels with 10,000 fishermen being employed, men who with their families depend for their livelihood on the vitality and the preservation of this fishing industry. In 1962 the 21 fishing canneries in operation along the Cape and the South West African coast canned 300,000,000 cans of fish, and this is where agriculture comes into it. In order to market those fish, many of them are canned and sold in tomato sauce. It took 55,000 tons of tomatoes which had to be produced by the agricultural industry in this country, to be utilized in making the tomato purée needed in connection with the canning of that catch of fish. This again demonstrates the importance of the inspectors and of good general over-all supervision. This fishing industry branches out not only in that respect but also affects practically every aspect of the industrial life of the country—ship-building, metal, canvas, and all the other things which go with the fishing industry. All have a share in it. In 1962 the fishermen themselves operating these vessels earned about R8,000,000 for their share of the catch, a figure which is not to be sneezed at. Sir, that is only one of the many valuable sections of the Republic’s fishing activities. The Bill that we are dealing with here to-day is a very small Bill consisting of only 12 lines but, to use a fishing term, I would say that it deals with a very big fish, one of the biggest industrial fish that the Republic has to deal with, equivalent in its long-term importance, if it is properly looked after, to the gold-mining industry or diamond-mining industry, both of which are wasting assets whereas our fishing industry properly safeguarded can be a lasting asset to the Republic.

Sir, there are a number of other important factors relating to fishing. I want to touch for a moment on the question of the oldest branch of the fishing industry in the country, that is, the line fishermen and with them the fishermen who operate their calling in the use of trek nets from the beaches. They have been in operation for plus-minus two centuries. This was the first form of active fishing indulged in, in the country. These men are confined to the particular areas in which they live. They cannot, as the bigger boats do, travel 500 or 600 miles up and down the coast to look for fish. Their fish has to come to them. The hon. the Minister and his Department are well aware that there has been quite a lot of feeling generated over the past few months by allegations of infringements upon each other’s preserves in the pursuit of fish in the False Bay area. It is a very valuable prize and one can understand that there is bound to be the temptation for a little bit of infringement. I can assure the hon. the Minister that without any question pilchard boats are fishing or have been fishing within at least a half a mile of the coast in False Bay. The hon. the Minister asked me the other day how I could be sure of that. I would merely tell him that if he got in touch with his colleagues in the Navy or his colleagues in the Public Works Department he will find that they have ample equipment to enable them to record the distance from the shore of vessels of that type. But with fixed beacons, the use of lines and triangulations on a chart, such distances can also easily be ascertained. To anybody who is used to that type of thing the difference between half a mile and two miles of the shore leaves nothing to the imagination. These boats, seven or eight of them at a time, have deliberately fished in the trek areas off Peninsula beaches and have deliberately netted over the “banks” where the line fishermen have to earn their livelihood and catch their fish. They have gone to those banks and cast their nets in those vicinities knowing that the small fish that they were after were being massed there by the big fish that the line fishermen were after to make their catches. There are certain areas in False Bay which are outside of the two-mile limit—two-mile limit off Seal-Island—which are also part of the recognized fishing banks for line fish. They are also being poached on by the pilchard vessels. There is room for very much more inspection and control of the type that this Act envisages in these areas in order to protect both these branches of the fishing industry. There is plenty of room for both to operate and there is no need for this encroachment upon each other’s preserves. Along the False Bay coast from Hangklip to Cape Point there are plus-minus 2,000 people who depend for their livelihood on the success of line fishing or net-trek fishing. I am talking of the families as well as the men engaged in that work. These people have no other form of livelihood, and they also are a vital part of our fishing industry. They supply an important part of the food of the area; of the requirements of the factories in respect of certain types of fish. They should also be protected. The use of bait nets, which fishermen are permitted to use to catch bait, is being abused right, left and centre. Bait nets are being used to haul up to 10,000 or 12,000 white steenbras, which is by no means bait fishing. Bait nets are being used in the entrance to Kalk Bay Harbour, a prohibited area for any netting. The evidence is there if the Department is prepared to activate itself and deal with it. I notice that in this morning’s paper the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has issued a warning regarding breaches of the fishing regulations. Sir, there have been warnings issued for far too long; it is time some action was taken, because these illegal activities are handicapping important parts of our fishing industry.

Then I come to the last portion of the fishing industry where support is wanted—there are many others—e.g. the crayfish and rock lobster industry where poaching is still going on along the False Bay coast where breeding areas are being completely denuded by the under-water divers. So far I have been dealing with the older section of fishing; I now want to deal with the newer section of our fishing industry because it is a portion of the industry; a portion of the fishing life of the country which can result in terrific financial gain for the Republic. I refer to big-game fishing. South Africa in the last ten years has established itself as one of the foremost game fishing areas in the world. We find game fish in abundance off our Cape coast and in the False Bay area, off Mossel Bay and practically along the whole of the Republic’s coastline. But I am referring now to the area which I know, namely around the Cape Peninsula and False Bay coast-line—from Hermanus right round to Cape Point. Experts from other countries who have visited us have gone away astounded at the little publicity, the little exploitation, of this tremendous asset from the point of view of publicizing our game fishing as an attraction for tourists to our country. Just a few weeks ago when blue-fin tunny came into False Bay, these fish were being caught within 200 yards of one of our main national scenic drives, the main road through the Peninsula. Within 200 yards of that road boats were landing blue-fin tunny weighing up to 600 and 700 lb. There were fish there weighing 900 lb. and 1,000 lb. which were getting away for want of the expert knowledge as to how to catch them. In other countries you have to go 20 or 30 miles out to sea to catch such fish. I have personally seen 40 or 50 car-loads of visitors on the road watching these fish being caught. Sir, here is an asset which the Americans would give both hands to possess. A prominent American big-game fisherman told me that if they had this asset in America, the people owning houses along there would have to move out They would build cities on such game fish fishing. Here we have a multi-million dollar investment awaiting development by this country. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should obtain the co-operation of his colleague, the Minister of Tourism and Information. We have a valuable asset which ought to be developed and exploited. But here again I want to strike a warning note. This particular game-fishing sport is also being hampered by the interference of other types of fishing—in this case again the purse-seine pilchard and bait netters. The congregation of such shoals of game fish depends on similar congregation of the smaller fish on which the game fish feed. The pilchard boats want these small fish—mackerel, etc.; the game fishermen want the big-game fish. They are both of tremendous value to this country and here again there is ample room for both of these types of fishing to operate. I think it is time the Department tried to demarcate areas in which we can develop and protect the game fishing industry, instead of allowing it to be crippled by the incursion of vessels which have their fishing areas in abundance in other parts and can fulfil their function there. We saw what happened in False Bay; I mentioned it the other day in reply to a question. I myself saw 72 pilchard boats move out of Simon’s Bay between four and six o’clock one evening, over into the direction in which the run was taking place. Some of them went on towards Seal Island. Several of them peeled off the main fleet round about Muizenberg, St. James and Kalk Bay and came close inshore. One I watched, put its nets out; it did not drift in as I read in the newspapers. It cast its nets almost within the breakers’ edge at the point of Muizenberg. That is not beyond half a mile off the shore. The result of this poaching was that within about three or four days the blue-fin disappeared. True they came back again recently for a day or two. But, Sir, this is the type of thing detrimental to fishing which needs to be examined. Will the hon. the Minister tell us whether the type of inspector whose appointment we are now being asked to authorize will be of assistance in that direction. Will he also—and I make a most earnest appeal to him in the best interests of the country—do what he can—because I believe it is a State responsibility as it is a national asset that we want to develop—will he do everything that is possible to utilize the powers under this Act to give that protection and assistance to that devoted small band of men who have developed the game fishing industry, who have put South Africa on the map in that respect, at their own cost. Will he do everything in his power to give them the aid that they require? Will he take these final steps which will help to make this known world wide as an asset which is going to bring untold development to this country?

There is one other matter that I want to touch upon in connection with the powers laid down in the Act for these inspectors and that is the dumping of fish. The Act is very strongly worded on that point. It lays great stress on the wastage of fish life, on the constant dumping of edible fish. It happens with excess net catches; it happened quite recently again off Kalk Bay where, using bait nets, tens of thousands of maasbankers were caught and were afterwards dumped into the sea just off the entrance of Kalk Bay Harbour, a prohibited area for any netting. I have yet to read of any positive action having been taken in that breach of the law. The Act says that it is an offence for anybody to return to the sea any edible or marketable dead fish “not caught in contravention of any provision of the Act”. That might be the let-out—that they were caught in contravention of the Act, but if so then the Act goes on to say, “or abandons any edible dead fish in any other place”. The Act also gives the inspectors whom we are going to appoint authority under certain conditions to board vessels outside of the territorial waters of South Africa. I am using these examples to stress the importance which was placed by the Act of 1940, at a time when our fishing industry was a small one, on the preservation of the fishing industry of this country. The House knows full well to-day what a tremendous asset the fishing industry is to this country, bearing in mind the large volume of industrial work that flows from the fishing industry. I would therefore, with the greatest sincerity, urge upon the hon. the Minister to examine this Bill once again because I feel that even the steps which we are being asked to take to-day do not go far enough. There is scope for a further examination of the position as it exists to-day in comparison with what we had to deal with in those days of 1940. The Minister might consider getting the advice of a small select committee which can take evidence from people who are interested, on both sides of the fence, and then advise the Minister as to improvements which are required to bring our fishing control regulations, and not only the control regulations but the development of the fishing industry, into such a state that this country can reap the maximum rewards from its fishing industry.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has covered a very wide field by referring to practically every aspect and branch of the entire fishing industry.

In the first place I just want to say this in connection with fisheries officials. More than 200 have already been appointed. They are doing excellent work. It is practically essential to appoint them so that they can assist the permanent inspectors. They are usually people who are interested in the fishing industry. Many of them are active anglers. Some of them only go down to the coast over weekends; others live in that vicinity and they are consequently in a position to be on the lookout right through. They are usually appointed on the recommendation of the local authority or that of an angling club or the divisional council or the municipality. We welcome the fact that these people are prepared to assist our inspectors. They are of particular value to the industry as a whole and in regard to the application of the regulations. They do not have any powers of arrest but they can do a great deal by reporting people who commit offences or by enlightening them. It often happens that those people who commit an offence plead ignorance of the existing regulations. I confirm, however, that these people are performing a very useful service. They submit reports from time to time or they are asked for reports or they report contraventions either directly to the Department or to the police, because it is the task of the police to prosecute. At the moment we have five permanent inspectors but we hope to increase that number to 12. Permission for that has already been asked and I trust the necessary approval will be given. These permanent officials are always on duty and it is also their task to keep in touch with these honorary fisheries officials who are appointed in terms of this Act. These honorary officials are fully instructed as to their powers. They are circularized from time to time in order to keep them fully informed. The permanent inspectors also visit them sometimes. We hope therefore to be able to increase the number of permanent inspectors in the near future.

The hon. member has referred to the functions of these inspectors. Their functions are set out in detail in Section 3 of the Act. They may inspect any boat; they may take down the names and addresses of people; they may take down all details so that culprits can be prosecuted.

The hon. member also referred to the bait regulations. Recently the divisional councils and the angling and sports clubs were again approached and asked, in view of the fact that bait was being exterminated at so many places, whether they had any suggestions to make in regard to changes in the regulations. Certain local areas, such as the Municipality of the Strand for example, laid down regulations last year prohibiting the taking out of bait. Bait is also protected along the coast from time to time by way of regulation. The Department is only too anxious to co-operate with these people whether they be anglers or whether they are in the fishing industry, to make the regulations as reasonable as possible so as to accommodate everyone. I am sorry to have to say that the culprits are not only the commercial people. The main culprits are sometimes those people who fish off the rocks and we can only appeal to them to do their share to a greater extent, each one in his own field, to protect the interests of our fishing industry.

As far as perlemoen are concerned it is prohibited to catch them in certain areas. Action can and has already been taken against people who contravene the regulations and our courts are quite prepared to co-operate. Only recently I had an interview with one of the magistrates who hear these cases. Our magistrates are only too anxious to cooperate to ensure that this important industry is preserved.

As far as crayfish is concerned it is clear that some people deliberately catch them in the prohibited areas. Many of them have been caught and heavily fined. But they have a market for the crayfish they catch and I suppose it is worth their while running the risk of being prosecuted. With the assistance of its research boats, its officials and inspectors, the Department has to a great extent succeeded in putting a stop to the unlawful catching of crayfish. Quotas are laid down today and we have recently changed the sanctuaries in the hope that that may make it easier to apply the regulations and to exercise control. We are even considering other measures at the moment whereby it will be more difficult for those people who catch crayfish in sanctuaries to land them.

The hon. member referred to other world powers who were fishing in our area. It is disturbing to know that big powers with large fleets, large boats, with modern equipment, are fishing near our waters. We have no information that indicates that they are catching fish within our territorial waters. It was the very activity of these foreign boats that was one of the reasons why the Government extended the limit of our territorial waters last year. Attempts have been made for years to do so by way of international agreement but without success. The fact remains that according to international conventions and measures it is impossible to deny those boats access to our ports. When they catch fish beyond our territorial waters, therefore, and want to avail themselves of our refrigeration facilities, we cannot prohibit that, no matter how much we should like to do so. The fact remains that the waters beyond the limits of our territorial waters fall under international control. We should like to see our own undertakings exploiting those sources and that is why we want to give them the necessary encouragement. As a matter of fact there are South African companies to-day who are concentrating more and more on those sources. It is correct that nearly 1,000,000 tons of sardines and pilchards were caught last year, but the number of boats cannot just be increased indiscriminately. There is a boat-limitation committee, and no new boats may operate without its consent. It is not so easy, therefore, for anybody just to enter the industry and it is years since a new licence has been issued in our area in respect of fish meal.

As far as the False Bay area is concerned we had numerous complaints this year because, due to climatic conditions, the fish were mainly concentrated in False Bay. The boat owners who catch pilchards allege that practically no fish was caught along the West coast—the area which is traditionally their area. It is true that they may fish there but the regulations lay down that they should do so inside the two-mile limit. The hon. member mentioned that boats were anchored within a certain distance from the coast. That is correct; it is easy to determine from the coast that they are lying within two miles but it is difficult to prove that to the satisfaction of a court. Unfortunately there are technical difficulties. We did indeed discuss that aspect. I do not want to go into that at great length because if I did I would only be giving away information which could be misused by other people. The hon. the member has also threatened me as far as that is concerned but I do not think it will be in the interests of the fishing industry for me to say too much in that connection. We have had discussions, however, with all the fishing interests. We pointed out that there were certain boats that were committing offences and we asked for a report. We said we would consider taking far more drastic steps if those people did not observe the regulations. They promised their wholehearted co-operation. It was also decided to approach the Navy to co-operate as far as False Bay was concerned. There is something else that can be done and that is the charting of the coast so that the depth within the two-mile limit can be known. All these trawlers have fathom meters to-day which automatically register the depth. That will indicate to us whether or not the boat concerned was within the two-mile limit and the boat itself will be provided with a chart which will indicate where the two-mile limit ends and what the depth is at that point. Once this comes into operation I do not think those people will have any excuse. We shall then be able to take action departmentally where necessary. I am convinced, however, that after the discussions which we have had, they will co-operate with us as far as possible. All these people to whom reference has been made have an interest in the sea. The angler, the hotelier who is interested in tourism and the commercial fishermen, all have an interest in the sea. As the regulations read at the moment I think there is room for all the various interests but then the regulations must be observed by all of them and that unfortunately does not happen. These trawlers do have the right to catch bait within the two-mile limit. Another problem which faces us is to determine whether the fish goes to the factory or whether it is used as bait. I mention that because here are certain technical difficulties. Line fishermen play an important role because they provide fresh fish and for that very reason they should be given a free hand. It is for this reason that our fishing harbours have been extended the way they have been; it is for the very reason of making provision for these people so that they can land safely. It is extremely difficult to patrol the coast-line of our country on a full scale because the people who contravene the regulations sometimes leave early in the morning or in the middle of the night. It is absolutely impossible to patrol the entire coast-line all the time. There will always be those who contravene the regulations, therefore, but the Department, with the assistance of its permanent inspectors and these honorary fisheries officials and its boats, is doing everything in its power to put a stop to these contraventions.

The hon. member also referred to tuna. It is correct to say that over the past few years the fish in False Bay and in the vicinity of Table Bay have been particularly large. We realize the value of this only too well. The commercial people as well realize the value of that and that is why large fish must be caught on a large scale. That is something which holds out prospects for the future and which has been exploited by the commercial sector particularly during the past two years. In this connection the export possibilities are considerable and we are already exporting today. But, as the hon. member said, these large fish also constitute a valuable asset from the point of view of tourism. As far as tourism is concerned I may say that the Minister of Information has already been in touch with our Department. He too is fully aware of that possibility and he would like to see the fishing interests protected in such a way that not only the industry will benefit but that it will also be to the advantage of tourism and the hotel industry. We have never yet given the impression that we are unwilling to change the regulations. Many regulations have been changed only recently. If we get practical suggestions from people who are concerned in it, from angling clubs or anybody else, we are only too willing, in the light of the circumstances, to consider them and if it will in any way be in the interest of the fishing industry or whoever may be concerned, we shall be only too pleased to accept them.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill contains two principles only. Clause 1 makes provision for reciprocal consultation between the Registrar of Companies in Pretoria and the South West Administration in order to prevent companies with identical names or with an identical name, identical to such an extent that it may cause confusion or be misleading, are registered in South West Africa and the Republic. You have the position to-day, Sir, that Company X is formed here in the Republic but that Company X is also registered in South West Africa although the shareholders and the people interested in them are totally different people. I think you will agree, Sir, that that is not a desirable state of affairs. Where our economies are so closely integrated and where we are so closely linked together it is not desirable that it should be possible for one company to register here and for another one, with practically the same name, to register in South West Africa. The necessity for this provision flows from the fact that South West Africa has its own company ordinance. Representations have moreover been made recently in regard to this defect in the existing legislation. From the nature of things it was found impossible to lay down this procedure purely administratively and after consultation with South West Africa it was agreed that the Companies Act of the Republic would be amended while the South West African Administration would at the same time change their ordinance suitably. Hon. members will notice that companies who registered their names in the Republic and in South West Africa before this proposed amendment comes into operation will not be affected by this amendment to the Act.

The second amendment, namely Clause 2, deals with the fees the public have to pay for company information supplied by the Registrar of Companies. Since the coming into force of the Companies Act in January 1927 we have consistently adopted the attitude that, although the Act laid down the fee to be paid for information sought by the public about companies from the Registrar, diplomatic representatives of foreign countries in South Africa would, on a reciprocal basis and because of their diplomatic status, not be required to pay that fee, and information has consequently from time to time been supplied to them free of charge in spite of the existence of that provision. Although this practice has been followed for more than 36 years the Controller and Auditor-General recently expressed his doubts about its validity and in consultation with the Treasury, the Department of the Interior and the legal advisers, my Department decided to make this totally justifiable practice, as far as foreign representatives in this country were concerned, valid with retrospective effect as from 1 January 1927.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side support the Bill which the hon. the Deputy Minister has just explained to us.

I think the inclusion of Clause 2 (2) warrants a bit more explanation than the hon. the Deputy Minister has given us. The clause, by legal fiction, deems this change in the law to have been enacted not to-day but 37 years ago, in January 1927. And to legislate backwards by this simple device is hardly to the credit of the lawmaker. It has no virtue in itself and it is, of course, indicative of a weakness in administration. I appreciate the hon. the Deputy Minister’s explanation that the question has arisen as to whether in the past there should have been any free issue of certificate or information to foreign Governments. I think the House will agree with me that to legislate with retrospective effect in this way is not to be encouraged. It is particularly to be discouraged where the object is to cover up an administrative weakness. The real substance of the change, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated, is to provide that an officer of a foreign Government accredited to this Government can make an inspection or obtain a certificate free of charge, with this proviso that he must also satisfy the Registrar that there is reciprocal legislation in his own country with regard to this benefit.

The number of cases that are involved can be extremely small. The hon. the Deputy Minister has not given the number to us but the number of cases in which some foreign Government will now be entitled to ask for a refund, if they did pay, or the number of cases in respect of which condonation is now being granted, because they did not pay, must be extremely small indeed. I cannot believe that this is a circumstance in which Parliament should be required to legislate backwards for as long as 37 years to adjust some sort of technicality or, as I have said, to cover up a weakness in the administration over that period. To legislate backwards over such a long period cannot be in the best tradition of the House. But in this case the House must be a little more cautious because this legislation is going to affect foreign countries. It seems to me we must be much more meticulous in the way we legislate and not give the impression of a casual sort of an outlook in the use of legislative power in this way. Because the justification for what the hon. the Deputy Minister has put forward can be so easily met in other ways. Condonation by the Treasury for a service of this kind which was granted without making a charge is a very simple operation and should be applied in this case. If it is felt that even that cannot apply it seems to be that a brief and small paragraph in the Finance Act, which will dispose of this matter once and for all, will be a very simple matter and a much neater way of legislating. That will do exactly what the hon. the Deputy Minister says should be done, namely to condone this granting of a service free of charge.

As I have said, to legislate backwards is not to the credit of the lawmaker and it does, I believe, show a definite weakness in administration. I therefore appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister, unless there are other exceptional reasons for this legislation, to drop it during the Committee Stage of the Bill and adjust the matter either administratively or, if condonation by legislation is necessary, do it in the Finance Act and so dispose of it once and for all. Do not let it stand on record in our legislation as it will if done in this way. Retrospective legislation must be very fully justified and I do not think that the reason given, namely, that it is purely for administrative convenience, is a good and sufficient reason. It is not even a positive reason; it is a negative reason. I appeal therefore to the hon. the Deputy Minister to reconsider the matter and, if possible, drop it at the Committee Stage.

The hon. member pointed out that it was a pity that a practice had been followed for 38 years and that it was now being put right. I pointed out that the fact that the regulations were not observed and that exceptions were made and that no fees charged was recently pointed out by the Auditor-General. I think it is correct to say that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) was Auditor-General for years. That means that for 38 years he did not notice that practice—his successors noticed it.

It was not worth noticing.

The hon. member says it was not worth noticing. Others noticed it and the hon. member pointed out that that had been the position for 38 years and that it was not correct. When it suited him he did not notice it but when it suits him he does notice it.

Put it right by all means but not in this way.

The hon. member says we must put it right in another way. He put it right in his way by saying it was not worth noticing. That is one way of putting it right. We are now told: Put it right because it is legally incorrect; technically it is wrong. The legal advisers were of the opinion that, in spite of all the other possibilities, the best way would be to put it right in the Act in view of the fact that the Act was in any case being amended, because if a person then referred to the Act it would have been rectified. There is no clause in the Companies Act to the effect that something had been rectified in another Act. We must rectify it in this Act itself. I think this is the right place where it should be rectified; then the Act will be complete and it will be there for everybody to refer to. The idea is to consolidate this Act after the Commission of Inquiry which is sitting at the moment has reported. Seeing that one section is to be amended it was considered advisable to rectify this little matter at the same time.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Order of the Day No. V to stand over.

I move—

Although this Bill has several clauses only one section in the principal Act, namely Section 2, is really being amended materially. The other clauses are all consequent upon South Africa’s changed constitutional position and the switch over to “landdros” instead of “magistraat” as far as the Afrikaans version is concerned. As far as Clause 2 is concerned the position is that both the Director of Viskor, who is appointed by the State President as A-shareholder in the corporation, as well as the directors who are elected by the B-shareholders in terms of the existing Act, must serve on the directorate for three years at a stretch. The Act makes no provision for any interim period, that is to say, periods of one or two years. In the case of the managing director the State President can lay down that he must be appointed as such for five years. There is no provision for any interim period in this case either. This provision can give rise to problems and can cause embarrassment both to the Government and to the private shareholders and the person or persons who are appointed or re-appointed to the directorate of Viskor may also be embarrassed. It can happen, for example, that the Government or the private shareholders may feel that a member, because of his age on the one hand or because as a gesture of appreciation of his years of faithful service on the other hand, should be appointed as director for a further period of one or two years at the expiration of his term of office. In terms of the existing Act that is not possible. In such a case it will either not be possible to appoint the person concerned or he will have to be appointed for a further period of three years. I think the House will agree that this provision is undesirable in practice and for that reason we ask that the amendment as proposed in Clause 2 be approved.

The implication of the clause is simply that it will be possible to appoint or re-appoint the directors of Viskor for any period up to a maximum of three years at a stretch and the managing director for any period up to a maximum of five years at a stretch.

We on this side of the House support this legislation but I am surprised to hear that there is no provision in the Companies Act for shareholders to get rid of a managing director if they are not satisfied with him. In the circumstances we support the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Orders of the day Nos. VII to XII to stand over.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, on 29 January 1964 I tabled the report of the Railways and Harbours Board, in which it is recommended that four new railway lines should be built—two in Natal for the transportation of passengers to and from the Bantu and Indian residential areas respectively at Umlazi and Chatsworth, one in the Orange Free State and one in the Transvaal. Full details in regard to these lines and the reasons why they have to be built are contained in the report, with which hon. members are probably already acquainted.

The building of the railway line between Reunion and Umlazi and between Merebank and Chatsworth to serve the resettlement areas for Bantu and Indians respectively, are being undertaken on the recommendation of the Interdepartmental Committee for the Transportation of Non-Whites. It is customary for the Railway Administration to be safeguarded by the Treasury against any operational losses which may result from the exploitation of such railway lines, and this is suitably provided for in the Bill.

As appears from the report of the Railway Board, the estimated costs of the two proposed lines in Natal are comparatively high; approximately R731,000 per mile for the Umlazi line and R650,600 per mile for the one to Chatsworth. The reason for this is that electrified double lines of main line standard are being envisaged, and that the area to be traversed by these lines is extremely undulating. Heavy ground works will be required and various tunnels will have to be built. For example, on the line to the Umlazi Bantu residential area three tunnels of approximately 500, 630 and 500 feet will be required, whilst two tunnels of 650 feet each will have to be provided between Merebank and Chatsworth. There will be three halts between Reunion and the terminal in the Umlazi Bantu area, and four halts between Merebank and the terminal in the Chatsworth Indian residential area. The necessary facilities for passengers, bridges or subways, etc., will be provided right from the start.

The new line between Reunion and the Umlazi Bantu area will be approximately 6¾ miles in length and it is estimated that it will cost approximately R5,000,000. The length of the line between Merebank and the Indian township at Chatsworth will be eight miles and it will cost slightly over R5,000,000. It is expected that it will take approximately 2½ years to complete these two lines after receiving authority to build them.

In connection with the proposed new line in the Free State, hon. members will remember that I said last year during the Railway Budget debate that I was partial to the building of a link line between the Vierfontein-Bultfontein line and Allanridge, and that I would have this matter investigated. During the recess the Railway Board investigated the matter and found that, particularly in view of the steadily increasing production of maize in the area served by the Bultfontein-Vierfon-tein branch line and the necessity for exporting large quantities of surplus maize, the building of such a link line is fully justified. The increase in maize production during recent years in the afore-mentioned area is clearly shown by the fact that the Mealie Control Board during the 1962-3 season accepted more than 6,000,000 bags of maize from producers, as compared with 2,900,000 bags four years earlier.

All the traffic on the Vierfontein-Bult-fontein line, which has to be sent southwards and eastwards, must at present go northwards to Vierfontein, and from there in an easterly direction to Kroonstad, and from there to the various destinations. A direct link between the Bultfontein-Vierfontein line and the Whites-Allanridge line, over a distance of approximately eight miles, will appreciably shorten the distance between most of the loading places on the branch line and the export harbours.

The production of maize and its export is a matter of national importance, and it is therefore essential that the proposed link line should be provided as soon as is practicable, with a view to our maize export programme.

The new single line between Allanridge and Ancona will be approximately eight miles in length and will, it is estimated, cost approximately R960,000. This line will be up to main line standard, and it will take approximately 18 months to complete it.

What I personally find interesting and important in regard to the proposed line between Allanridge and Ancona is that it is the first new line the building of which I can recommend to Parliament on its own merits, i.e. which will be fully justified economically. Hon. members have probably noticed in the report of the Railway Board that in spite of the fact that the Railways will annually sacrifice an amount of approximately R90,000 in freight charges as the result of the shorter distance that maize will have to be transported to the ports, this line will nevertheless result in a net saving of approximately R218,000 per annum, which justifies a capital expenditure of as much as R2,500,000, which is appreciably more than the cost of building the line. The calculations of the economic justification for building it are based on the present rate of interest, which is approximately 5 per cent, and contributions to capital depreciation on assets which amount to approximately 3½ per cent.

The recommendation by the Railway Board that a link line should be built between Groenbult and a spot on the railway line between Soekmekaar and Nzima in the Northern Transvaal is a direct result of the ever-increasing traffic which has to be handled, because as is indicated in the report the increase in traffic has made the strengthening of the railway line between Pietersburg and Soekmekaar and between Rubbervale and Soekmekaar essential. In order to derive the full benefit from any increase in the carrying capacity of these lines, it is essential that the operational problems resulting from the present layout of the Railway premises at Soekmekaar should also be eliminated. The premises at Soekmekaar are, however, such that quite a lot of shunting is necessary before access can be obtained either to the Selati line or to the Pietersburg line. Consequently consideration was given to the rebuilding of the terrain at Soekmekaar but, due to the siting of the station and the premises, it will not be possible to eliminate the delays at present being experienced, even if a considerable sum is spent on it. For this reason an alternative solution was sought and the Railway Board, after thorough consideration, came to the conclusion that a link line between Groenbult, to the south of Soekmekaar, and a spot on the line between Soekmekaar and Nzima will be the best way of solving the problem.

When the Railway Board held an inspection in loco, representations were received from the local community at Soekmekaar. Concern was expressed in regard to the possibility that the business activities at Soekmekaar might be deleteriously affected if the link-up with the Selati line is changed from Soekmekaar to Groenbult. The Railway Board informed those who made the representation that it was not expected that, as the result of changing this link-up, there would be any decrease in the business activities of the Department or in the number of Railway personnel employed at Soekmekaar, but that on the contrary it could be expected that more Railway personnel would add to their business at Soekmekaar after the completion of the new line, seeing that Groenbult, which is now an unstaffed sideline, will then be a staffed station.

The estimated costs of building this link line over a distance of a little more than two miles are R409,163, and it is expected that it will take 18 months to complete the work.

This side of the House appreciates the explanation of the aims and the future importance of the new railway line to be authorized by this Bill. I do not think it is necessary for me to say that in regard to improvements in our railway service the hon. the Minister can always rely on the support of this side of the House. That is why we have pleasure in supporting this Bill. There are, of course, a few points that merit comment; there may possibly be one or two doubts that we want to express. One comment that I am very pleased to make is that the construction at Durban supports the attitude of this side of the House in very important respects. I am not going to discuss the matter; I am merely mentioning it. With these new lines, particularly the one to Umlazi, the Railways are proving that the attitude of this side of the House is correct and that economic integration between the various races in South Africa does exist. Here we are being asked to approve of a sum of money which will eventually mean an outlay of R30,000,000 after new passenger coaches and so forth have been purchased. This proves that all the races in South Africa are interdependent. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister of Transport is co-operating in this. He may say that Umlazi is a Bantu area but what is the difference between a railway line built between Cape Town and Langa and a railway line built between Durban and Umlazi? The purpose is still to transport the workers to the factories and to the industrial areas. If it is necessary to build this line between Umlazi and Durban to transport the Natives to Durban then it is at the same time necessary to build a line to the Chatsworth Indian residential area. The hon. the Minister will not tell me that Chatsworth is going to become a separate Indian state. It is part of White South Africa and that is why it is an irrefutable fact to which our attention has been drawn time and again that we in South Africa are interdependent. I hope that the hon. the Minister of Transport will continue with unflagging enthusiasm to demonstrate the truth of the United Party attitude.

There are also certain points that worry us in connection with the Allanridge-Ancona proposal. As far as we know this is not in conformity with the requests made to the Railways by the farming community in these particular areas. We are informed that they would like to have this function in the south in order to make the distance between their area and particularly East London, where the grain elevator is to be erected in the near future, so much shorter. Unfortunately, we were not able to understand either from the report of the Railway Commissioners or from the hon. the Minister’s speech to-day why these requests from the farmers were not acceded to, particularly when we consider that the southern and northern parts of this particular area have more or less the same production. From the report we will see that the one area produces 52½ per cent and the other 47½ per cent of the maize and other products of that area. Why, then, give this great preference to the northern area which only produces 2½ per cent more of the products of that area? You see, Sir, in both cases, in the case of Durban and in the case of the Free State, we on this side of the House believe that the Railways have to assist in the development of areas and in the lives of our people. The Railways should not simply satisfy themselves about and consider only the immediate economic prospects in these cases. They must also consider future prospects. They must also co-operate with other Government bodies so that this development can take place smoothly and timeously. We see for example in the case of the Durban line that even at the moment about 30,000 Natives have to be transported by means of buses. This aggravates the traffic position in Durban and at the same time places an almost impossible burden on Putco which has tried to be of assistance there. We also see that by the time that this railway line to Umlazi will be completed there will be between 50,000 and 60,000 Indians and Natives who will have to be transported. We feel that there must be closer co-operation and closer consultation. It is not the Railways that are to be blamed. But there must be better consultation with the authorities framing these new resettlement plans and carrying out Native policy because the Railways have eventually to supply the necessary services. These matters must be arranged at the planning stage so that the development can take place pari-passu and with the least inconvenience being caused to the public who are affected. The same position holds good in the Free State. We feel that if the recommendation of the farmers had been agreed to, the Railways would not have suffered. The hon. the Minister pointed out that a saving of R218,000 justified an investment of R2,500,000—according to certain estimates that he made. I wonder whether the position of the Railways would have been very much different if the farmers’ proposal had been accepted and services had been provided there which would have assisted a larger area in that particular vicinity as far as future economic development was concerned.

And so, although we are pleased to be able to support this measure we do have some doubts about it. I shall leave it to other hon. members who are more closely connected with these matters to give the House more information in regard to how we feel about this subject.

The first two items in the report submitted to the House by the Railways and Harbours Board deal with the proposed new lines from Reunion to the Umlazi Bantu residential area and from Merebank to the Chatsworth Indian residential area. There are certain questions which I think the hon. Minister should reply to so that we get a better appreciation of to what extent planning is in progress as a result of these new developments in relation to the Durban complex. What is now going to happen is all a result of the tremendous development of Government plans in regard to these separate residential areas, and to get an appreciation of the planning, I think it is desirable that the Minister should firstly give us the dates on which the Interdepartmental Committee gave him the reports in connection with these two proposed lines. The Railways and Harbours Board merely says that the Interdepartmental Committee for the Conveyance of Non-Whites submitted a report in regard to the provision of rail transport for non-Whites in the Durban area. That is all. They give no date whatsoever!

The second point is the anticipated time of construction, some two and a half years. Now I am sure the hon. Minister appreciates the position that exists to-day with the development at Umlazi and the industrial development to the south of Durban, the congestion that there is on the roads at the present time. It is acute. And in two and a half years’ time according to this report, there will be some 50,000 Bantu and Indians coming in each day and going out each day for working purposes, and until these two lines are constructed, it means that the existing road facilities will have to handle this population of 50,000 workers and they will have to be conveyed mainly by road transport. At the present time Putco is busy at Umlazi, but it will mean a tremendous additional burden on the South Coast road—there is only the one road; the proposed new freeways will not be completed in time to relieve this tremendous burden that is now going to be placed upon the South Coast road. The net result of this is, I think, unavoidable—there is going to be a considerable amount of congestion on the South Coast road. The question then arises whether it is going to be possible for this railway work to be speeded up so that it can be completed in less than two and a half years. The two and a half years mentioned in the report would possibly represent the normal time for such a development. It may be a fast rate of development, I do not know, but I think what we require here is a “crash programme”. It is a very urgent problem, and it is no fault of the Opposition that it is an urgent problem. We have pleaded for this development for years. I suppose that the experience that the Minister had in the provision of the lines to the Bantu residential areas in the Cape, which were in advance of their requirements, made him cautious about being caught in a similar way in regard to the Durban complex. We do not know. But the fact remains that we have to face this proposition, and I put it to the Minister because I think it is serious and because it will require the Minister’s very close attention, if it has not already received that attention. If we take the area that is going to be mainly involved, namely the area where the plans which were started some years ago have now been almost completed, the quadrupling of the line from Durban to Booth, we are going to have this position: that there is the present main line to Johannesburg, there is the old main line via Pinetown, there is the South Coast line, there is the line from Qua Mashu, and there is the newly proposed Umlazi link, the Chatsworth link and then the North Coast line. My estimate is that within the next two years there will be at least 100,000 passengers conveyed in either direction each working day, and my question to the Minister is this: Are the facilities that exist at Dalbridge sufficient to meet the requirements of this enormous moving population? I doubt it. Secondly, are the existing facilities sufficient for the handling of the tremendous number of trains at all the intermediate stations between the terminal point of these two new lines and the terminal point at Duff’s Road?

On top of all this, there is the problem facing the local authority in getting these passengers to their place of work by road, and I want to ask the hon. Minister whether there has been any consultation with the Durban City Council in regard to this aspect of the problem. The hon. Minister will know that there are thousands and thousands of Bantu employed in the Point area, and with the proposal that the new Durban Station should be at Greyville, it is clear that Dalbridge is going to become a very important junction. Is it the intention to have trains running from Dalbridge to the Point along the Victoria Embankment? We do not know. We do not know to what extent this is being planned.

That has nothing to do with the Bill.

No, but it arises out of the provisions that are now being made. I am raising this to-day because it requires very careful and urgent planning at this stage. I think it is something we should be given some information about so that we would know at this stage whether the Minister’s planning department is on its toes in regard to this tremendous development that is taking place as a result of the introduction of rail suburban traffic in the Durban complex. We assume that this is all part of a bigger plan, but as yet there is no evidence in any railway report to indicate that a bigger plan is in any advanced stage of preparation. So I put it to the hon. Minister that at this stage it is important to know that when the facilities now under discussion are provided, the additional facilities will also be ready to enable the Minister to make use of this development as and when it comes into play. So the hon. Minister will appreciate that it is not just a question of providing these two lines. It is a question of appreciating exactly what is involved once they become operative.

The other point that I want to raise with the hon. Minister is tied up with this whole question of development and that is the position that we have arrived at as a result of issues which I cannot discuss here, but which have resulted in this tremendous congestion on the South Coast road. I said earlier on in my plea to the Minister for a “crash programme” in respect of these two lines, that I am quite sure that if the Minister were to receive a report from his officials in Natal he would find that it is going to be almost impossible to handle the road transportation position that is going to arise as a result of the housing programmes at Chatsworth and Umlazi if we are not going to get these two lines constructed in a lesser period than two and a half years. So I do hope that the hon. Minister will take this matter up with his Department and give us what information he can to-day, so that the Durban Corporation can be alerted to the problems they will have to face, as also other authorities dealing with transport. They should know what they will have to provide in the very, very near future as far as road transportation is concerned.

I want to deal with that portion of the Bill which proposes the construction of a connecting line between Allan-ridge and Ancona on the Vierfontein-Bultfon-tein line. Mr. Speaker, I find myself in a slightly difficult position in discussing this matter, because as the hon. Minister knows, I raised the question of the extension of the Vierfontein-Bultfontein line with the hon. Minister on former occasions. I think the last occasion was last year. The Minister then did not hold out any hope that the line would be constructed. I think, if I remember correctly, he said “if and when I have the money, I will give consideration to it”, or words to that effect.

You should read my Hansard more often.

I took the opportunity of reading Hansard a couple of hours before the commencement of this debate, and I want to remind the hon. Minister of the occasion when he replied to the Budget debate last session. What surprises me is, as I say, that I find myself in the difficult position that I do not know whether to offer thanks to the hon. Minister for coming forward with this Bill in the light of the plea that I have put in this House in respect of a connecting line or the extension of the Vierfontein-Bultfontein line. What does surprise me is that no hon. member on the Government side has risen in the course of this debate, not even a member representing the Free State, to thank the Minister.

Order! That has got nothing to do with the Bill.

Sir, I only mentioned that in passing. I am in this position that I am going to offer a sort of half-hearted form of thanks to the hon. Minister for at least giving some concession to the request that has come from this area. But there are other aspects of the matter I wish to raise with the hon. Minister. Let me commence by saying that the construction of this line was dealt with by one of the railway commissioners in opening the agricultural show at Bultfontein, I think, in August or September last year. On that occasion he gave an indication that if economic justification was shown for constructing any form of connection or extending the Vierfon-tein-Bultfontein line, legislation would be introduced in Parliament. I see, according to the report, that the criteria that were applied by the Railway Board in recommending the construction of this line was not the question that it would facilitate operating arrangements and speed up traffic in the area, but apparently their approach was: Was the construction of the line economically justified? Now, Sir, on the facts reflected in this report, the construction of a connecting line between Ancona and Allanridge is economically justified by the volume of traffic that is presently conducted on the Bultfontein-Vierfontein line. It cannot be disputed that the construction of this connection is economically justified. The hon. Minister has only quoted the figures which I quoted in this House last year about the volume of traffic offered as far as the farming community is concerned in respect of mealies. But it does not stop there. The expansion in this area and its development is not only in regard to the mealie producer, but also in regard to the meat producer that the construction of this line is of the utmost importance. May I again quote the figures to the House. In the last operating year no less than 97,210 head of small stock and 30,340 head of cattle were conveyed in no less than 270 trains in that area, going either to the Johannesburg markets or to the markets at the coast. I think it is clear that in regard to what is being planned in respect of this line, no thought has been given to the future expansion of the area and the increased traffic that will come forward from this area. Let us bear in mind that when the Vierfontein-Bultfontein line was constructed in the 1920s it was constructed to serve the markets of the Transvaal. That is why there was no connection of that line to the south. The whole emphasis has changed since then, because the bulk of what is produced by that particular area in the southwestern and mid-western Free State is basically consigned for the export market. It is quite clear that as the area develops the traffic that will become available in the area will increase from year to year, if we look at the increases in traffic over the past three years. That is why I want to ask the hon. Minister to-day why the board discarded consideration (because no reference is made in the report) of the extension of the Vierfontein-Bultfontein line to join the main line either at Bloemfontein directly or elsewhere to the main line from Bloemfontein to Kroonstad? Because if one looks at the railway map, Mr. Speaker, it seems that with the expansion in that area and in the light of the fact that the bulk of the traffic is now coming from this southwestern portion of the Free State, that that would have been the obvious thing to do. I think that the hon. Minister should indicate to us why that was not considered. As I understand the position, the representations that were recently made to the hon. Minister by the community in that area were made for the extension of the Vierfontein-Bultfontein line to join it directly onto the main line, either at Bloemfontein, at Brandfort, or some other convenient spot for economic operations. Mr. Speaker, if we look at the figures quoted in the board’s report, we find that the savings that will be effected in operating costs would at least justify, as they indicate, a capital expenditure of some R2,500,000, rather than the R1,000,000 this connecting link will cost according to the estimates. I think that statement in itself, contained in this report, justifies the expenditure of additional capital in view of the future economic expansion in the area, and the greater volume of traffic the Railways will be required to transport from the area. I think that statement alone justifies the extension of the line.

The board is not responsible for the planning. Read the Railway Act in regard to their duties.

I am well aware of the Railway Act and of the responsibilities of the board, but this interjection of the hon. Minister brings us back to the very difficulty that we have pointed out from this side of the House year after year. We are expected to give objective, constructive consideration to these matters and to make suggestions in this House in regard to the railway transportation needs of this country without any information. Now we must hear from the Minister: I am asking you to help with this Bill, to vote for this Bill; there are some observations made by the Railway Board, but they know nothing of the planning behind it all. That is what that interjection of the hon. Minister amounts to. I am going to ask the hon. Minister to-day whether he can tell us the planning that went into the suggestion and the request that the Railway Board investigate the possibility of constructing this connecting link rather than extending the line. If he can give us the planning behind it, we will be grateful. Because on all the investigations that have been carried out, on all the representations that have been made to the Minister, it is clear that the feasible and constructive and thoughtful plan for the opening up of the area, justifies the extension of the Vierfontein-Bultfontein line rather than the construction of this connecting link.

Finally, in support of this contention, may I point out to the hon. Minister one other observation which is made in this report. The board in its investigations makes it quite clear that there is no thought of not developing this Bultfontein-Vierfontein line to main line standards. In fact they leave the impression in the report that it is inevitable that the line will have to be increased to main line standards to facilitate train operations and economic working of the system. If that is so, then it seems to me that by that statement it naturally envisages that the Bultfontein-Vierfontein line must eventually come up to main line standards and be connected up at some other point further south, say at Bloemfontein or Frankfort to the main transportation system, rather than to make a detour as is still proposed in establishing this link. So I ask the hon. Minister: Can he give us the thinking that went into this line, and can he tell us why this parsimonious, short-sighted policy is being followed? He cannot deny that the extension of the line would assist the farming community economically. I think the hon. Minister should tell us why he adopted this shortsighted, parsimonious policy when by all the facts, by all the reasons, by all the evidence, the obvious thing to do was to extend the line and to connect it with the main line directly.

The building of the line from Allanridge to Ancona is a matter in regard to which representations were made to the hon. the Minister by the hon. member for Welkom (Mr. H. J. van Wyk). That construction means that the line from Bultfontein to Vierfontein will be strengthened. We know that representations have been made for many years now that the Bultfontein line which ends at Bultfontein should be connected at Bloemfontein, but one of the greatest objections was always that the whole line had first to be strengthened because that line could not carry full loads. This construction which will now mean the strengthening of that line certainly does improve the possibility of eventually having the Bultfontein-Bloemfontein junction. Various representations were made to the Department in regard to this matter and last year I also made representations here in regard to this particular matter. We know that the 5,000,000 bags of maize or wheat come chiefly from the western parts and because a grain elevator is to be built at East London the obvious junction will be at Bloemfontein. I am sure that many requests will still be made to the hon. the Minister and the Railway Board in this connection. But we are grateful that this first step has been taken—the strengthening of that line—because this will certainly add weight to the request for a junction there in the future. That is why we have great pleasure in supporting this Bill.

I should like to deal particularly with the second line referred to in this report, dealing with the Merebank-Chatsworth line, and I should like to ask the hon. Minister if he can indicate whether the terminal at Chatsworth is anywhere near Cavendish Station on what is known as the main Durban-Johannesburg line. Unfortunately the chart in the report does not indicate the position of the main line and, as the hon. Minister probably knows, Cavendish Station on the main Johannesburg line was originally known as Chatsworth. The Chatsworth terminal is in that vicinity. The hon. the Minister probably knows that it is the intention of the Minister of Community Development to develop a considerable portion of that land lying between the Umlazi and the Umhlatuzana Rivers for Indian housing, and that land extends beyond Chats worth terminal right up as far as Mariannhill. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us whether in providing for this section of the line, consideration has been given to the development which will take place further inland, and whether the planning of this line will provide for such further development. This is a line which ends at Chats worth and if it is not possible to develop further inland the Minister may find himself in difficulties in future years. As the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) has already indicated, there is already very heavy road construction in progress. The earlier section of the Minister’s own report indicates that the whole of this Chats worth area is very broken and undulating. It is land which is not easy to cover by road or by railway, and yet the general tendency is going to be for the housing to develop between the Umhlatuzana and the Umlaas Valleys. Already running through that valley is the Durban-Johannesburg railway which has to bridge the Umhlatuzana River on more than one occasion between Mariannhill and Durban. This new line seems to run almost parallel with the main Durban-Johannesburg line, and I wonder whether the Minister has considered the possibility of at some future time the terminal station joining up at Mariannhill or at some intermediate station with a view to allowing the traffic to go up this line and down the main Durban-Johannesburg line. Otherwise it appears that at some future date the Minister may find himself in the difficulty of having to re-lay this line because of the development which will follow the railway line. Unfortunately I cannot carry the criticism very much further because the exact position of this line is not indicated on this chart, and in the short time we have had this report we have not been able to inquire from Railway officials where exactly this line is. I hope that during the course of his reply the Minister will indicate it. When we are asked to spend some R5,000,000, surely it is not only for immediate requirements but it should take care of future planning, to ensure that the development of this line will be on the most economical basis.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay the House for long. I feel that it is my duty to express my pleasure at the hon. the Minister’s decision to build this link between Allanridge and Ancona. Requests have been made about this matter for a long time and it has become a necessity. I just want to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister and say that I am surprised that there can be objection to a plan of this nature. That area is developing swiftly and it is a very important agricultural area. It is absolutely necessary for the immediate vicinity to be in direct contact with the gold mines as far as the transport of agricultural products is concerned. It is all good and well to ask why we do not have a junction at Bloemfontein. It may perhaps be built in future and we will have no objection. That area is developing to such an extent that I foresee that consideration may perhaps in the near future be given to a line in another direction, through Wessels-bron-Hoopstad-Hertzogville, an area that deserves it. But because we have this in mind for the future it is no reason to object to an immediate connection between Vierfontein and Bultfontein and the goldfields. It is a necessity and we are very grateful for it. It is an urgent necessity having regard to the quantity of maize to be transported. We must bear in mind the fact that the maize transported by that line amounts to between 6,000,000 and 7,000,000 bags every year—it is mainly export maize—and it is necessary to transport that maize as soon as possible. Instead of this long detour these products can now be transported in a shorter time. On behalf of the people in that area I should like to express my hearty thanks to the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I want at the outset to congratulate the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) on his appointment as the main speaker of the Opposition on transport matters. I am very pleased that he has been chosen. I think it is a sound choice. The hon. member has the ability and I am sure that he will not only be a worthy opponent but that he will also ensure that these debates will be very interesting in the future. I just want to give him a little advice and that is that when he participates in debates on railway matters in the future he must forget that he is a political propagandist. I do not begrudge him the small amount of consolation that he is able to derive from a measure before the House in order to assist his bankrupt party, but, as the Bible tells us, there is a time for everything, and he must seek consolation when the time is ripe and not, as in this case, from the building of these lines.

The hon. member, as well as the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), asked why the connecting line was not being builtfrom Bultfontein southwards to Bloemfontein. Representations were made to us in this regard. The hon. member for Turffontein dealt chiefly with this matter.

The hon. member for Turffontein wanted to know why the Railway Board did not investigate the possibility of connecting the line from Bultfontein to a point on the main line to Bloemfontein, and he also suggested that economic justification for the building of a line should not be taken into account; that that should not be the only criterion; that where there might be future development and there is need for a line, that that should be the decisive factor. I want to give the hon. member an elementary lesson in the planning of a business organization. In regard to the provision of every facility involving large expenditure, it is a primary requirement that it should be established as to whether there is economic justification for the provision of that facility or not. Even if he had a business, he would probably do the same. But that is not the criterion. If, in spite of there being no economic justification, the interests of the Department require the building of a line or the provision of facilities, it is still done. In this particular case the line will be built mainly because of departmental requirements. At present the maize has to be conveyed over Vierfontein, and from there to Kroonstad, and then to East London, which will be the export port for that maize as soon as the grain elevator has been completed. Considerable congestion is caused at Kroonstad as the result of that, and it was found to be in the interests of the Department, in spite of the fact that there would be a loss in tariffs, to build the connecting link from Ancona to Allanridge so that the maize can go directly south to East London, avoiding Kroonstad. With regard to future development, very little can take place. [Interjection.] There will not be a bottleneck because it avoids Kroonstad and goes direct from Allanridge to Whites on the main line south. There will be no delays before the maize gets to Bloemfontein, and whether the line is connected from Bultfontein to Bloemfontein or from Ancona to Allanridge, the same easy flow of traffic will take place whether the one or the other is built. Why it was decided to build the Ancona-Allanridge line is because that only costs about R960,000, but the line from Bultfontein to Bloemfontein over Dealsville and Soutpan, so that those developing areas can also get the benefit of that line, would cost, for a branch line standard line, R5,265,000, and from Bultfontein to Bloemfontein over Soutpan, a slightly shorter route of 62 miles, it will cost R4,000,000. From Bultfontein to Bloemfontein over Dealsville, which is 75 miles, will cost R4,785,000. As a business undertaking, the Railways have to take into consideration the economic justification for the expenditure of such a large sum of money. That is why it was decided to make the connection from Ancona to Allanridge instead of from Bultfontein to Bloemfontein.

*The hon. member for Yeoville has asked me to ensure that there will be close co-operation in connection with the building of these lines to the Native residential areas. The procedure that is followed is this: An Interdepartmental Committee has been in existence now for some years and various Departments such as Bantu Administration, Coloured Affairs, Indian Affairs and so forth are represented on this committee. This committee investigates the necessity for the building of a railway line to some or other Bantu area. It is only on the recommendation of that committee that I can take action because all these lines are guaranteed by the Government. In other words, the only function that I have is to make the facilities available and to build the line because any loss on a line of this nature is guaranteed by the Government. This has been the procedure throughout the years. This committee makes a recommendation after investigating the matter and that recommendation is then submitted to me and I submit it to the Cabinet which has to sanction it. This is what happened in this case.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) asked when the report was made available to me. I received it in September of last year. The hon. member will see, therefore, that there has been no delay because to-day, four months later, we have this Bill before Parliament. It is true that the railway line can be built even before the whole area is inhabited, but the hon. member will realize of course, that the loss on such a line will be so much greater. We had that experience with the Langa line. There was some hitch or other in connection with the resettlement of the non-Whites there. Things did not go according to the predictions of the Interdepartmental Committee. The result was that some of those lines were not in full use for years. As I said, the Government is responsible for the losses incurred on unproductive capital. We want to avoid this in the building of other lines. That is why it was decided that these lines should be built now only.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana wanted to know whether this work could be speeded up. He suggested a crash programme. This seems to be becoming a favourite expression of the United Party—“crash programme”. The only crash that I have found in their programme is that they are crashing themselves. But in any case it is no use speeding up the building of the line because we have to wait for the delivery of the rolling stock. The order has been placed but the rolling stock can only be delivered towards the end of 1966. It is no use having a completed line if one does not have the rolling stock to operate on it. It is in the hands of private manufacturers who cannot speed up their deliveries. They have given a definite delivery date for the rolling stock.

With regard to the facilities at Dalbridge, the hon. member wanted to know whether it would be sufficient to meet the enormous increase in passenger traffic. I can give the assurance that the potential increase in passenger traffic is always taken into consideration. All the necessary steps are being taken to meet any potential increase in passengers in the future.

The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hope-well) wanted to know whether any consideration has been given to the further development beyond Chatsworth. That again will be a matter for the Interdepartmental Committee. If there is further development, quite obviously the Durban Corporation will make representations for the extension of the line, and if such representations are made the Interdepartmental Committee will inquire into the matter and make the necessary recommendations.