I move—

Hon. members will have noticed from the documents I have already tabled that the expenditure to be defrayed from revenue funds during the present financial year now amount to R523,147,200. For this an additional amount of R18,278,475 has to be voted.

The main reasons for the increased expenditure are the following. In addition to the amount of R36,357 for improved fire-fighting services, the major portion of the amount under Head No. 1—General Charges—is due to the transfer of staff to departments falling under this head. In order to centralize the accounting work, the staff in the stores department doing such work has been transferred to the control of the accounts department. Similarly the subdivision, motive power, has been transferred from the office of the Chief Engineer (Mechanical) in Johannesburg to the office of the General Manager, with a view to efficiency.

The salaries of the staff concerned have already been provided for under various other heads, but it is necessary to make specific provision for it now under the head Miscellaneous Expenditure.

An additional amount of R767,000 is required under Head No. 2—Maintenance of Permanent Way and Works. That was caused, inter alia, by the larger amounts paid in rentals as the result of the greater utilization of mechanized equipment for permanent way maintenance; and also greater expenditure on the maintenance of housing and buildings, which is now done according to a scheme of systematically planned maintenance.

The great increase in rail traffic during the past year is responsible for the major portion of the additional amounts which have to be defrayed under Heads Nos. 3, 4 and 5—Maintenance of Rolling Stock, Running Expenses and Traffic Expenses. Operational requirements have resulted in the appointment of additional staff and increased Sunday time and overtime pay, and at the same time the cost of repairing steam locomotives and other rolling stock has also increased.

When the original Estimates were drafted, it was not possible to determine the exact effect of the rationalization of the salary and wage structure on pension contributions, and consequently it was necessary to make an adjustment in this regard. In addition, the number of members of the Superannuation Fund increased to such an extent that the Administration’s R for R contributions have to be increased. An additional amount of R277,000 is thus provided under Head No. 6 to cover the increased expenditure.

In regard to subsidiary services, an additional amount of R1,027,300 is asked for under Head No. 12—Road Transport Service, which, as in the case of the railways, was mainly caused by an increase in traffic. For the period April to October 1963, as compared with the same period for the previous year, the goods traffic of the road transport service, e.g., increased by 140,000 tons, and vehicle miles for the same period increased by over 750,000.

The increased expenditure under Head No. 13—Tourist Services, is due to increased number of passages booked for immigrants and the increase in hotel expenses incurred on behalf of tourists. This additional expenditure is, however, recoverable and the income of the tourist department of the Railways has increased accordingly.

Hon. members will remember that when I announced the increase in the allowances of certain pensioners in my Budget speech last year, I mentioned that the expenditure in connection with that was not included in the printed Estimates. Provision is therefore being made for it now in the Additional Estimates and an amount of R1,442,000 is being provided for under Head No. 17—Miscellaneous Expenditure.

The greatest proportion of the amount of R251,000, in respect of assets withdrawn from the service, is designed for the transfer of a non-White residential area at Waterval Boven to the local health committee. In order to clear up a non-White slum on the railway premises, to improve health conditions and housing and to be able to control the further influx of squatters, a location area has been demarcated in consultation with the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, in which the aforementioned railway premises is included. It is, however, essential that the ownership rights of a particular area should be vested in the authority controlling it, and therefore it was decided to transfer to the health committee the land concerned together with the assets on it.

Provision is also being made for R352,400 to cover the losses suffered on the realization of investments. In the original Estimates only a nominal provision of R2,000 was made for such losses. As the result, however, of the sale of locally registered low interest-bearing bonds, an additional amount of R352,400 is required to cover the net capital loss sustained in these transactions. The proceeds of such sales are being reinvested in long-term bonds bearing a higher rate of interest, with the result that the loss sustained in this way will be wiped out within an appreciable period by the higher rate of interest received.

In regard to harbour services, an additional amount of R225,315 is required under Head No. 19—Operating Expenses, which is mainly due to the higher salaries and wages resulting from the increased activities in the harbours.

The main reasons for the additional provision of R1,673,500 under Head No. 28—Airways, is in respect of increased fuel prices as from September 1963; the greater consumption of fuel due to expanded services; switching over to the West Coast route; and the application of a revised depreciation contribution in regard to aircraft. In this connection it was formerly the practice to calculate depreciation on all aircraft and aircraft engines on the basis of a life of eight years with a residual value of 15 per cent of the original value. In view of the latest developments in the sphere of aviation, however, the possibility has arisen that it will not be easy to dispose of used aircraft, with the result that difficulty may be experienced in obtaining compensation to the extent of 15 per cent of the original capital value of aircraft by way of the residual value. It has therefore been decided, except in the case of the Boeing aircraft, to depreciate fully all aircraft of the S.A. Airways as from October 1963 over a period of eight years. In view of the fact that it is expected that the Boeings will still be in service by 1970, their life is estimated to be ten years.

As hon. members know, there have been negotiations with the Mealie Control Board in regard to the taking over of the Department’s 34 inland grain elevators, with the exception of the one at Moorreesburg. This transfer took place on 1 May 1963 and it was decided to transfer the credit of R975,000 which became available from this transaction to the Renewals Fund under Head No. 34 to finance the machinery in the new grain elevator at East London.

May I thank the hon. the Minister for making available to us a copy of the speech which he has just delivered, and at the same time for the somewhat detailed explanations which he has given of certain items. Be that as it may, there are still one or two other aspects of these Additional Estimates which I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister and on which I hope he will be able to give us a reply. May I say in passing—I think I am correct in saying this—that this is probably the first occasion, in quite a long period, on which the Minister has presented Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works in which he has not had to approach the Treasury for further loan funds. But there are still one or two aspects of these Estimates in respect of which the hon. the Minister has not entirely met the requests put forward by this side of the House in the past, because we still find that provision is made here for new items in respect of which the House is merely being asked to vote token amounts to indicate its approval of work eventually to be undertaken by the Administration. I find in studying the Estimates that although in regard to certain of these new works we are being called upon in these Estimates to vote a sum of R351,000 only, there is still something like R803,200 of the total appropriation which the House will eventually still have to vote. Sir, the Minister has criticized us in the past for not coming forward with objective, constructive criticism of his Budget and of his management of the Railway Administration. We have pointed out in the past that unless we have information from the hon. the Minister indicating the necessity for these new capital works, it is very difficult to put forward objective criticism of the proposed new works.

Which items are you referring to?

I refer to Items 5, 6, 7, 10, 32, 39, 40, 44, 45, 51, 53, 54 and 59. These are all new works of a varying nature in respect of which we are now being called upon to vote money for the first time. I suggest to the hon. the Minister that if there was proper and adequate planning by the Minister’s Planning Council, there would be no necessity to make provision in these Additional Estimates for these new capital works, because both in the First and Second Additional Estimates we find these new items appearing from time to time in respect of comparatively large works which, if there had been adequate planning, could surely have appeared in the Brown Book when the original Estimates were approved. We are well aware that there are occasions, as in the case of the Midway connection, where there is a danger through subsidence of the soil, where it is necessary to make provision for an item immediately so that the Administration can proceed with the work immediately. That we appreciate; it would be unreasonable to expect the Minister’s Planning Council to have foreseen a subsidence of the soil in that area with resultant danger to the traffic and travellers on that particular line. That is appreciated but there are many other items where the Minister, when he presents his Brown Book, can give the House the reasons for having to undertake these capital works, rather than presenting them piecemeal in this fashion and then expect us to confine our questions, in terms of the rules of this House, to the reasons for the inclusion of the amounts in these Additional Estimates. Let me say immediately that in, these Estimates there is a very great improvement over previous years, but I hope that we will reach the stage eventually where only capital works which are urgently necessary will appear in these Estimates.

Then turning to the Revenue Fund, the Minister has pointed out that the bulk of the R18,125,000 that we are being asked to vote here is due to the rationalization of the wage and salary structure, but the bulk of the money—R11,000,000 odd—is required to cope with increased traffic. We do not quibble about that and we hope that that will be reflected in the hon. the Minister’s Budget when we will go more fully into that matter. The hon. the Minister dealt in particular with one item and that was Head No. 1. I want to say to the Minister that it seemed to me that he rather glossed over the reasons for the increases there, because I noticed that the Minister makes no reference at all to one of the most important reasons for the increase, and that is the increase in the emoluments of Railway Commissioners with retrospective effect from 1 October 1963. Sir, I realize that I cannot go very fully into that issue here but I would like to ask the Minister what the reasons are for that increase at this stage when we relate it to past increases, because here we find for the first time that a distinction is being made between the three Railway Commissioners. The senior Commissioner is now to be paid a salary of R7,600 which represents a 50 per cent increase in the salary of the senior Railway Commissioner since 1951, a 26 per cent increase since 1955 and a 12 per cent increase since 1963. What do we find when we compare these increases with the increases granted to senior executive officers of the Railway Administration? We find that nothing like it has been granted to senior executive officers in such a short period of time—50 per cent in eight years, 26 per cent in four years and 4 per cent in two years! What has necessitated this increase? Surely there is no comparison between these increases and the increases which were given to the railwaymen and the senior officers in 1962.

Order!

Sir, I realize that the rules prevent me from going too deeply into this matter. I do not know if the Minister hoped that the Opposition would not notice the footnote relating to Head No. 1, but if he had any such hopes he was mistaken. We hope to take this matter further on another occasion, but I hope that at this stage the Minister will indicate why this very large increase should be given to Railway Commissioners with retrospective effect to 1 October 1963 and how he can justify this increase bearing in mind all the perquisites enjoyed by Railway Commissioners, which are not enjoyed by any other executives in the Railway Administration.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) has attacked the hon. the Minister because the salaries of Railway Commissioners have been increased, but I think he himself ought to realize why this has been done. Last year he did not oppose the rationalization of the salaries of railway-men.

Order! I cannot allow a discussion on the subject.

Then I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the reason for this increase was not to bring the salaries of the Railway Commissioners in line with the salaries of members of statutory boards? I have gone a little into the matter and I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that when you look at the protocol list you find that the Railway Commissioners are not very high up on the list.

The hon. member should observe my ruling.

Very well, Sir, then I shall have to sit down.

I am really at a loss to understand what the complaint of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) is in regard to the Additional Estimates on capital works. Surely he must realize that the Railway Administration is a dynamic organization, and you cannot possibly foresee all capital works which may have to be undertaken in the next 12 months. It all depends on traffic conditions whether additional works should be embarked upon or not. Surely the hon. member does not expect urgent work to be held over until the Brown Book has been presented. What difference does it make whether a new item appears in the Additional Estimates or in the Brown Book? Any new item appearing in the Additional Estimates can be fully discussed. There is no limitation on the debate in that regard. There are over 1,000 items in the Brown Book. Has it ever happened that every item has been motivated and the House informed about the reasons for the inclusion of every item? It does not happen. As a matter of fact what does happen is that the House usually spends about one or two hours discussing the items in the Brown Book, and there are about 1,000 items to be discussed within one or two hours. As far as items appearing in the Additional Estimates are concerned, I think hon. members have more opportunity of discussing the individual items in detail because there is more time available. The hon. member is free to discuss each of these items ad infinitum. He can get all the relevant information. I do not give the House all the information in regard to items appearing in the Brown Book. As a matter of fact I give very little information. It is the duty of hon. members, if they want information, to ask for that information. In regard to all these items which appear as new items in the Additional Estimates I am quite prepared in the Committee Stage to give the hon. member all the information he wants. But the trouble is that the hon. member apparently does not know what to talk about and that is why he raises a silly point like this.

In regard to the increase in the salaries of Railway Commissioners, I can accuse the Opposition of many things but I have never accused them of being blind, so quite obviously they must see it when there is a footnote to the Estimates; they must see it, and there is nothing to hide. There are two reasons for increasing the salaries of Railway Commissioners. First of all the increase is fully justified having regard to the amount of work they do and the responsibility that they carry. Secondly, the Government appointed a committee to inquire into the salaries of members of all statutory boards, and the recommendation was that the salaries should be increased. It was only fair therefore to bring the salaries of Railway Commissioners into line with the salaries of the chairmen and members of other boards who received an increase in salary. There were times when the salaries of Railway Commissioners were higher than the salaries of the members of many boards, and to-day there are board members whose salaries are higher than those of Railway Commissioners.

In 1962 you told the House that you were bringing their salaries into line with the salaries of the members of other boards.

The Government, as I have already said, appointed a committee last year—not in 1961—and that committee made recommendations in regard to the salaries of board members. Hon. members will see what their salaries are when the Estimates are presented to the House. I felt that it was only fair to bring the salaries of Railway Commissioners into line with the salaries paid to the members of boards. The salaries were always uniform. As a matter of fact they are not quite uniform to-day because there are certain members, such as the chairman of the Board of Trade and Industries, whose salaries are much higher than the salaries of Railway Commissioners. As I have said, there are good reasons for this increase. They deserve this increase bearing in mind the responsibility that they carry and the work that they do. The reason why the salary of the Senior Railway Commissioner is higher is because he carries additional responsibilities. There has always been a Senior Railway Commissioner. That Senior Railway Commissioner acts as chairman in my absence. In regard to the majority of the appeals which are heard by the Railway Board the Senior Railway Commissioner acts as chairman. It is up to him to give the necessary lead to the other Railway Commissioners in regard to their activities. I thought it was only fair that the Senior Railway Commissioner should be given a slightly higher salary because of his additional responsibilities. The increase is fully justified.

The hon. the Minister has partially given us the reasons for this increase in the salaries of members of the Railway Board but I do not think that explanation is quite satisfactory. We should also like to know why this new concession should be made to the so-called Senior Railway Commissioner. Is the position that there have always been three blind mice in the past but that the one eye of the one has opened and that they now have a Cyclops amongst them.

Order! The hon. member can only ask for the reasons for the increase.

The hon. the Minister has referred to a certain committee which was consulted in connection with this increase in the salaries of Railway Commissioners. I want to ask him whether that committee has approved of this increase. I also want to know from him whether that is the committee which is known as the Coordinating and Advisory Committee on Salaries and Conditions of Employment of Statutory Boards and Other Bodies. It is a committee with a very long name and which, I believe, was appointed by the Government last year to inquire into the salaries and income of members of boards and also the members of the Railway Board. Was that the committee that was consulted? How is this committee constituted? Who are the people who actually advised the hon. the Minister? I think we should have more information about that committee and also about the advice given to the Minister in that connection.

I should also like to associate myself with the remarks made by my colleague who asked why it was necessary to make this increase of retrospective effect from 1 October 1963. Has the volume of work increased so fantastically over the past few months that it has become urgently necessary to grant the increase from 1 October 1963? Why could it not have waited until the new Budget was introduced this year? The hon. the Minister has said that he made a comparison between the salaries paid to members of the Railway Board and to members of other boards. When granting this increase did he consider the fact that members of the Railway Board had their own passenger coaches and that they enjoyed many privileges which members of other boards did not enjoy? When those things are taken into consideration it is clear that members of the Railway Board are indeed well remunerated. I think the hon. the Minister owes the Committee a further explanation in connection with this matter.

Did the hon. member not understand me when I spoke in English a minute ago? Surely I have given the reasons for this increase.

I am not as unilingual as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Mr. Odell).

I have explained why the salaries have been increased. I shall repeat what I said. The Government appointed a committee to inquire into the salaries of members of other statutory boards. If the hon. member wants to have details about that committee he must ask my colleague because that committee did not inquire into the salaries of Railway Commissioners. They inquired into the salaries of members of other boards. As the Minister concerned and knowing the work the Railway Commissioners do and what responsibilities they carry I decided that it would only be reasonable to bring their salaries into line with those of members of other boards.

Did that committee not inquire into that?

No, they did not inquire into that; that is my responsibility. I know what responsibilities they carry because they work in very close association with me. I knew what work they did and I decided, firstly, that it would only be fair to bring their salaries into line with the salaries of members of other boards. Secondly I also decided to differentiate between the salary of the Senior Commissioner and the salaries of the others, because of the additional responsibilities he carried. The reasons are the same as those that applied when the hon. member’s salary was increased a few years ago. At that time this House felt that because Members of Parliament carried greater responsibilities they deserved higher salaries. It was for the same reason that I increased these salaries. I took into account the facilities they enjoyed before I came to the decision. I decided that it should be effective from that date, but that is even a later date than the date from which members of other boards received increases. I did not want to go as far back as that. Those are the reasons for these increases in detail, Sir.

The Minister has given the reasons for the increase, but I think this is the first time the Minister has appointed a committee to go into the question …

No, I did not appoint it.

I think the Minister is still a member of the Cabinet …

If the hon. member did not understand me correctly, I shall repeat in English what I said in Afrikaans.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister knows all about the appointment of that committee; he is a member of the Cabinet.

May I explain to the hon. member, Sir? I said in Afrikaans that the Cabinet decided to appoint a committee to inquire into the salaries of members of boards, not the salaries of the Railway Commissioners. That committee made recommendations in regard to the salaries of those members. That committee did not inquire into the salaries of the Railway Commissioners. The reason is quite simple. I am my own Minister of Finance; whereas the Minister of Finance is responsible for the salaries of the members of all the other boards I am responsible for the salaries of the Railway Commissioners. That is why the Government committee could not inquire into the salaries of the Railway Commissioners.

That was the position that I understood the Minister to say. It is quite clear that the committee that dealt with this matter was asked to do so by the Minister of Transport … (Laughter).

Must I repeat it in Greek? I think you had better get assistance from your Leader.

I am quite clear in my own mind about this. What I am trying to find out is who took the initiative in having this matter referred to the special committee? I think it is clear from what the hon. the Minister has said that this special Cabinet committee dealt with everybody else’s salaries except those of the Railway Commissioners. It was then decided to deal with the salaries of the Railway Commissioners. Who took the initiative there? You see, Sir, the Minister has mentioned this committee and I am quite sure from what he has said he gave the impression that this committee was responsible for this improvement.

No!

Because the Minister said that Members of Parliament got increases in the same way. They got their increases on the recommendation of an independent committee that went into the whole matter. I am trying to establish whether the decision in this regard was taken solely by the Minister.

Yes.

That being the case it cannot be compared with what happened in the case of Members of Parliament or in the case of members of all other boards. It cannot be compared at all.

I am not comparing them.

This is a ministerial decision and I do not know why the Minister has brought this question of the committee into it. Had he said quite clearly: “I took the decision because I felt that my Railway Commissioners were being left out of it” it would have been clear to us. He left the impression that the Cabinet committee …

I never left such an impression.

That was the impression I got.

You do not know what impression you left.

Can I be held responsible for the impression the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) got?

The Minister says he appreciated the increased responsibility of and work done by the Railway Commissioners. We get a report from the Railway Board annually and from that we are able to gauge, in part, what they are doing. I am not quibbling about the fact that additional responsibility has been placed upon the Railway Commissioners. All I wanted to establish was that the Minister must have failed in the first place not to have the salaries of the Railway Commissioners considered by the special Cabinet committee. That being the position the Minister has taken this decision on his own shoulders.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with my hon. colleague. The impression I got … [Laughter.] That laughter that you hear, Sir, is guilty laughter. There is the question of collective Cabinet responsibility, Sir. No wonder the hon. Deputy Minister over there laughs. The Minister has given us two reasons for this increase. First of all, the Government appointed a committee to go into the whole question of the salary structure of the chairmen and members of other boards. Having done that they reported to the Cabinet and the Minister saw that report. He then came to the conclusion, because of that report, that the Railway Commissioners were underpaid. He came to that conclusion as a result of the report, not because of the work done or the non-executive responsibility carried by those Commissioners. The Minister had a doubt in his own mind, that is obvious. He could not take the courage in his own hands and announce in this House last year, when the general increase was granted to Railway servants, that he would at the same time give the same percentage increase to the Railway Commissioners. He lacked the courage. The Minister has to get some confirming authority. It cannot be escaped that there is a 50 per cent increase. I challenge the Minister this afternoon to show us one single other example of a member of any other board that exists by Statute in South Africa where there has been a comparable increase in remuneration as it is now proposed to give to the Railway Commissioners. I challenge the Minister to give us one example. Because in 1962, in Col. 2547, when we debated the increase which the Minister then gave to the Railway Commissioners, an increase which represented a 26 per cent increase on the 1955 salary basis, the Minister said that for years the Railway Commissioners were ahead of other board members. We now suddenly find that because of a committee appointed by the Cabinet—I have not seen their report; I do not know whether any other member has seen it—all members of boards are getting an increase and that fact has justified an increase in the salaries of the Railway Commissioners. But the other executive members of the Railway Administration, those members who carry the burden of the Railways on their shoulders, have not had a 50 per cent increase since 1951; they have not had a 26 per cent increase in their salaries since 1955. They do not enjoy free motor transportation; they do not enjoy free passes; they do not get all the other perks that go with an increase. We must not overlook those privileges. May I ask the hon. the Minister whether any reference is made in this report, the report that convinced him that his Railway Commissioners were underpaid, to the privileges which other board members enjoy; privileges which naturally have to be taken into consideration—such privileges as subsistence, travelling allowances, etc.? I do not know of any board member who enjoys the same privileges as the Railway Commissioners. Think of the extra allowance that a Railway Commissioner gets; think of the R200 which is now to be paid to the Senior Commissioner as an entertainment allowance. Think of the Gold Pass and the free transportation.

I do not think that the Minister has convinced this House that the increase is justified, neither will he convince the railwaymen of South Africa that it is justified, neither will he convince the public of South Africa that it is justified. The one fundamental fact remains that the Railway Commissioners carry no executive responsibility whatsoever. There are other board members who do carry an executive responsibility but Railway Commissioners carry none whatsoever. The arguments advanced by the hon. the Minister this afternoon carry no weight with me whatsoever.

I want to turn to another item under this Head No. 1. There is a footnote at the bottom which reads—

Could the Minister tell us whether that means a new reorganization of the General Manager’s office? There was a general reorganization two or three years ago. It says “transfer of certain staff”. May I ask the Minister what classes of staff are involved and whether this transfer means an extension of services or a reorganization; are specialists being transferred to assist in the General Manager’s office? I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister will give us the details.

One thing I cannot be held responsible for and that is the obtuseness of hon. members of the Opposition. I have explained three times how the increases came about. I wonder if hon. members would understand me if I spoke Greek or Hebrew—which I cannot speak.

Just plain English.

I have tried plain English and I have tried plain Afrikaans but still they cannot understand.

Sir, I have explained to hon. members that the Central Government appointed a committee to inquire into the salaries of members of statutory boards. That committee made certain recommendations. I decided to bring the salaries of the Railway Commissioners into line with the salaries of the members of those boards. Apart from that the Railway Commissioners, as a result of increased responsibility and the additional work they have to do, deserved an increase. I held that increase back at the beginning of the year because I knew directly the Railway Commissioners got an increase we would probably have a chain reaction and the members of all the other boards would ask for an increase.

May I ask a question? Why should there have been a chain reaction? What about a chain reaction in the case of the railwaymen who did not get the same percentage increase as other railwaymen?

The hon. member need not worry about the railwaymen. They are on the whole satisfied with what has been done for them. Even in regard to the railway workers’ wage increases there have been no uniform increases. There has not been a flat percentage increase in the wages and salaries of railwaymen. As a matter of fact, there has been no uniformity. It was based on job evaluation in consultation with the staff themselves. As I have said the increases in the salaries of the Railway Commissioners were justified in view of the increased responsibility that they carry and the additional work they have to do. As I have said, I held that increase back until the Government decided to increase the salaries of other board members. I then thought I would bring them into line. I am solely responsible for that decision. I took that decision with, of course, the concurrence of the Cabinet.

The hon. member challenged me to give one example where a member of a board had received a higher percentage increase over the years than the Railway Commissioners. I accept his challenge. I can quote him a number of cases. In 1910 the Railway Commissioners were among the highest paid members of boards. At that time a railway commissioner received more than heads of departments.

They had entirely different functions.

Only up to 1912, but they still received the same salary after 1912 when their functions were limited to what they are to-day. They received R4,000 then and heads of departments only received R3,000 in those days. When the Public Service Commission was appointed in 1912 the chairman was awarded a salary of R3,000, that was increased to R3,600 in 1922. The chairman of that commission to-day receives more than the senior Railway Commissioner gets. When the Board of Trade and Industry was appointed in 1924 the chairman of the board was awarded a salary of R3,200 and the Railway Commissioners received R4,000. To-day the chairman of the Board of Trade and Industry receives a higher salary than a Railway Commissioner. The hon. member should not issue challenges when he cannot substantiate his facts.

Is the hon. member still interested in my reply to his other question? Then he had better listen. He wanted to know what the transfer of staff entailed. The staff engaged on Stores Account are being transferred to the Accounting Department. The object is to centralize the accounting work as recommended by the 1938 overseas mission which investigated financial procedures and the Hugo committee on more effective financial control. The purpose is to centralize accounting.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head No. 4,—“Running Expenses—Railways”, R3,670,660,

I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister will explain Item No. 310 where there is an increase of something like 150 per cent. Will the Minister explain why the need has arisen for this substantial increase of something like 150 per cent. There is only approximately a month and a half to go. Why is there this substantial increase at this stage by which the Administration will have to expend something like R338,000 in the next six weeks in comparison with R224,950 over the whole of the 10½ months? Will the hon. the Minister explain the reason for that, please?

This increase is due to the hire of 250 high-sided bogie trucks from the Rhodesian Railways.

All to be paid for within six weeks?

No, those trucks have already been hired. This is the first opportunity of getting Parliament to agree to the appropriation.

I want to refer to Items 277 to 283. I should like to know from the Minister whether the amounts under these heads, totalling R1,844,177, are entirely due to the increased traffic which is being borne by the Railways at the present time? In his opening address the hon. the Minister said it was due to Sunday time and overtime. Does that in fact mean that there has been a reversal of the policy the Minister advocated in the past that no more overtime and Sunday time would be permitted by the Administration?

To what policy are you referring?

The Minister’s policy in the past was to cut down Sunday time and overtime to the minimum …

What do you mean by the “past”?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has a very short memory. He spoke for hours telling us about the complete changes he would bring about; how he would do away with Sunday time and overtime. He was going to make the Railways more efficient; he was only going to transport on weekdays, etc. We have had that for hours and hours over the last few years and now the Minister asks “What past?” The hon. the Minister is like a locomotive which has reached a stage where it needs an overhaul; it has to go to the workshops; it gets choked up. I suggest to the Minister that he prepares his brief before he comes to this House with his Estimates. He should look up what he said in the past.

This amount is made up of such items as “maintenance”, “running expenses” and “travelling expenses”. We are dealing with “Running Staff” so this money must be paid entirely in the way of wages to those men who are operating the railway system. Then we have an estimate by the Minister of what he will have to pay those men over the 12 months. Now he says he wants nearly R2,000,000 more. And he gives the justification for that as overtime and Sunday time. I want to ask the Minister whether that means that he is going to allow full Sunday time and as much overtime as possible, as long as the railways can carry all the goods that are offering?

I want to deal with Item 305/1 “Refrigerator Units”. By reading this item it would appear that refrigerator wagons were supplied without refrigerator units. How this can come about I do not know. If this is a new item for refrigerator units that are going to he used in mechanically refrigerated wagons I think the House is entitled to an explanation from the Minister.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) talks about locomotives that must be overhauled, but he is completely off the rails. I have never announced it as a policy that no Sunday time and overtime should be worked. The working of Sunday time and overtime is inevitable. The Railways cannot stop all the trains on a Sunday; the trains must run on Sundays although we are trying to cut overtime to the minimum. That is the policy. We are trying to avoid unnecessary overtime. In 1958-9 when we closed the year with a deficit we eliminated a lot of unnecessary overtime and Sunday time. That is still the policy; there has been no change in policy. Obviously when there is increased traffic to be conveyed more trains must run, more overtime must be worked and more Sunday time must be worked. There has been a considerable increase in traffic during the last 12 months. As a matter of fact, I think the increase in tonnage transported is over 6 per cent for the year.

Your estimates are completely out.

Of course the estimates are out Can the hon. member predict what is going to happen to our economy 12 months ahead? It has never happened in the past under that Government. I have also quoted the estimates of my United Party predecessors and they were much more out than we have ever been. Hon. members must remember that the Railways are dependent on the state of the economy of the country as a whole and on the amount of traffic that will be offered for conveyance. It is impossible even for a small business to predict precisely to the nearest penny what its financial returns will be 12 months ahead. It never happens in the case of the Railways and it never happens in the case of the Central Government. This additional amount is required for additional appointments; more vacancies had to be filled than we anticipated and more Sunday-time and overtime was worked to cope with the traffic that was offered.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) wanted information on Item 305/1. Mechanically refrigerated trucks are, of course, fitted with refrigerator units when they are purchased. Obviously you will not buy a truck without the unit. This amount is actually required to cover the expenditure incurred in the starting, the running and the general checking of refrigerator units, including the cost of all consumable stores that are debited to this account, but not the cost of the unit itself.

The Minister asks me whether I am able to predict what traffic will be offered in future. I do not know why the Minister poses a question like that. I thought his budget was based on a prediction. The Minister has told us in the past that neither he nor the General Manager can predict what the economic conditions will be in the future. He told us that he consulted organized commerce, organized industry and other sources so that he could make a reasonable estimate.

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

There is one point in respect of which I should like to get some clarity. The Minister has told us that one of the main reasons for this increased expenditure is the fact that he has had to take on new staff, new appointments, and fill vacancies. But as I see the position all the posts covered by heads 277 to 283 are qualified posts. You do not appoint a new driver just out of the blue; he has to have training. You do not appoint a new driver of an electric locomotive out of the blue; he has to go through his training. You do not even appoint new guards out of the blue.

You know that you promote a fireman to driver.

Of course I know, but then you must still find another fireman …

And then you promote somebody else to fireman.

There is a limit to the source of this promotion in view of the shortage of manpower in the country, especially skilled manpower. Can the Minister tell us what percentage of these appointments were new appointments? Can he tell us what percentage of this amount is in respect of new appointments, how much in respect of Sunday time and how much in respect of overtime?

No.

Can the Minister give it to us later?

I shall give it to you if it is available.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head No. 5,—“Traffic Expenses—Railways”, R3,359,000.

May I return to Items 334 and 336 which deal with compensation, in the first instance for personal injury or damage and in the second; namely Item 336, for “Damage to Property”. In the one case there is an increase of nearly 70 per cent in the appropriation and in the case of “Damage to Property” an increase of over 200 per cent. Can the hon. Minister explain the reasons for this high increase? And in regard to the time factor again, because there are only about six weeks left in which to spend the added amounts, whereas the smaller amounts have had to cover a longer period of something like 10 months. Does this mean that the settlement of justifiable claims in respect of damage to persons and damage to property had to be deferred pending the appropriation of the additional amounts? If so, it seems as if there was unnecessary hardship involved.

Would the hon. Minister explain in respect of this item “Other station expenses”, what constitutes the contributions to the Sick Fund. What is the need for the additional expenditure in this connection?

In reply to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman), the information he wants is the following: Item 334 is mainly due to the settlement of outstanding large claims from previous financial years. There is for instance an amount of R35,000 in connection with the collision between a passenger train and a Combi van on 31 May 1962 at Koelenhof Station, and R20,000 in connection with the collision of a goods train and a motor-car near Beaufort West Station, on 22 April 1961. Item 336, “Damage to Property”: This is accounted for as a result mainly of the settlement of a claim by a firm in Dal Josafat; a building was damaged by fire caused by an engine on 26 January 1963. The amount paid was R35,000. It also includes provision for additional amounts to various smaller claimants.

In reply to the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood) I may say that an additional amount is required for the hire of cartage vehicles due to increased traffic and more staff on military leave than expected.

But what has it to do with the Sick Fund?

It has to do with the Sick Fund contributions by the Administration.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head No. 13,—“Tourist Service—Railways”, R209,700,

The hon. Minister referred briefly to this item in his introductory speech, but we would like to have some further information in regard to the increased amounts required.

Would the hon. Minister in his reply deal with the note attached to this particular head where it says: “The additional amount is required mainly as a result of increased overseas reservations for immigrants and tourist traffic.” I know the hon. Minister in his opening remarks dealt briefly with this, but the point I want to get clarity on is the question of the proportion falling to “immigrants”. Do I understand from this that the Railways themselves, through the Tourist Department, had to assume responsibility for certain hotel accommodation provided for immigrants? I can understand the tourist side of it, but where do the immigrants come into Railway Expenditure?

The Tourist Service is in the nature of a travel agency. The Tourist Service makes reservations in hotels, on planes and on ships. Of course the service is reimbursed by those individuals for whom they make the reservations and they get a commission on reservations. They are merely acting as an agency, and whether they are tourists or immigrants, they make the necessary reservations and they get their commission on those reservations and they are reimbursed in respect of the amount of their outlay. But they carry no responsibility for any subsidy to tourists.

We are being asked now to provide that amount to tide the Railways over until such time as the individuals concerned have made their repayments?

They pay immediately.

But why then this item? It almost appears as if the Railways are being paid twice, once through Parliament where we are providing the money, and once on the repayment of the amounts by the people concerned. I take it that the necessary refund is arranged?

Yes.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head No. 17,—“Miscellaneous Expenditure—Railways”, R2,078,000,

Under this Item 534 there is a “special contribution to the Benevolent Fund”. The footnote states: “State President’s Special Warrant for R1,400,000 obtained.” I know that this item covers the special allowance to pensioners, but I cannot think that this special warrant was in respect of these pensions, because it is hard to realize that there could be such a discrepancy between what we have already voted for pensioners and the total amount mentioned here. If it is for pensioners, of course we have no objection whatsoever. But I feel that we should get some further information.

It is entirely due to the additional amount required for pensions. As I stated in my opening remarks the amount could not be appropriated by Parliament last year, consequently a special warrant had to be obtained so that the people could get the benefit of that allowance, and now of course Parliament has to vote the amount.

I also want to refer to an item under Account No. 534: “(d) Loss on the realization of investments.” I know the hon. Minister dealt briefly with that item also in his opening remarks, and as far as I was able to judge from what he said, the loss on realization was due to some extent to a reduction in the rate of interest earned by these investments. But this item clearly reads “loss on the realization of investments”. That must of course mean that stock invested has been disposed of or sold. I would like to ask the hon. Minister if he can give us some further information as to how that loss is made up, an amount of R352,000. Did it in fact come from the realization of stock, or was it due to a reduction in the rates of interest? I would like to have a little clarity on that. The hon. Minister stated that a portion of it at any rate was due to a reduction in the rates of interest. Could the hon. Minister tell us in his reply what rate of interest the original calculation was based on and what is the rate of interest, the reduced rate of interest, which increased the loss from the original R2,000 to R352,400?

It has been the policy for some time to sell low interest-bearing stock before maturity and to reinvest in higher interest-bearing stock, and the loss on realization is compensated in a very short time by the higher interest on the higher interest-bearing stock. I can give the hon. member one or two examples. For instance the 3 per cent 1957-66 stock was sold and reinvested in 4¾ per cent stock; 3 per cent 1957-66 stock, of a nominal value of R1,000,000—the cost price was R994,450.47; the date it was realized was 10 January of this year for an amount of R998,155.85. On this particular stock there was a profit of R3,705. It was reinvested in 4¾ per cent stock. But in the majority of cases there has been a loss, but those losses are compensated in a very short time by the higher interest-bearing stock.

May I ask the hon. Minister for some further information in regard to (c) “Contribution to South African Tourist Corporation”? An additional amount of R30,000 has to be voted. Is not the position that the contribution of the Railways is fixed by statute as a percentage of the Budget of Satour? I am interested to know why a fixed percentage of a fixed Budget must be varied by an additional appropriation?

The hon. member is not correct. It used to be a fixed percentage, but a year or two ago I amended the Tourist Corporation Act, and it was decided then that the contribution of the Railways would be decided upon in consultation with the Minister of Finance. Now I have persuaded the Cabinet to accept a fixed contribution of I think R200,000 a year from the Railways. Obviously, the Tourist Corporation’s activities continue to expand and more funds are required if they want to do a good job of work. But I felt that the Railways did not get so much benefit from tourists coming to South Africa that it justified a higher contribution than the amount that has now been decided upon. This amount provides for the sum to bring it up to that amount that will be the fixed amount in future.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head No. 28,—“Working and Maintenance—Airways”, R1,673,500,

May I ask the hon. Minister whether a large percentage of the additional expenditure asked for here is the result of the diversion of the route of overseas aircraft at the present time. It says here that it is mainly due to increased fuel consumption, due to the fact that the overseas service now has to fly round the bulge of Africa. Is that the reason, or are there any other reasons, because it is a very big increase?

As far as aircraft fuel is concerned, one reason is the increased price of fuel; a second reason is additional services and then additional costs of flying the West Coast Route.

Head put and agreed to.

Remaining Heads put and agreed to.

Second Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works.

On Head No. 2,—“New Works on Open Lines”, R1,122,900,

I wish to deal again with certain of the new items. I raised the issue in the debate on the motion to go into Committee. The Minister’s reply was to the effect that I must not go off on the wrong track when I discuss these matters. I now hope to put the matter clearly, giving specific examples of items clearly before us here. Let us take Item 6. That is a new item, namely the re-modelling of a yard at Cyfergat, and Item No. 5: Kraankuil—Additions and Improvements to Station Yard; or we can take the Eastern Transvaal System, Item 10: Permanent Way Improvements, that is the relocation of an existing loop, shelters, etc. I can mention various other new items under this head. Now surely the inclusion of these new items under this head cannot suddenly have come to the fore during the last two or three months, because some of the new items or new works proposed here are of a permanent nature, resulting obviously from some inquiries or some planning by the Administration. My point is this: If we are expected to objectively discuss these matters, and the amount of money that is placed before us either in the Additional Estimates or in the Brown Book, then whatever capital expenditure is involved, it surely must have a purpose behind it, it must be based on some plans. Now in the past time and time again, we have said to the hon. Minister: You ask us to discuss these matters objectively, but all we really can do is to stand up and put questions in regard to these issues and then to learn what is proposed, with no indication of the planning and the visions that may be held in regard to future railway transportation and the capital requirements therefor. I repeat again that I think it is a bad practice, as we have said repeatedly in the past (and let me admit that there is an improvement in these estimates) to come along in Additional Estimates and include new items of capital expenditure which obviously are not of an immediate or urgent nature and which should for a proper discussion be placed in the Brown Book so that one has the whole picture. Now the hon. Minister asks why we are crying about it now, because we never raised these things although we have an hour or an hour and a half to discuss the Brown Book. But the hon. Minister is to blame for it, not members on this side of the House. The Minister is to blame because if we had here before us the ideas and the thinking and the scheming of the Minister’s Planning Council, we would be in a position objectively to discuss these matters. I take it for granted that the Planning Council has had a lot to do with these new improvements, and that this is not a sudden idea, but if the hon. Minister wants to have an objective discussion on the Brown Book, then let the Minister come with the plans and the thinking of his Planning Council and place it before members here so that they can weigh the plans up in terms of the proposed capital expenditure. Then and then only will it be possible to have a constructive and objective debate on the capital works programme of the Railway Administration. But to-day we are again placed in the position of having to stand up parrot-wise on these benches and say to the Minister: “What is the reason for the expenditure of this money?” Then the Minister says that there was a delay in traffic and an additional yard has to be put in. But when did this delay occur? Did it occur 18 months ago, two years ago, or did it occur in the last three months? When did it become necessary to have additional yards at Kraankuil? Surely consideration has been given to the traffic needs of the past and the requirements of the future, and that must have motivated additional expenditure? That is what we want. We want to be able to assess, and we are incapable of assessing reasonably these new proposed capital expenditures because we just do not know the reasons behind them. I plead again with the hon. Minister. I know he is sympathetic to my viewpoint.

I am not.

Mr. Chairman, we have learned to judge the hon. Minister when we are discussing matters because of the expressions on his face, and the hon. Minister’s face while I have been speaking has been very sympathetic. Let me tell the hon. Minister that I will go on pleading for this. I know it takes time to get things right. The Minister sees the light inevitably eventually, as we know from past experience. I really believe that it is in the interests of the Railway Administration that this should be done. The vision set by the Railway system for the transportation needs of our country, gives an indication to the railway users, the manufacturers, etc. Once the Minister sees that, he will find that there will be much more constructive criticism offered from these benches, and perhaps even from hon. members on the Government benches. So I plead again that the hon. Minister should give us the basic plan where major expenditure in involved, so that we can objectively assess the capital works programme of the Railway Administration.

I think I am correct in saying that item 25 deals with the deviation of the railway line which was necessitated by the subsidence near Carletonville, something which made the railway line very dangerous. I think that is an expenditure to which no one will object because it is an unforeseen expenditure. As you will also see, Mr. Chairman, it is a new expenditure. I notice that the estimated total cost is R470,900 and that we are only asked to vote R172,500. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether that is the most important part of that total expenditure, whether he regards that as sufficient to make that railway line safe, particularly for passengers in the immediate future and whether the entire scheme, as planned, will be adequate to remedy that very dangerous situation.

I notice that it says that telescopic bench marks will be installed in boreholes. I realize that boreholes must be drilled, although it is not very assuring to know in the first instance not only that there will be boreholes; but that telescopic instruments will also be installed. Could the hon. the Minister perhaps tell us how those telescopic instruments work, whether they locate large holes under the ground, and what is really happening underneath that important railway line.

I want to be perfectly reasonable to the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), and I think it is quite clear that he is sincere when he asks that the plans of the Planning Council should be presented to Parliament. I am afraid that even if that is done, Parliament will not be able to discuss these matters objectively or to offer any constructive criticism. Unless you have to do with the running of the Railways from day to day, you cannot even judge whether those plans are justified or not, and the House will not be able to do that. Take for instance the building of a new yard. The Planning Council can say: We find it necessary because there is congestion and it is necessary to expand the yard by building additional lines; it is urgent, there has been congestion and there will be more congestion in future. Now Parliament will not be able to say whether that is justified or not. They will have to accept the position, and Parliament will be unable to offer any constructive criticism. Not that Parliament does not wish to do so, or that hon. members do not have the ability to do it, but merely for the fact that unless you have to do with the day-to-day running of the Railways, you cannot form an objective opinion as to whether a new work is necessary or not. So it will be useless laying those plans before the House. The hon. member knows of course that a certain amount is appropriated every year for “unforeseen works”, because Parliament realizes that matters arise suddenly that have to be dealt with immediately. For that reason that provision is made so that urgent works can be started and that there is no delay. Most of these new items have already been started and financed under the “Unforeseen Works” Vote. More than that cannot be done. You cannot wait for 12 months when something has to be done urgently. You cannot wait until Parliament meets, then put it in the Brown Book and ask Parliament to agree to it. In regard to bigger works the Planning Council inquires into the matter and submits recommendations. Those recommendations are submitted to the management and to me for approval. Estimates must be drawn up. That might only be finalized say in April, that is a month after the financial year has stared. You cannot place the items in the Brown Book before you have all the information, before the Estimates have been drawn up and before the Minister has agreed to the new works and before the Planning Council has reported and the management has agreed. That might happen only in November, or it might happen in June for that matter. You cannot wait until the Brown Book is placed before Parliament. Perhaps the work must be started immediately as an urgent work and financed from the “Unforeseen Works” Vote. Then Parliament is asked to approve of the item in the Additional Estimates, or when the main Estimates come before Parliament. Those are the practical objections to the request made by the hon. member.

In reply to the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) I may tell him that that whole area is of dolomite formation and as a result of that the position will probably never be stable; there will always be a danger of subsidence. That was why it was decided to deviate the railway line from Fochville to Houtkop as an alternative route. As soon as that line has been completed most of the heavy traffic will be conveyed along that line.

Does that also run across a dolomite area?

No, that is why the line runs from Fochville, behind the hill, to Houtkop. I may say that the existing line is safe to a certain extent. The boreholes are sunk and the telescopic instruments lowered and we are immediately warned if any change has taken place in the underground structure. There are big hollows, grottos, under that entire area and it is this erosion that causes the subsidence. The boreholes are sunk at different places along the line with these telescopic instruments inside them so that we are immediately warned of any change in the underground structure so that the necessary steps can be taken. We have already deviated the line and to-day it runs over a fairly safe area where the grottos are far below the surface and where there will possibly not be a subsidence.

Perhaps the right opportunity to debate with the hon. Minister the point that he has just made in reply to the standpoint that I took in regard to these new items, is now. I agree with the hon. Minister that it would be quite ridiculous to think that you should table in this House the plans of the Planning Committee dealing with the odd thousand items in the Brown Book or the particular items of new capital expenditure in detail, unless one knows the running of the Railways. But I am not asking for that. You see, Sir, if you follow the Minister’s argument to its logical conclusion, there surely is no point in our even standing up here to ask the reasons for this expenditure.

You can just discuss it as a matter of curiosity.

Then why have these debates? The Minister and the management have a free hand …

That would be an excellent idea.

Yes, but think what would happen to the Railway system under the hon. Minister if there was not the watchful eye of the Opposition at least. But to me there is no logic in the hon. Minister’s argument. He says: Unless you know the running of the Railways, the plans of the Planning Committee are quite useless here if I were to put them on the Table of the House. But I remember very clearly the hon. Minister telling us on one occasion that when his Planning Council gets to work they also often consult not only their specialists in the Railway Administration, the technicians and engineers, but they also consult outside sources in regard to future expansion and development, because obviously any major expenditure must be based on the future economic expansion of the country. I fully realize that an item such as Item 25, the construction of the new Frede-rickstad-Midway link, is not an item which can be foreseen so that it can appear in the report of the Planning Council, because certain circumstances arose which necessitated immediate work of this nature. Any reasonable member of this House appreciates that. But would the Minister say to me that if he decided on the doubling of the line between Johannesburg and Durban, for instance, we on these benches could not appreciate it if the report of the Planning Council was tabled envisaging such a development in, say, four years’ time. I submit, with respect to the Minister, that the argument he presented in reply to me is not logical or reasonable. I still maintain, according to what the Minister himself has said, that much of the debate in this House on Railway matters in past years had no objectivity whatever. I agree with the Minister to a certain extent there, because hon. members can only stand up in parrot fashion and plead to know what the reason is for a particular item, and the Minister reads from a briefing he has got from the General Manager as regards the reasons for the expenditure. But no one in the world will convince me that a lot of these new items in the Additional Estimates have suddenly in the last few weeks become urgent works and therefore they had to be inserted here. If the Minister uses that argument, it must prove to some extent that there is inefficiency in the operation of the Railways and insufficient foresight in respect of future developments on the Railways to meet the economic needs of the country, and we have sufficient proof of that already in the form of the other additional sums we have had to vote for the Railway operations during the last 12 months. I plead again with the Minister not to think that hon. members of this House who tried to take an intelligent interest in the transportation problems of the country, are a lot of parrots who know nothing about these matters whatever, and are incapable of making a reasonable assessment of the capital expenditure the Railway Administration envisages. In fact, I would go further and say this. We know of the ever-increasing interest burden in regard to a great number of these items which are included here. It is my opinion that one of the main reasons for that ever-increasing interest burden is because capital developments on the Railways have come along in this haphazard way without adequate thinking and planning behind it. I suggest to the Minister that even if he thinks hon. members are ignorant, he should at least credit them with the motive of wishing to take an intelligent interest. Having seen the Planning Council’s report, hon. members could try to make inquiries in order to appreciate the necessity for these things. I would say to the Minister that if he thinks that hon. members of this House have no knowledge or interest, and are in fact fools when it comes to discussing Railway matters, possibly if he tables the reports of the Planning Council in regard to these new items, there may be people outside in commerce and industry who would like to know what the Railways consider necessary for the future transportation needs of the country to meet the ever-increasing economic expansion. We do not know in this House, and no commercial man or industrialist knows what the Administration has in mind in regard to meeting the future economic needs of South Africa by expanding the Railway system. I would say to the Minister that if he adopts the policy of giving us a Brown Book, with these items adequately planned and the background knowledge of the Planning Council, he will find that we have a far more intelligent and appreciative approach to the problems he has to face as Minister of Transport.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head No. 5.—“Harbours”, £1,000,000,

Could the Minister just amplify a little the explanation he gave in connection with these figures? I want to deal particularly with Item 61, the Table Bay Docks tanker berth. The footnote says the increased amounts are required to cover expenditure due to progress of work having been greater than anticipated. The additional amount asked for is R600,000. If one reads that in conjunction with the note, it virtually means that the progress on the tanker berth has actually been doubled. The amount originally asked for, for this year was R648,000, and that has been spent, and now another R600,000 is asked for. Can one accept that that is the case? If it is, it is very good news. It would appear that assuming nothing else happens to disturb the estimates, the job will eventually be completed somewhere within the range of the original Estimates, but somewhat earlier.

The other item I wanted to deal with is Item 63, dealing with a number of cranes, etc. provided at Durban Harbour. There also the same footnote applies, that progress on the work has been greater than anticipated. I hope the Minister will clarify that a little more and give us the reasons for it. Is it due to the fact that the work at Durban Harbour has got so far ahead of the programme that this additional sum is required?

In regard to the last item, that money is required for the payment of cranes which have been ordered and which will be delivered this year. We expected delivery next year, but there is to be earlier delivery, and consequently they have to be paid for. With regard to the tanker harbour, as I explained in my opening remarks, the work has been speeded up and more progress has been made than was originally anticipated. We are of course endeavouring to complete the tanker dock to coincide with the completion of the refinery. That is more or less the undertaking that was given, and consequently the work is being speeded up as much as possible. We hope that the tanker dock will be completed at the same time as the refinery.

Head put and agreed to.

Remaining head put and agreed to.

I have on the Order Paper an amendment which is in fact in two parts, and I wish to move as an amendment the second part of it as printed—

Are you not moving the first part of your amendment?

I want to move that separately, because it seems to me that at this stage the Minister may accept the one without the other being attached to it. I have a different attitude in respect to each of the amendments, and therefore I should like to move them separately. If the Minister is disposed to accept them both, then of course I will move them both immediately and together, but I should like to move them separately because they are already two distinct amendments.

The amendment which I now move is to provide that the conditions which are laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act should apply in respect of this new ground for taking away a licence. As the Minister is aware, Section 17 provides that the National Transport Commission can cancel licences if certain conditions of the licence have not been complied with or have been contravened. It is now proposed to give an additional ground to the provision for cancelling these licences, and that ground is that a carrier licensee has, in the opinion of the National Transport Commission, committed an act prejudicial to the national security of the Republic. When the Minister spoke on the matter in the Other Place, he made the point that the Commission was concerned with matters of aviation and therefore it ought to be the body which determined whether or not matters relating to aviation have or have not been carried out, and he expressed the opinion that it was not necessary or desirable for a Court to substitute its opinion for that of the Commission. That may be so in the case of the existing powers the Commission has for the cancellation of licences, but here the Minister wishes to provide that anyone who does anything prejudicial to the interests of the Republic should also lose his licence. We quite agree that anyone who does in fact do something like that ought to lose his licence, but we join issue with the Minister—or perhaps we do not; I hope we do not—on the wording of this clause, in that as it stands at the moment it is not necessary for the Commission to have regard to certain other factors which it has to have regard to when it cancels other licences, and especially that a licence should not be suspended unless it appears to the Commission that the failure has been repeated or has been persisted in or has been deliberate. As things stand at the moment, “in the opinion of the Board” means just what it says. The Board may form an opinion and there is nothing at all that any licensee can do if the Commission has formed a wrong opinion. The only remedy available to the licensee, as the Bill stands at the moment, is that he is given notice and he may make representations to them. But if it forms an opinion that it is wrong, there is nothing that can be done about it. If this amendment were accepted it would have the effect of bringing the other provisos of sub-section (2) within the purview of any consideration under this new ground. The Minister, when he spoke in the Other Place, indicated that there were certain safeguards, in that mala fides was a ground upon which one could take this decision on review. I think we can take it as read that the Commission is not going to act mala fide. But as the clause stands now, there is nothing that anyone can do about it. When I later move the amendment in relation to the deletion of the words “in the opinion of”, I think we will further remove the curtain that is drawn by this clause between the licensee who is aggrieved and some sort of review. The Minister, in speaking in the Other Place, seemed to be under the impression that this sub-section applies also in respect of a suspension of a licence in relation to having committed an act prejudicial to the interests of the Republic. I may have misread the Minister, but that is the impression it created. [Interjection.] Well, then I have not misread it, and then I move this amendment with even more confidence. It does no more than to place the additional ground for the removal of the licence on exactly the same premises as where a contravention of a condition of the licence has taken place, and I hope the Minister will accept it.

Has the hon. member moved the amendment in line 51?

I have moved the second part of the amendment.

I do not want to go into the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell). Other hon. members will probably do so. I do think, however, that we owe it to the House to say what is happening here. This clause deals with the safety of the State and with aircraft that come over the borders of South Africa. Certain measures to put a stop to that are laid down in this clause. It provides further that a licensee can lose his licence if he does anything that endangers the safety of the State. The hon. member for Durban (North) has moved an amendment which will make this clause incapable of application. I just want to indicate, Sir, what the consequences will be should this amendment be accepted. It will mean that if a person should make himself guilty of an act which endangers the safety of the Republic, action can only be taken against him if he does it repeatedly, if he persists in it, if he commits it deliberately and if it is a serious offence. Now I ask you, Sir, if an act is committed which endangers the safety of the Republic, and the Bill is changed as the hon. member wants to change it, that act which endangers the safety of the State must have been committed repeatedly, it must have been committed deliberately, it must have been committed repeatedly, he must have persisted in it and it must be shown that it was a serious act. In essence it means, therefore, that this entire clause will be absolutely useless and of no value at all. It is more serious than would appear on the face of it. We are dealing with something of which we have experience, we have experience of people who have flown across the Republic from one protectorate to another; people who from time to time have done that, and it is necessary that the law be applied in such a way that the Commission can take action immediately, in the first place—and this is important—that the act is not committed repeatedly. It is necessary for the Commission to have the right to clamp down on that licensee, and it is also important that they should have the power to clamp down on him immediately. That is why the hon. member’s amendment is totally unacceptable—it will take all the bite out of this clause. I wonder what motive is behind the hon. member’s amendment? Does he want to make it possible for the sort of abuses which we want to stop to continue and to be committed repeatedly before action can be taken? Does he want the Commission to be rendered useless so that it cannot take action against such a person unless he commits the act repeatedly? Does he want us to have repeated incidents before any steps can be taken? No, it is quite impossible to subscribe to that attitude and to render this clause useless by means of an apparently innocent amendment. It makes the entire clause useless and it opens the door to the very people who must be prevented from doing repeatedly the very thing this clause seeks to stop.

The hon. member for Bethal-Middelburg (Mr. J. W. Rail) is quite correct when he indicates what effect this amendment will have, but the Minister, in the Other Place, indicated that there were already safeguards and that the Opposition there was wrong in assuming that there were no safeguards at all. In the course of explaining what the safeguards were, the Minister read from sub-section (2), including these words which are now to be applied by this amendment. It was because of that speech and that attitude that this amendment was drafted. The Minister refused an amendment to take out the words “in the opinion of” and put in the word “deliberately”, which is what the intention of this amendment is, so that before the commission takes action it should be a deliberate act; there should be an element of mens rea. If I have misunderstood the Minister …

I think you have misread my speech.

I have it before me, but perhaps the Minister did not intend this. That is why this amendment appears in this form, and not in the form in which it originally appeared and was rejected by the Minister.

But I would like to move the first amendment standing in my name—

In moving the amendment to delete the words “in the opinion of the Commission”, we are faced with the position that in respect of any other licence, the Commission must find as a fact, and not as a matter of opinion either that the conditions of the licence have been contravened or have not been complied with. It does not say that the licence can be cancelled if the board is of the opinion that the conditions have not been complied with or have been contravened. If those words are taken out then the test becomes a test of fact, not a test of fancy. The test then is whether or not in fact, as before, as in relation to all the other cancellations under this section, a licensee has done something prejudicial to the interests of the Republic, and if as a matter of fact he has done something then we are quite agreeable that his licence should be suspended. But the test must be what it was before. I am sure the hon. the Minister does not intend that the board should have fancy opinions. Surely it is the Minister’s intention that the board should only cancel a licence if in fact some carrier has done an act prejudicial to the safety of the Republic. You see, Sir, it is no good the hon. the Minister saying that they can take it on appeal on the ground of mala fides. We must assume, as I said just now, that the board is not going to act in a mala fide way, but then the hon. the Minister must also appreciate that the board is now dealing with a matter not related to aviation in the sense that it is something falling within the special knowledge of that board, which is the normal reason that one would give for excluding the courts from deciding upon the facts which a specialist body like this is asked to decide upon. In this case it is asked to decide whether something is in fact an act which is prejudicial to the safety of the State. Sir, courts, as you know, comprised of people trained in the law and trained to assess facts and trained to apply the law to it and trained to interpret the Statute and to apply it to the facts, but there is always a right of appeal against the decisions of the courts because courts, although comprised of trained people who are also human can make mistakes, and very serious consequences may ensue as a result of this board exercising its opinion, and if its opinion is wrong, if its opinion is not based upon the facts, then surely the hon. the Minister will have no objection if the board’s decision is taken on review to a court, because then it is a matter not as to whether or not they hold an opinion but whether in fact the licensee has done something prejudicial to the State. That is the difference. The hon. the Minister wants to catch those people who have done an act prejudicial to the safety of the State, and there we are a hundred per cent with him. Those who have done such an act must be dealt with, but as this clause reads at the moment it is not whether the person concerned has done such an act but whether a group of people forming the National Transportation Commission are of the opinion that he has done such an act, whether in fact he has or not. I hope the hon. the Minister will indicate to us at this stage whether we should go on arguing our case or whether he is prepared to accept the amendment—either the first part or the second part or both.

I am afraid I am not prepared to accept the amendment. I agree with my hon. friend the member for Bethal-Middelburg that if I did, it would make this provision completely worthless. What the hon. member apparently does not realize is that the other matters dealt with in Section 17 are matters which are clearly defined. Section 17 provides that the commission may cancel a licence, etc., if the holder has contravened or failed to comply with any provisions of this Act or of any law prescribing measures of safety in connection with the use of aircraft. Those laws are definitely laid down. Then the section goes on to refer to “any lawful order or requirement of the Commission under this Act or any condition of his licence”. Those conditions are stipulated in the licence and there is no doubt as to what those conditions are. Then, lastly, the section refers to a contravention of the terms of any exemption granted to a holder under the Act. Those are all matters which are clearly defined. If there is a contravention of those regulations or rules the Commission can act in a certain way. But national security cannot be defined. “National security” is an exceedingly wide term. If “national security” could be defined within strict limits then there might be some substance in the hon. member’s argument.

Is that not all the more reason for accepting the amendment?

No. “National security” is a very wide term which cannot be defined. The commission does not form an opinion until it has heard the licensee, but the crux of the matter is that the onus under my amendment is on the licensee to prove that he has not committed an act prejudicial to national security. If I accept the hon. member’s amendment the onus will be on the Commission to prove it, and it would be quite impossible for the commission to prove. Let me give the hon. member one illustration: If the pilot of a company flies over a strategic or prohibited area and the licensee appears before the Commission then if I had to accept the hon. member’s amendment, all the licensee would have to do would be to say, “I know nothing about that; my pilot did it on his own”, and if the pilot is a licensee he may come before the Commission and say, “I was blown off my route”. He might have had an ulterior motive in flying over a strategic area and the Commission would not be able to act. That is why it is so essential that the onus should be placed on the licensee, and that the licensee should be held responsible for the actions of all his employees. But let me say this: I know that in theory, especially if you are a clever lawyer, you can always predict anything that may happen under any provision of any Act, but I am a practical man and I am concerned with what happens in practice. The hon. member should know that the Commission acts neither capriciously nor frivolously nor irresponsibly …

I did not suggest it.

… and what will happen in practice is this: If any licensee is suspected of having committed an act prejudicial to national security he will have to appear before the Commission; he will be given a full opportunity in terms of Section 17 (2) to state his case, and only after hearing the licensee the Commission will form an opinion and act on that opinion, and the Commission may then decide to cancel his licence. The Commission is comprised of a responsible body of men, and I do not for a moment believe that they would act irresponsibly. I do not think that they are vindictive. I do not think that they have any desire to act unjustly towards any licensee, just as I have no desire to act unjustly towards anybody.

They might make a mistake.

Yes, it is possible that they may make a mistake; anybody can make a mistake but I do not think they will make a mistake. I do not think they will act frivolously or irresponsibly and, after all, if a licensee has a reasonably explanation and if apart from the explanation he can prove that he is completely innocent of the act of which he is accused, surely the Commission will not act so unreasonably as to cancel his licence. I am concerned with the practical application of this provision. Anything can happen in theory. As a matter of fact I know that you do not have to study constitutional law to know that Parliament can pass a law which provides that the firstborn in every family must be killed. In theory Parliament can do so but in practice things of that kind never happen. As I have said, if I accepted the hon. members amendment the whole provision would be completely worthless.

I also wish to approach this subject from the same point of view as the hon. the Minister and that is from the practical point of view and not from any theoretical point of view. The practical point of view—and I am surprised that the hon. member for Bethal-Middelburg did not support this point of view—is the point of view of those who are actively and actually concerned with the problems of flying. The hon. the Minister of Transport has put to the House the case of a person who acts in a way which is prejudicial to the safety of South Africa, and because that is a nice emotional issue which he can use to get people worked up, he is taking a hatchet and cutting through the whole fabric of the entrenched rights of licensees in terms of the existing legislation. He is not only dealing in this Bill with the question of danger to South Africa, and that is the point that I want to put from the practical point of view. The hon. the Minister is aware that there are four bodies in South Africa which are concerned with civil aviation. One is the Civil Aviation Association, one is the Owners’ and Pilots’ Association: then there is the Federated Chamber of Industries and the Associated Chambers of Commerce. These are the four bodies which are concerned in practice, not in legal theory, not in National Transport Commission theory, not in ministerial theory, with the day-to-day practice of flying aeroplanes, and all four have unanimously and very strongly objected to this one clause in this Bill. Equally all four of those bodies have given unanimous support to the Minister in his desire to prevent any act which may endanger the safety of South Africa. They are prepared to accept the most drastic provision against a person who endangers the safety of South Africa. All they ask is that it shall be an act which can be proven or disproved by the accused. Under the present proposed amendment, however, that person has no defence in practice. If he is charged with having endangered the safety of South Africa, which is an emotional issue, he has no recourse to law to prove on the basis of fact that he has not committed an offence. In seeking to close one loophole the Minister has in fact gone far beyond that. Even if he is not prepared to remove the words “in the opinion of” which are the crucial words, I want to ask him whether he will not at least remove the provision in the proposed amendment which makes an offence against any law relating to aviation, the cause for the loss of one’s licence. The proposal in Clause 5 (b) is to substitute in paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) for the words following the word “law” the words “relating to aviation; or”. That proposal changes the whole sense of the section which it is proposed to amend, and which at the moment refers only to offences relating to safety. If this proposal is passed as it stands it means that the licensee may lose his licence for every single offence under the Customs Act, for example. A pilot or any member of an aircraft crew committing a minor offence against the Customs Act or a minor offence against any Act relating to aviation—and the Customs Act relates to aviation—can endanger the licence of the licensee. The same applies to the Immigration Act. The offence in question may be completely innocent. The pilot may be bringing in a book which has been banned but he offends against an Act which relates to aviation in that it controls the entry of goods by air. A person bringing in a banned book which may be a classic and which he did not know had been banned, may cause the licence of a whole company to be cancelled.

Now your are talking nonsence.

I am not. As it is proposed to be amended Section 17 (1) (a) will now read: “Any provision of this Act or of any law relating to aviation.” That law which I have mentioned, dealing with importation of goods or of people, relates to aviation in so far as aviators are the carriers. That is the opinion of all these bodies who have gone into the matter. If I am wrong I hope the hon. the Minister will tell me so. But even if I am wrong in regard to the Customs Act, I am correct in regard to all the actual laws relating to flying, and any technical contravention of any law relating to flying itself, may mean the loss of a licence to the whole company. How on earth can the owner of a company be held responsible for every minor infringement by every member of his staff? The law as it stands has been tested, and if the Minister wants to change it I ask him to give us his reasons. He has given us no reason whatsoever why he wants to change that provision relating to safety laws and turn them into “any law relating to aviation”. If the Minister wants to change that, then surely there must be a reason, and that reason cannot be related to the question of endangering the safety of the State.

I put that one aspect to the hon. the Minister, and finally I want to add my support to the plea of the hon. member for Durban (North) to protect the rights of persons who through no fault of their own have their livelihood endangered and placed in jeopardy by the exercise of “the opinion” of a commission which might very well make a mistake—a mere opinion which can be influenced by emotion rather than fact. When you are dealing with an emotional issue it is quite easy for a person to come to a decision—quite unconsciously; I do not say mala fide—which could be patently unfair, and I plead with the hon. the Minister to accept the deletion at least of the words “in the opinion of”. If he is not prepared to accept the second part of the amendment, even that is not so serious, but the words “in the opinion of” relate not only, as the Minister said, to the question of endangering the safety of the Republic but to every one of these offences. The Minister himself said five minutes ago that all the other offences were matters of fact but that the question of safety of the Republic was a matter of opinion. This Bill does not say that. This Bill says that from now on it will be a matter of opinion whether a person commits any of the other offences provided for here because the words “in the opinion of the commission” apply to every single one of the four sub-sections of this section of the Act. “In the opinion of the Commission” now applies to all four paragraphs of sub-section (1) of Section 17, that is to say “any provision of this Act”, “any lawful order or requirement of the commission”, “any condition of his licence” and “the terms of any exemption”. The Minister a moment ago tried to create the impression that those were matters of fact and that it was only the question of the safety of the Republic which was a matter of opinion. Sir, I challenge that. “In the opinion of the Commission,” as it stands here, relates to all these offences. Therefore I support the plea of the hon. member for Durban (North) and I also add my plea in regard to the question of safety instead of “all other laws relating to aviation”.

In regard to the last point made by the hon. member who has just sat down, if he refers it to his colleague behind him he will be able to correct him. “The opinion of the Commission” relates to one particular matter only and that is the safety of the State. In regard to sub-paragraph (b), the hon. member objects to the insertion of the words “relating to aviation”, and he wanted to know the reason for the insertion of those words. I want to set his mind at rest immediately. There is only one other law relating to aviation that we are concerned with here, and that is Act 74 of 1962, the Aviation Act. In connection with the discussions of the Civil Aviation Advisory Committee, there was only one member who raised an objection to this particular provision and he did not even get a seconder.

What was the voting in that committee, what was the division?

There was no division. As I have said, there was one member who objected to this particular amendment and who did not even get a seconder. That is what happened; so apparently the hon. member has received wrong information. There was a division of opinion in regard to the other matter raised by his colleague, the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell), but in regard to this particular amendment only one member raised the matter. He objected and he did not even get a seconder. The reason for this amendment is the following: As a matter of fact I gave the reasons by way of interjection while the hon. member was speaking yesterday afternoon. The reason is that certain regulations were promulgated last year in regard to the over-flying of South African territory—over-flying from one Protectorate to the other—and those regulations provided that any plane flying from a Protectorate is compelled to land at a designated aerodrome in South Africa before he can continue his flight to the other Protectorate. Those regulations were promulgated under Act 74 of 1962, not under this Act, and that is why it is necessary to amend this Act in order to give the necessary authority to the commission to act if there is a contravention of those regulations. That is the reason for this amendment.

The hon. the Minister, as he correctly states, made that interjection yesterday. But if he inserts into the law as it now stands an amendment that any person who endangers the safety of the State, who acts in a way which is prejudicial to the safety of the State, shall lose his licence, that will be the law anyway; why then repeat it? In other words, it is not only the act which is prejudicial to South Africa which he is worrying about but the offence of not carrying out the regulations. He says that he requires this amendment to deal with the person who does not carry out the regulations which provides that he must land at a particular airfield. That is his reason. But if that should happen in all innocence, is the firm still to lose its licence, if the safety of the Republic is not endangered?

They are two separate matters.

Yes, they are two separate matters and the Minister is trying to link the two together. One is the safety of South Africa, and that is covered by the amendment with which nobody has quarrelled. But in order to enable the Minister to protect South Africa he now wants blanket powers to cover every single act of commission or omission under any law. The Minister went on to refer me to my colleague in regard to the question as to whether everyone of these aspects became a matter of opinion. The words “in the opinion of the Commission committed any act prejudicial to the national security of the Republic or has” are proposed to be inserted in sub-section (1) after the word “has”. There is no comma after the word “Republic”; there is no punctuation. The section, as amended, will then read: “The commission may … if the holder has in the opinion of the Commission committed any act prejudicial to the national security of the Republic or has failed to comply with …” Sir, has the Minister had legal advice on this or is he merely telling the House that from a practical point of view this does not apply, because as I read it, and in the opinion of the people concerned with flying, the “opinion of the Commission” will apply to all aspects of all offences. It is linked completely to the opinion of the Commission. It now says that any person who in the opinion of the Commission has committed an act or has contravened or failed to comply with any provision of this Act, etc. I ask the hon. the Minister to look again at the object of that provision in the proposed amendment. I am certain that the hon. the Minister will find that it is not as clear as he may wish. Now, in regard to the Minister’s claim with regard to the point which I made that there is only one person who raised an objection to the proposed amendment, he will not deny that there was an even division of opinion on an overriding clause protecting persons against all the effects of all these issues. There was a request for a right of appeal to the courts.

Where do you get that from?

I happen to have got my information through an organization which is country-wide and which has a central office which was asked to make representation in an attempt to get this particular provision amended. There is no secret about it.

There is nothing “Broederbond” about it.

Are the minutes of this board supposed to be confidential?

I do not know if the minutes of this body are confidential; I know that the view of the bodies represented have been put to me, and what I have put to the Minister is that four of the bodies represented have pressed for this, and if four of the bodies have unanimously pressed for this, then that must constitute half the Commission. I have no knowledge as to what happened on the Commission but I do know that four of the bodies represented were opposed to these provisions of Clause 5, and those bodies have indicated their opposition. There is division therefore. because they are the bodies represented. The hon. member is trying to play a game to divert attention from the real issue to a question of breach of privilege. There is no law or no rule or no convention which says that a body, because it has a representative on another body, cannot express its opinion directly as an organization. That is what they have done; they have represented their views as an organization. But, Sir, to come back to this point, the hon. the Minister is aware that this is creating concern; that every single organization representing private flying is concerned with this matter. Why does he not take some notice of this view to give them at least some sort of security? There is no attempt whatsoever to prevent action being taken against saboteurs, against traitors, against fifth columnists or against persons acting against the interests of the State. There is no attempt to protect them. The attempt which is being made is to protect the innocent person who through no fault of his own, without any knowledge of the provision, may lose his licence. May I then put this point to the Minister: Would he consider making the commission of an offence a cause for the loss of the licence only if it is shown that the owner, or licensee, had knowledge of the offence? Is the Minister not even prepared to go so far?

Under the Liquor Act if a barman contravenes the law the licensee is held responsible.

The Minister picks out one of the only two laws, as far as I am aware, where that provision is incorporated in the law, but the Minister knows that the Liquor Act was a special case. At the time the Liquor Act was passed, liquor was a restricted, confined commodity which was kept away from seven-eights of the population. That provision was brought in unhappily as a special and emergency measure, and the Minister quotes that Act now as giving him the right to apply that principle in every aspect of life. Are we then going to have that principle applying to every offence which can, be committed? Are you going to say that any person who is an employee who commits an offence in any field against any law, is going to make the owner or proprietor of the company liable for punishment? If a taxi driver has an accident, is the whole taxi company going to lose its licence to operate taxi’s? If you have one engine driver on the S.A. Railways getting drunk and committing an offence, is the Railway Administration going to be stopped from running trains? Here we have the principle that the head of a body or organization can be made liable for an offence of any sort committed by its employees. Where that relates to the safety of aircraft or of the State, it is a different matter because there lives are at stake, but where the offence may have been innocently committed I believe that the Minister is following a course which is completely against the traditions of all Governments in this country.

It appears to me, firstly, that this is a fight between legal theory and practice. The hon. the Minister has fold us that he was a practical person and the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) has also stated that he approached the matter from a practical angle. But I think the Minister is less inclined to agree with him than with the hon. member who has moved the amendment. In the first instance I should like to point out that the body which issues the licence is the Commission. I think it will be a sound principle if the body which issued the licence also had the unrestricted right to cancel that licence.

Without reason?

No, no. The hon. member must not look for trouble. If the hon. member wishes to draw the conclusion that this commission, a responsible commission such as this, will withdraw a licence without any reason whatsoever, he is talking nonsense. I said it must have the right but most certainly not without reason. Had the hon. member ever been present at a sitting of the National Transport Commission he would have known that every party is given the fullest opportunity, not only of stating his case, but he is also given the opportunity of submitting factual evidence; he is also given the opportunity of getting an attorney or an advocate to represent him. After all the evidence has been heard the Commission decides, just as in the case of any other body, on the facts.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) spoke as though the Commission was of necessity obliged to cancel a licence or to suspend it when an offence of any nature had been committed.

They have the power.

Yes, they have the power. But the way you put it it looks as if, when the most insignificant little crime has been committed, it would be found to have been prejudicial to the safety of the State and that he must of necessity lose his licence. That is not so. Surely we must accept, and hon. members opposite must accept with us, that this is a responsible body. Clause 17 does not say it “must”; it says it “may”. In other words, that body has discretionary powers. If for instance, a minor offence has been committed, an offence of which the person actually knew, but it was not of a serious nature, it does not mean that the Commission must of necessity cancel or suspend that licence. It is not part of the amendment that has been moved, Sir, but the hon. member for Durban (Point) also said that it should be provided in this clause that the licensee should know about the contravention. Why does the hon. member ask that? Then he complains when the hon. the Minister refers to the Liquor Act. Why does he ask that? It is in line with our legal principles for the licensee, in such a case, to be responsible for the acts of his employee when the latter is in the employ of the licensee. That is the reason why he asks that.

Not if he proves that he had taken steps to prevent it.

Let me just refer to the principles governing agencies, Mr. Chairman. I read from “The Law of Agency in South Africa”. They say this—

“… actual authority” …

Yes, but the “actual authority” is not what the man is doing, but the work in connection with which he commits the act. Sir, surely these are accepted legal principles. And it is because this is the position that that hon. member asks that it should be changed. Had it not been so, surely he would not have asked for it to be changed. He asks for the change because he wants to open the door for a licensee to have a ready excuse when the person who expressly, on his instruction, committed an offence, an offence which entitles the Commission to cancel or to suspend the licence.

If we were to deprive the Commission of the right to express an opinion I think we would be placing the responsibility of proving that such an act had actually been committed on the shoulders of the Commission. I want to emphasize that the hon. member was wrong when he said it could find a man guilty simply in theory. That is not what happens, Mr. Chairman. Why do we have sub-section (2) then? Sub-section (2) expressly makes it obligatory for the Commission to notify such a person, so that he can appear before the Commission, either in person or through his attorney or his advocate, to state his case. In other words, the Commission is under an obligation to give that person an opportunity of stating his case, not only to argue his case, but to submit factual evidence. Only when the factual evidence has been submitted to the Commission will the Commission, the same body that issued the licence, after consideration of the factual evidence, decide whether in its opinion there has been a contravention.

I do not even wish to talk about the second part, the inclusion of that additional paragraph. I think it is completely wrong to expect that such an act prejudicial to the safety of the State must have been committed repeatedly, deliberately and persistently before a licence can be cancelled. I do not think the hon. member is serious when he asks for that.

Sir, the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) is obviously a lawyer. You cannot dismiss this question of agency as he has done. He quoted from Scoble on “Evidence”. I do not think that was a very lofty start, but be that as it may. The hon. member talks about the responsibility of the principal for his agents and his servants. But surely the hon. member knows that one of the great questions on which opinion is always so divided is the question of whether or not your agent is doing something that he was instructed to do or whether the agent or the servant is out on a frolic of his own. That was precisely what the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) was referring to, not the agent or the servant in the scope of his normal employment, but the agent or the servant who goes out on a frolic of his own. He goes out and he does something quite unknown to the principal for which the principal can in no way be held responsible. But now he is to be responsible; more than responsible, Sir, now he is to lose his licence, his livelihood, if something like that were to happen. What remedy has he got? The hon. member for Ceres says he has the opportunity to appear before the board. Yes, he has. The hon. member also pointed out that he has the chance of taking his attorney with him. Yes, he has. And what is his attorney going to do? He is going to lead evidence. What evidence? The evidence of facts. The attorney is probably also brought in because some law may be involved; there may be certain phrases in the Act that have to be interpreted. Of what use is this going to be, Mr. Chairman, for him to bring his attorney when, in the end, the decision is not going to be based on fact. It is not going to be related to the evidence; it is not going to be related to the law or to the submissions that are made; it is going to be based on an opinion held by the Transport Commission. I want the hon. member for Ceres to answer this; he is quite capable of answering this: Why are the words “in the opinion of” put in? Why is it not left “that if the commission finds …”? Why are those words put in? The hon. the Minister has not answered that. All the hon. the Minister said was that as the Act stood at the moment it was not necessary to have “in the opinion of” in because they were dealing with a contravention of a licence which was a matter, I think he said, which was clearly defined, therefore it was easy to determine whether, as a matter of fact, the licence had been contravened or not. Surely, if the hon. the Minister is right, if “national security” is a term which is difficult to define, and I must agree with him on that, then there are circumstances under which it is very hard to determine whether an act is prejudicial to the national security. But if that is so, then surely that is even more reason why this should be tied down a bit. Surely this gives rise to all sorts of capricious thoughts in the minds of people who are not bound to decide the case according to the facts. The hon. the Minister’s reasons for rejecting the first part of the amendment are in themselves the reasons why this amendment should be accepted.

The hon. the Minister said that the onus was on these people. This confirms my worst thoughts about it, Sir. I do not see any provisions relating to the onus in this case. The National Transport Commission may suspend a licence if, in its opinion, an act prejudicial to the security of the State has been committed. It now has purely an opinion. It does not throw the onus on the licensee in the ordinary sense of the word. Even in the worse sense of the word it does not throw the onus on the licensee. Here he is quite incapable of proving as a fact that he did not commit an act prejudicial to the safety of the State. What can he do about it, Sir? He can prove that he did not do it and where does that get him? Nowhere at all. Surely, Sir, the Minister does not believe that we suggested from this side of the House that the National Transport Commission was going to be capricious or frivolous. I believe they are not going to be and I do not think anybody has suggested that they were going to be. And I do not believe that, in 1949 when the principal Act was passed, anyone suggested that they would act capriciously or frivolously. But nevertheless they provided in Section 17 (2) that no licence should be revoked unless the act complained of was deliberate and serious.

No, sub-section (2) refers only to the conditions of the licence.

Yes, that is right; that is what I am referring to. Otherwise why was it put in? This is a protection against such capricious act on the part of the National Transport Commission. In other words, Sir, the legislature in 1949 stated that although you have these powers you may not exercise your discretion unless you are satisfied that, as a fact, it was repeated and persistent or deliberate and serious. Now, Sir, this is not a case of being capricious or of being frivolous, this is a case of making a genuine mistake of fact. Let me say to the hon. the Minister that you can get a judgment from the Supreme Court, from a judge, you can take it on appeal and get the judgment reversed; you can take it on appeal and get a different decision by two to one; you can take it further on appeal and get the first judgment upheld by two to three. This has often happened, Sir. In other words, even in such high echelons of reason of thought, of impartial weighing of facts, you get mistakes. You get mistakes with one big difference: Here the mistake, once made, deprives the man forever of his livelihood. He can never come back again and do anything about it. All he can do is go to the court and say: “This board acted capriciously or acted frivolously or acted mala fides. If they had acted capriciously or frivolously he could in any event take them on review as the Bill stands. I ask the Minister to give this matter some more consideration, if only in respect of the first part of the amendment. If only the Minister can explain to us why it is that he must now have the words “in the opinion of”. Why must this now become a matter of caprice? Why must this become a matter of fancy? Why cannot the hon. the Minister accept that first part of the amendment?

Hon. members must realize that we are not dealing with matters that might happen in normal times. We are living in times where the national security can, and has been, endangered. Hon. members must realize that. That is why there is a sabotage trial in Pretoria at the moment; those are people who attempted to endanger the national security. All steps must be taken to protect our national security. Anybody who endangers the national security must receive no sympathy at all. This House and the country should be prepared, as they have been in the past, to take drastic action against that type of person.

We are prepared now to do so.

We cannot handle them with kid gloves. We cannot give them any opportunities of slipping out or wriggling out of any acts that they have committed, as hon. members opposite suggest.

Oh no.

I do not say they have any ulterior motives—not for the moment. I am speaking about the effect of their amendment. They want these people to be handled with kid gloves; they want to give them an opportunity of wriggling out; they want to make the whole of this provision absolutely worthless. That is what they want to do. It is no use coming here with all these clever legal arguments. We are dealing with practical matters; we have to protect the security of the State. I find, in regard to these matters, that this is the only effective way of doing it. The National Transport Commission is the licensing authority. It should also have the right to cancel a licence. If the man has committed any other offence the courts of law are there to deal with him; this deals only with his licence. I cannot for a moment accept that the National Transport Commission will act maliciously or frivolously or irresponsibly.

I did not suggest that they would.

But what the hon. member does suggest is this, that their hands must be cut off, that they must be unable to take any action at all.

Why not punish the man who commits the offence instead of the innocent owner?

But he is not the innocent owner. It is not only that these provisions should be introduced to punish guilty persons but they should also act as a deterrent. When the owners of licensed aircraft know that there is such a provision on the Statute Book and that their licences can be cancelled in this way they will be doubly careful to see that their employees do not do anything to prejudice the national security. This is a deterrent as well as a provision that can be acted upon. That is why it is essential to retain it in its present form. It is the only possible way of dealing with these culprits. I personally have no sympathy at all with any individual who endangers the national security.

Before calling upon the hon. member for Yeoville, I must warn members that they must advance new arguments.

There is one point on which I agree with the hon. the Minister; and that is that we should have no sympathy with people who endanger the safety of the State. The purpose of our amendment is not to protect the person who endangers the safety of the State. It is to protect the people who are innocent, those people who may be the subject of a miscarriage of justice. I really rose, Sir, to protest, mildly but emphatically, against the suggestion that comes again and again from the Minister in his argument that, because we want an amendment that will make an appeal from the decision of the National Transport Commission possible, we are suggesting that the Commission consists of irresponsible men and of men with less character. That is not the sort of argument we expect from the hon. the Minister, Sir. If that argument is correct there should be no appeal from a decision by a magistrate, because magistrates are honourable and responsible men; there should be no appeal from the judgments of the Judges of the Supreme Court because they, more than anybody else, are honourable and responsible men.

Your amendment does not provide for that.

Mr. Chairman, according to your ruling I have to advance new arguments, but may I just explain to the Minister what this is all about. We have explained again and again, Sir, that if we retained this phrase “in the opinion of the Commission” appeals from that decision are limited. I have mentioned on a previous occasion to what grounds they will be limited. There can be no appeal on the facts. There can only be an appeal if the Commission had acted mala fides or neglected its duty or if it had been capricious, etc. The purpose of our amendment is clearly to bring this new provision of the law in line with the existing provisions, so that there will be an appeal based on the facts. That is all.

There can be.

There can be; there should be an appeal. That was the difference between us and the hon. the Minister, but it is not. The Minister seems to be under the impression that there is an appeal on the facts from a decision of the National Transport Commission on this question of the safety of the State. I would appeal to the hon. the Minister to consult his legal advisers and he will find that that is not so. And that is the difference between us. It is not that we think the National Transport Commission will act irresponsibly or that they are not honourable.

You want to make the National Transport Commission absolutely useless.

I hope I shall be able to disabuse the hon. the Minister’s mind on that. If that statement is correct then our magistrates and Judges are useless, because there is an appeal from lower courts to higher courts, but that is not a reflection on the ability or the efficiency of those bodies. We are dealing with human institutions, Sir, and mistakes happen. The Minister of our Republican State must know it is important for all of us to prevent miscarriages of justice; we are jealous of the administration of justice in this country. That is the object of our amendment. It is our desire to improve the clause. It may be a long chance; it may not happen. But if a mistake is made in one case there will be a serious miscarriage of justice of which neither the Minister nor us would like to be guilty. We want to give him an opportunity of making that impossible. I am particularly enamoured of the second half of this amendment which will make offences committed to the prejudice of the State also subject to the existing safeguards in Section 17 (2). One of my hon. friends over there seemed to indicate that we wanted the act to be both repeated and deliberate or serious. That is not so. The safeguard merely says that it must appear to the Commission that the offence must be either repeated or serious and deliberate. Surely, Sir, that is a safeguard which the Minister can give to these people; surely he can agree that in regard to acts affecting the safety of the State they should be serious. In most instances they will be serious from their definition. Why deny those people safeguards which his predecessors saw fit to put into the law? We are trying to help the Minister to prevent miscarriages of justice. I plead with the hon. the Minister to consider this matter. It seems to me that there has not been a true meeting of minds between him and us on what we are seeking with this amendment.

The main point made seems to be that there is no recourse to the courts of law. If the words “in the opinion of the Commission” are left out it merely means that this hearing by the Commission is changed into a full trial. As the Opposition knows in a trial of this nature, where the safety of the State is in issue, it very often takes months, even years, before a decision is arrived at. What is to happen in the meantime? That is the main point. I think that is the difficulty which faces the hon. the Minister. You cannot wait until the trial is over and judgment given in a matter of this nature. Therefore there must be a body to act in the meantime. This commission must be there to decide in the meantime, and in certain circumstances, only to suspend the licence. You need a certain body to act. You either approach the Commission which issued the licence or you must create a body or person which can act in the meantime in a case of emergency. So you must either give the Minister of Justice the power in a special Act, or give the Minister of Transport the power in a certain Act in order to enable him to suspend a licence, in the case of emergency, where the safety of the State is being endangered. We now introduce a Bill which proposes that a commission, consisting of, I think, seven people, of whom some are jurists, to decide whether, in their opinion, it is necessary to suspend or otherwise deal with a licence. The Opposition has failed to take notice, as the hon. the Minister has said, of the critical times in which we are living. Mr. Chairman, it must be admitted that in certain exceptional cases such steps are necessary, and here we have an excellent proposal that the commission which deals with the licences, should be the body to act. We cannot delete the words for the reasons I have stated. We cannot have a full trial lasting for months before a decision is arrived at.

I rise to ask the hon. the Minister whether, if my contention is right that this question of “in the opinion of” will apply in the case of all four sub-sections of this clause, he will give us the undertaking that he will amend this clause on a later occasion so as to make the question of “in the opinion of the Commission” only applicable when the safety of the State is concerned.

I undertake to do that.

I move—

I rise to make a final plea to the hon. the Minister, and I wish in particular to refer to two matters and wish to express the hope that the hon. Minister will be prepared to consider amendments in the Other Place in respect of these two matters. The first provision to which I refer is the form of appeal provided in this Bill. There is an appeal to a board which consists of a judicial officer and two persons sitting with him who would not necessarily have legal qualifications. Sir, I can give the hon. Minister an example to show that a board of this sort can make mistakes, and it is because of that that this request is being made. The case I refer to is a case that came before the Transvaal Water Court. Under the Transvaal law, as it stood at that time, there was an appeal to a board consisting of a Judge plus an engineer assessor and a lay assessor. In the particular case the engineer assessor and the lay assessor held one view of the law and the Judge held another view of the law. The Judge had to dissent from the views expressed by his two colleagues on a point of law. The matter was taken on appeal, and on appeal it was held that the two laymen were correct, and that the Judge was wrong, but because there was an appeal allowed to a higher court it was possible to test the matter. It was considered a matter of course that the Judge’s views on the law would be upheld, but he was held to be wrong. It is for that reason that I do most sincerely hope that the hon. Minister will reconsider this question. He can very easily put it right in the Other Place.

But the principal point which I wish to raise is the fact that the Minister has removed by a clause in this Bill the position which applies at the present time in regard to the patenting of plants. They are now plant breeders’ rights, but those plant breeders’ rights are confined to breeding within the country, and for my part I am convinced that the legislation to be sound should include provision for registration elsewhere. It is true that one day there may be an international convention. It is also true that the world is moving in the direction of plant breeders’ rights and not patent rights as at the present time exist in this country. I want in this regard to express my complete disagreement with the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan), the statement which he made at an earlier stage, in which he said that it is said that we will not be able to get these plants from overseas because of the position, but one can always get hold of them. I hope that we in this country are not prepared to sink so low as to get hold of plants because they are not patented in this country because of the state of our law, and to ignore rights which have been granted in other countries as patent rights. I can only interpret the hon. member’s speech in that way that he is prepared to see that our country ignores the rights of persons. Very large sums of money may be at stake. I have in my hand a catalogue of a great American firm which has played a tremendously important part in the breeding of plants, and they of course also buy rights in respect of plants, and the hon. Minister perhaps knows that two of the varieties of apples for which the patent rights are held by this firm are at present in this country in quarantine, as it is quite proper that they should be.

The hon. member for Paarl also raised the question that the importation of plants can result in diseases being imported into our soil. I have great confidence in our Agricultural Department, and I am convinced that the steps that they take in respect of plants which they quarantine when they come into this country are such that there is no possibility of an infection of our soil with some of the very dangerous diseases from other countries, In this particular case the firm which is concerned state in their catalogue, so it is public knowledge, that they actually bought the original plants which appeared in America in the one case for the sum of $51,000 and in the other case for the sum of $25,000. It is very obvious that the development of a new plant, especially one that is used in the commercial field, for which there is no provision here, can be something of immense financial value because of its great value to mankind.

This Bill although unquestionably it has some good provisions, is definitely defective in these respects, and I do hope that the hon. Minister on further reflection will at a very early date take steps to ensure that these rights which I have referred to are protected, as I for one believe they should be.

I want to object strongly to the insinuation made by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). He said that he hoped that we would not sink so low as to try to get plant material from abroad in the way I suggested. Far be it from me to try to suggest that we should attempt to get plant material in the low manner indicated by the hon. member. I stated clearly that our Department of Agriculture, through the agreements it has with the Departments of Agriculture of overseas countries, could obtain that material quite legally and on a completely honourable basis. It certainly does not behave the hon. member to imply that we want to obtain that material in a low manner. No, we can in fact obtain that plant material through the agency of our Department of Agriculture from another Department of Agriculture.

In regard to the hon. member’s allegation that he evidently has much more confidence in our Division of Plant Control and the quarantine applied by them than I have, and that they will in fact be able to keep out plant diseases, I just once again want to refer the hon. member to the example I mentioned in my second-reading speech of two varieties of grapes which we imported in 1952 and which for two years were not only kept in the quarantine station, but inside the hothouses of that experimental farm. Only after they had been planted out in another district did there appear to be a latent virus disease in those grapes, a disease which never showed itself during those two years of quarantine. It is not so impossible for a disease to reveal itself later. But I do not blame the hon. member there. I take it that this is a case of ignorance rather than of obstinacy.

At the end of this third-reading debate I want to take the opportunity also to thank hon. members of the Opposition for the general support this Bill has enjoyed in principle, although we differed mainly on two points.

The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) has now quoted an example to show that the provision made here amounts to this, that not all the people serving on the board of appeal will be lawyers, but that there will be a lawyer assisted by an official of the Department and someone else who has special knowledge in connection with this matter or of a certain type of plant. Then the hon. member said that the Water Court was also constituted in that way, but that a case could go to appeal from that court. Now peculiarly enough, the people who were not lawyers were correct, and their standpoint was upheld by the Supreme Court. I think that the hon. member is thereby supporting the standpoint of the Department, and that we may perhaps make even more use of the common sense and the decision of people who are experts in a particular sphere, although they need not necessarily be lawyers.

I think this matter has been so thoroughly discussed on both sides of the House that it is not necessary for me to say much more. I did not see my way clear to amend the Bill quite in the way hon. member of the Opposition wanted, but I am glad that in general they agree with the Bill.

I may just say that the aspect of disease played a very small role in the consideration as to whether we should or should not grant plant breeders’ rights in the Republic in respect of plants coming from outside the Republic. Because as the hon. member for Paarl correctly said, it is not improbable that a trace of disease in a plant, particularly one developed abroad, which may have been latent and which was not evident before or while it was in quarantine, may later reveal itself to such an extent, as has already happened, that not only had we to prohibit its propagation, but, as in the case of the grapes to which the hon. member referred, we simply, in co-operation with the farmers, had to have those vines destroyed due to the great danger of the spread of an infectious disease which could have infected our vineyards generally. Therefore the aspect of disease is reasonably controlled by the quarantine service of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. The question was whether it was so essential and whether we were going to lose anything by excluding plants from abroad. Will we perhaps not gain more, and will we perhaps not encourage our own breeders more, by granting rights and privileges here, whereas they would perhaps otherwise be put in a less competitive position as against imported plants which will immediately be granted breeders’ rights here? I am convinced that the Bill will have the desired effect and that it will not be necessary to amend it on account of our not being able to get plants from abroad, but if it is found that we cannot import plants in the proper legal manner, I shall be the first to come to this House to amend it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, we opposed the second reading of this Bill and advanced our arguments for doing so. We opposed it in the first place because whilst we were quite ready to continue to extend the powers the Government now has for controlling prices for so long as it seems to be necessary, we were not prepared to subscribe to a policy which places price control on the Statute Book as a permanent measure. We opposed it because, even assuming that the Government was justified in proceeding with this Bill, it was not justified in doing so without giving deeply interested parties an opportunity to consider the Bill and to make their representations and express their views. We know that the views of organized commerce and industry were only actually published after the second reading had been completed, simply because they had not had time to express their views before. That seems to us a most unsatisfactory state of affairs and one for which there is really no explanation. Our third reason for objecting to the Bill was that even if it was necessary to place such a Bill on the Statute Book, the measure from which it stemmed almost word for word was drawn up almost 20 years ago, and conditions then and now are different in many respects. For that reason, again assuming that it was justifiable to legislate, the war measure upon which the Bill is based should have been carefully scrutinized and examined by all concerned before legislation was introduced. Well, none of those arguments had any effect on the Government. In the Committee Stage we pointed out one or two anomalies, as we thought they were, anomalies to the extent that in legislation to-day they should not be included in the Bill, and the Minister said that he was impressed by at least two of our objections and that he would endeavour to have those amendments redrafted and accepted in the Other Place, but whether that will be done or not we do not know. Then we also logically endeavoured to get the Minister to agree, seeing that he was determined to place the Bill on the Statute Book, to limit its functioning to two years and to provide that he would have to come back to this House if he wished to have it for a further period, but of course that did not suit the Minister at all. He claimed that this was just an enabling measure and that we need not worry about it; it would be handled very carefully, with kid gloves, and nobody need be alarmed. He tried to soothe us with gentle words, which cut no ice with me. I know the Minister and his views as to how a country should be run only too well. To me it is quite clear that the Minister is simply taking this opportunity to place the whole country in yet another respect at the mercy of a Government Department and its officials. We believe that this is not good government and that it is a step in the wrong direction, and we shall therefore vote against the third reading.

This is just another occasion which has proved, as we have contended so often, that this Government is continually saying one thing and doing another. It so often talks about private enterprise and free competition and the capitalist system, but that is obviously just an act, as this Bill proves. We are now taking permanent statutory powers to control prices, which shows me and everybody else that they really have no faith in private enterprise and free competition, the methods which we have always regarded as the correct ones to keep prices down, and that their speeches supporting private enterprise and free competition are merely lip service. If one could keep prices down simply by price control regulations and at the same time not affect the production of goods which might fall into short supply, running a country would be extremely easy and we would certainly not have the inflationary tendencies we have at the moment. The Minister knows that price control tackles the symptoms only; it certainly does not cure the disease. It is simply like a patent medicine which is advertised to deal with symptoms, but seldom cures the disease. In fact, the Minister also knows that in many instances price control increases the price. We have had many instances of minimum prices becoming maximum prices, particularly when there are shortages. Every thinking person concedes that in time of crisis and shortage price control should be applied, but every effort should be devoted to its elimination, and not to its perpetuation. In war-time it is essential, when shortages occur, and the total energies of the country are directed towards one object only. Surely after eighteen years of peace, such control should come to an end, unless of course this Government is prepared to acknowledge that we are really in a permanent state of war or emergency. The Minister already has powers to deal with monopolies, powers which are essential because if producers combine to eliminate competition they are certainly not entitled to any protection from the Government, and everybody knows that monopolies can be dealt with. But surely those powers are sufficient.

Another point I asked the Minister to remember is that price control measures such as these certainly do not help to build up confidence overseas, particularly in the minds of those people who may be considering extending their businesses and investments in this country. It is measures such as these that definitely do so much damage to our image and reputation as a free enterprise country overseas, and not our criticism of the measure. That at least shows that there are still some intelligent people in the country.

These measures, as was said by the hon. member for Constantia, were not submitted to anyone. They were not submitted to commerce and industry, and certainly not to the Housewives’ League or to any consumers. They were simply slapped before us and when we asked for a Select Committee that was not accepted.

But all these measures exist to-day.

I must ask whether the Government would introduce any measures such as this affecting the agricultural industry without any consultation. I have my doubts about that. If the Government wants to tackle inflation, it can use the normal fiscal and monetary measures, as other Western countries do, but of course, most of all, it should remove the restrictions imposed by it on our economy, and so increase production and competition. It is common cause that the chief inflationary factor in this country is the shortage of skilled labour, yet we have job reservation.

Order! That is irrelevant.

I suggest that the Government should accept the suggestion made by my Leader earlier in the Session, that there should be a crash programme to produce more skilled labour instead of applying price control. After all, for 18 years the Government has promised us that these measures were temporary. We agree that these measures should be retained, but on a temporary basis. We say it is the policies of the Government that have prevented us from getting back to normal, and unfortunately notwithstanding our wonderful natural resources we must still have certain control powers, but to make them permanent is such an act of fear that we cannot support it. We will support temporary powers, but not permanent ones.

Mr. Speaker, practically all the arguments advanced during the second reading have been repeated here. It has particularly been said that there was no consultation. The fact is that last year the export and import control regulations were embodied in legislation, and then already it was said that this one was still outstanding and that this year it would be embodied in legislation. It therefore came as no surprise. It was known that we would do so, and it is not true, as the hon. member for Benoni has said, that we have always accepted it as being a temporary measure. Our standpoint throughout was that these regulations should be embodied in legislation if it is considered necessary that they should continue to exist, because legislation is preferable to regulations.

Now it is said that the Bill should apply for two years only. The fact remains that this legislation is necessary. It may be necessary now and not in the future, but the time may arrive when it will again become necessary. This legislation is merely permissive. It gives the Government certain powers which it need not necessarily apply, but it empowers the Government to do so. In recent times it has been the policy to lift price control as far possible, as was done in the case of fresh milk. But it may be necessary to apply it, and therefore this legislation must be there. If an Act is to operate for two years only, Parliament may be in recess at a time when it becomes necessary to apply price control, and then we would have to wait for the next Session. We cannot allow such a gap. The hon. member says that conditions now differ from what they were in 1939 when the regulations were framed. That is correct, but these regulations have been applied from that time until now, and what is contained in this Bill are those portions of the regulations which are considered essential, and experience has shown us what is necessary and what is not. But the Minister said in the second reading that he was prepared to consider certain amendments. The matter was referred to the law advisers and the Minister intends moving certain amendments in the Other Place, so that hon. members need not be afraid that this will not be done.

It is said that this is a matter which is left to the officials. That is correct, but the responsibility has to rest somewhere. But it has been applied in the same way during recent years, and we have not received many complaints. There are still 18 commodities to which price control is applied, e.g. the Population Registration photos, leather supplied by tanneries, porcelain insulators, coal, sugar, coke, firearms, galvanized iron sheets, steel products, flat sheets for fencing, fertilizer, agricultural implements, lucerne and lucerne meal, oil cake, salt, agricultural tractors, fish meal and Langfos rock phosphate. There are certain other items in regard to which, in consultation with the department, an agreement has been arrived at that prices will not be increased without the consent of the department. That is therefore done outside the regulations. I refer here to cement, petrol, power paraffin, diesel oil, tyres and tubes, wattle and wattle extract, steel tubes, etc. The prices of those commodities are controlled by agreement and will not be increased without the consent of the department.

It is not true to allege that production is limited as the result of price control. I cannot believe that for a moment. On the contrary, the production of many of those articles has increased. The fact remains that it is necessary. It is not the only way of combating inflation, and it is not being used as such, but it may in fact be used if the public is being exploited in times of scarcities. We have had reference to the Monopolies Act, but that is not the only solution here. That Act is applied only when a monopoly is formed, but there can be price increases without there being monopolies. Therefore the problem cannot be solved in terms of the Monopolies Act. The hon. member for Benoni said we should leave it all to be settled by production factors, but hitherto it has appeared that we cannot leave it to those factors only. If it is left to that only, high prices may arise, which will have a chain effect on production costs, and we should not like to see that. Therefore it is essential to put this legislation on the Statute Book.

I move—

In this Bill the amendment of five separate Acts affecting provisions dealing with the same basic matter, viz. the right of residence in the Republic, is being proposed. It is a matter which is of real interest to every individual, because on it depends his right to enter the Republic, his right to leave the Republic and again to return to it, and also the rights he enjoys in this country, whether they be the rights of a full citizen or merely those of a visitor. These five Acts firstly grant the right of entry to any person provided he complies with certain requirements. He is granted the right of residence, whether for temporary or permanent purposes; secondly, it is provided how and under what circumstances he loses that right of residence and what the consequences of that loss will be to him, and thirdly, these Acts provide when a person is a citizen of the Republic or how he can become one, and when he loses that citizenship.

Because this right of residence, which is the basic idea underlying all five of these Acts, is contained in five separate Acts, a state of confusion has arisen in the minds of some people, and the object of this Bill is mainly to give greater clarity to certain provisions, particularly with a view to the possible consolidation at a later stage of these five Acts in one comprehensive Act.

In Clause 1 it is provided that the persons mentioned in Section 5 of the Regulation of Admission of Persons to the Union Act, 1913, will not, for the purposes only of Section 4, and not for purposes of the whole Act, be prohibited persons in the Republic. This amendment appears in the part of sub-section (1) which precedes paragraph (a). All the other amendments in this clause are consequential amendments or merely improve the language.

This Bill is in essence only a clarification of the existing position because so many people, including even lawyers, now want to argue that these persons are also exempted from the provisions of Section 24 of the same Act, which in essence declares any person except South African citizens by birth or descent (and of course children under 16 years) who enter the Republic without travel documents to be prohibited persons.

What the protagonists of this standpoint evidently lose sight of is that the main provisions of Section 24 were originally for the first time only inserted in the Act in 1937, whereas Section 5 has been embodied in the Act since 1913, and that a later provision ipso facto negatives a former provision if the two cannot be reconciled with each other, as is the case here.

Whatever the legal arguments might be, it is in any case inconceivable that a person may enter the Republic without a travel document or a visa unless he is exempted from the requirement of possessing it, and that will be the case if the persons referred to in Section 5 are exempted from the provisions of Section 24.

Provision for exemption is made in Section 24, and the Republic’s visa agreements or arrangements with or in respect of other countries like the Commonwealth countries are based on the provisions of this section. In addition, Section 24 also contains the express exemptions mentioned before, viz. in respect of South African citizens by birth and descent and children under the age of 16 years.

In Clause 2 an amendment is being proposed in terms of which foreigners who enter the Republic by air will receive the same treatment as those who arrive in the territorial waters of the Republic by sea.

In terms of the present provisions, any foreigner who arrives within the territorial waters of the Republic by ship without a permit for permanent residence or a permit to enter the Republic for temporary purposes, issued in terms of the provisions of the Aliens Act, 1937, may be treated as a prohibited person in the Republic in terms of the Regulation of Admission of Persons to the Union Act, 1913, in terms of which the obligation then rests on the captain of the ship in which that prohibited person was transported to the Republic to remove that person from the Republic if permission to enter the Republic is denied him.

The provisions of the Regulation of Admission of Persons to the Union, 1913, have been applicable since 1923 also to aircraft, but although the provisions of the Aliens Act, 1937, were applied as if they also applied to aircraft, it is clear from Section 6 (2) of this Act that there is possibly room for doubt, and it is to remove all doubt that it is now being proposed to make these provisions applicable also expressly to aircraft.

If this doubt is not removed, it is conceivable that such persons may find themselves stranded at the airports of the Republic, without being able to appeal to the airline which transported them there.

I now come to Clause 4. The present provisions of Section 17 of the South African Citizenship Act, 1949, provide that certain South African citizens through registration or naturalization will lose their South African citizenship if they are absent from the Republic for a continuous period of at least seven years.

Certain persons are exempted from the operation of these provisions, but while the South African Citizenship Amendment Act was being piloted through in 1961, the Minister’s attention was directed in the Other Place to the fact that other persons, such as, e.g. students, may through circumstances beyond their control be adversely affected by the present provisions. The Minister at the time undertook to devote attention to the matter, and it is with the object of meeting such persons that it is now being proposed that paragraph (e) should be added to sub-section (1) and sub-section (5).

As the result of this proposal, any person or class of persons may be exempted from the provisions of this section for a definite or an indefinite period, either conditionally or subject to such conditions as the Minister may deem fit to impose. In addition, all such persons who have already been adversely affected can be met. All these cases will have to be dealt with on their own merits, seeing that it is impossible to specify every deserving case. Every case will be considered on its own merits. Even though an attempt is made to do that, there will always be cases which are not covered, and that will result in some deserving cases having to suffer unnecessary hardships until such time as the Act can again be amended.

In Clause 5 it is proposed that a certificate for the resumption of South African citizenship in terms of Section 25bis of the Act will be subject to certain conditions which also apply in respect of certificates of naturalization.

In terms of Section 25bis, a person who has automatically ceased to be a South African citizen because through some voluntary and formal action he has acquired citizenship or nationality in any other country or territory in Africa, or of any other country, by virtue of his residence in any country or territory in Africa, may, as soon as he returns to the Republic to settle permanently, if he is not a prohibited person in the Republic, apply to resume his former South African citizenship, and the Minister may then issue a certificate to that effect to that person.

In other words, if a South African citizen has acquired citizenship of the United Kingdom either by birth or descent or registration or naturalization in, for example, either Kenya or Tanganyika or the erstwhile Federation, because he voluntarily and formally applied for it, and as the result lost his South African citizenship, he can, on application, immediately get back his former South African citizenship when he returns to the Republic with the object of settling here again.

It should be remembered that these people were the bearers of Western civilization to those countries where they acquitted themselves excellently of their difficult but laudable task. It is therefore also quite ethical and just for us to receive these people back with open arms, but for the sake of maintaining good order—and they know only too well what the consequences are if there is no orderliness in the government of a country—it appears to be necessary to set certain further conditions which must be complied with when renewing South African citizenship.

It has now been found that there are some of these people who refuse to take the oath of allegiance to the Republic voluntarily or fail to take possession of their certificates of reassumption of South African citizenship within a reasonable period. They apply and forget about the matter, and they simply ignore requests directed to them to take possession of these certificates.

In order to combat this state of affairs, it is now proposed that these persons, just like persons who have applied for certificates of naturalization, should take up their certificates within six months after having been notified of the granting thereof, or else they will not be issued to them. Then they will have to apply anew.

It is also provided further, just as in the case of naturalization, that such persons, if they are over the age of 14 years, must take the oath of allegiance to the Republic as prescribed in the Act within the same period of six months, otherwise that certificate will not be issued to them.

This requirement, just like the previous one and the one I will deal with next, has been incorporated in the South African Citizenship Act ever since 1949 in respect of naturalization. It is therefore no new provision and I think everybody will agree with me that every citizen of this country should owe allegiance to the Republic when he settles here and enjoys what the country offers him. The acceptance of citizenship of another country implies allegiance to that country, and in view of the fact that we demand undivided allegiance from our citizens, it is no more than right that they should take an oath of undivided allegiance to South Africa.

Apart from these proposals, it is further proposed in this connection that the issue of these certificates, just as in the case of naturalization certificates, will be completely in the discretion of the Minister, for obvious reasons.

I now come to Clause 6. Sec. 29 of the South African Citizenship Act, 1949, provides, inter alia, that an applicant for a certificate of naturalization should, at least one month and at the utmost six months before applying to the Minister for naturalization, publish in both languages in the Government Gazette a notice in the prescribed form as to his intention of applying for a certificate of naturalization in terms of this Act. The Minister is, however, empowered to exempt from this obligation anyone belonging to certain categories of persons. When the Republic left the Commonwealth the certificate of registration as a South African citizen lapsed, and all persons who could formerly apply for this certificate must now apply for a certificate of naturalization. They are consequently now also, other than was the position before, subject to the provisions of Section 29.

Among the persons who could apply for a certificate of registration were also included the descendants of a male citizen of the two former Republics or of a male person who was born before 1 September 1900 in an area which was incorporated into the Union and who was legally allowed to enter the Republic for the purposes of permanent residence therein. This provision applies to the farmers from Angola and the Argentine. It is now proposed that the Minister should also be clothed with the power to exempt from the obligation of publishing the required notice in the Government Gazette anybody belonging to this group of Angolan or Argentinian farmers. These persons were allowed to apply for certificates of registration because the requirements for these certificates were not as strict as those for certificates of naturalization. There is no reason why these persons should now all be compelled to publish the relevant notice just because we have left the Commonwealth, because they are not citizens of Commonwealth countries. It may, however, become desirable under certain circumstances to compel some of these persons to publish the relevant notice and therefore it is considered advisable to provide in Clause 6 that the Minister should be clothed with the power to exempt the person concerned from this requirement in respect of an application by or on behalf of such a person. Each case can then be considered on its merits.

Section 6 of the Regulation of Departure from the Union Act, 1955, provides that if a person, to whom a permit has been issued to leave the Republic permanently, leaves the Republic with the object of going to a place outside the Republic and thereafter returns to the Republic, he will be considered to have left the Republic without a permit. The Secretary for the Interior is compelled in terms of the present provisions to issue a permit to leave the Republic permanently to any applicant who convinces him that he wants to leave the Republic permanently. It is further provided in the same section at present that if such a person is convicted of a criminal offence, the Minister can have him removed from the Republic as a prohibited person if he was not born in an area incorporated into the Union.

In Clause 8 it is proposed that the powers of removal of the Minister be replaced by the provisions contained in sub-section (b) of the new section, namely that any person, irrespective of where he was born, becomes a prohibited person from the time he leaves the Republic with a permit to leave it permanently. Such a person then automatically loses his South African citizenship. It should be remembered that the relevant permit can be issued only to a person who has convinced the Secretary for the Interior that he wishes to leave the Republic permanently. If he in fact leaves, it is further proof that he wants to shake the dust of the Republic from his feet and wants to have nothing more to do with us. Therefore it is only logical that he should lose his South African citizenship—in fact, he really surrenders it voluntarily.

If, however, such a person wishes to return to our country again, his return and residence here as a prohibited person in the Republic can be arranged as a matter falling under the provisions of Section 25 (1) of the Regulation of Admission of Persons to the Union Act, 1913, after which he can then again become a South African citizen along the ordinary channels, after his residence in the Republic has been arranged, by applying for naturalization as a South African citizen. Citizenship is not something which one can throw away to-day and pick up again at will to-morrow. Any nation which is worth its salt is proud of its citizenship, and therefore it also behaves us, as a nation with self-respect and pride, to honour our citizenship. Consequently, if a South African citizen proves to us that he has broken his links with the Republic, it will not be fitting to allow him to retain the main link, viz. South African citizenship. Nevertheless, as behaves a worthy and mature nation, we make provision again to accept as a worthy citizen such a person who later regrets his actions.

Section 13 of the Commonwealth Relations Act, 1962, provides that any person who, while he is in the Republic, becomes an alien, i.e., someone who is not a South African citizen, and who does not make a written statement before a prescribed official before 1 January 1963 in which he declares that he is in the Republic with the object of settling here permanently, will be considered as from 1 January 1963 to be in the Republic temporarily. This provision is particularly aimed at born British subjects and their residence in the Republic after we left the Commonwealth. After 31 December 1962 it appeared that approximately 2,000 of these persons who wanted to make this declaration did not do so timeously, but did in fact do so before 1 April 1963.

As the result of representations made particularly by the hon. members for Durban (North) and Durban (Umlazi), I undertook in this House to investigate the case of these persons and to meet them as far as possible, even though it requires legislation. Therefore I now propose that the section be amended to prolong the date 1 January 1963 to 1 April 1963. In this way these 2,000 dilatory people will be fully taken care of. In addition, it is proposed further that a notice of the intention to apply for naturalization which is published in the Government Gazette before 1 April 1963 will be accepted as sufficient proof of the intention of the person concerned to settle in the Republic permanently.

It is further proposed that every person who on 1 April 1963 was an alien who was admitted to the Republic since 1913 and who has not made the necessary declaration or has not published the relevant notice of his intention to apply for South African citizenship by way of naturalization, will for all purposes be considered to have remained in the Republic for temporary purposes at all times before 1 April 1963.

Section 10 (3) of the South African Citizenship Act, 1949, is amended by Clause 3 in order, together with the proposed amendments to the aforementioned Section 13, to put the position beyond all doubt and once and for all to make it clear which persons have permanent residence and which have temporary residence in the Republic.

Linking up with the proposed provisions of Clause 5 which amend Section 25bis of the South African Citizenship Act, 1949, I should like to draw attention to the fact that both this section and Section 15 of that same Act refer to a voluntary and formal action as a result of which a person will lose his South African citizenship because he has thereby obtained the nationality or citizenship of another country. The question has arisen as to whether South African citizens who applied in territories or countries in Africa for citizenship of that territory or country, or of another country outside Africa, by virtue of their residence in that territory or country in Africa, and who obtain that nationality of citizenship in an attempt to maintain law and order or good Government in that territory or country in Africa so as to safeguard their own lives, bodies, property or honour, have committed a voluntary action.

The Government has come to the conclusion that under such circumstances there can be no question of its being a voluntary action, because those people were forced to commit an act which they otherwise would not have committed, as will appear from the fact that they already lived there for an appreciable time without committing such an act. Therefore I declare on behalf of the Government that any person who has committed such an act will not be regarded as a person who has lost his South African citizenship through a voluntary and formal action if, at any time after 31 May 1962 he committed an act with the aforementioned intention. That intention will always become clear if the internal conditions in the territories or countries concerned are analysed and, for example, it appears that that person accepted that citizenship in order to get on to the Voters’ Roll of that country. Where the intention is not clear, or where the act with that intention was committed before 31 May 1962, the provisions of Section 25bis will always be applicable.

As I said in the beginning of my speech, this Bill is chiefly aimed at affording clarity in regard to certain aspects of residence in the Republic. It is absolutely essential that particularly immigrants to the Republic and other inhabitants who are not yet South African citizens should know precisely where they stand with us.

It would of course be an ideal state of affairs if every person within our borders could be a citizen, but we realize that this is impossible, and in addition we cannot cheapen our citizenship by urging it on people as if it is a commodity which is sold from house to house. In this Republic of ours we need people to-day, and for the future, who are prepared to defend the Western way of life to the utmost and to maintain it. The world daily offers us further proof that the Western way of life is the only guarantee for peace and good order. Without good order there can be no peace, and the right of residence in the Republic must therefore, from the very nature of the matter, also be obtained and retained in an orderly manner. A community cannot be orderly if one of its corner-stones, namely the right to call oneself a member of that community, is not determined unequivocally and in an orderly way.

There is nothing contained in this Bill to which we are opposed in principle, but there are various aspects of it which will merit some attention on the part of the Minister. There are many aspects which, if the hon. the Minister’s introductory speech is to be taken as the yardstick, he does not appear to have paid any regard to, or to have appreciated.

This Bill contains much that is desirable. It contains many concessions in relation to citizenship, and in the discretion of the Minister much can be done. It once again deals with the question of Commonwealth citizenship, which the Minister has dealt with, but in that regard again we will have more to say in relation to aspects which I believe the Minister has not appreciated. It provides also for a most unusual position concerning prohibited immigrants, those people to whom the Minister referred as having thrown away their citizenship, and having thrown away their citizenship they could not just pick it up again. I want to tell the Minister that as far as that clause is concerned, I do not think it is as easy as he says. There are certain aspects of it which we would probe at this stage and ask the Minister to give some indication as to how he will deal with some of the problems which will arise under this clause.

The most important provision in the Bill is contained in Clause 9, which deals with Commonwealth citizens. You will recall, Sir, that in 1962, when the provision which is here being amended came before this House, it was provided that all those Commonwealth citizens who had not registered before the end of December—later extended to 1 April—for permanent residence would become aliens. Our attitude at that stage was that these people had had adequate warning, and if they wanted to be South African citizens they had had adequate time in which to make up their minds. We were quite agreeable that such persons should then become aliens, and I think we indicated quite clearly that we were not in favour of dual nationality, and that if people wanted to be citizens of South Africa they should make up their minds. I mention this at the present stage because I hope that we will not have that thrown at us in relation to our attitude to this Bill. But after this Act was passed and those persons became aliens, the date was extended, and as the Minister said when he introduced the Bill, certain members on this side went to see the Department in relation to a circular they had sent round to various people in regard to citizenship.

When the House adjourned for supper, I was saying that the most important provision of this Bill was, without doubt, Clause 9. It relates to former Commonwealth citizens who fall to be affected by this Bill. When this matter came before the House in 1962, our attitude from this side of the House was that these people had had adequate warning to the effect that should they not register for permanent residence before the end of the period stipulated, i.e. six months which was later extended by three months, they should then face the consequences and become aliens. This is still the attitude we on this side of the House hold.

But something happened in between. At that stage it was thought that these persons would just become aliens. However, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said, subsequently certain protests were made. Certain things were pointed out and the matter was raised again when the hon. the Minister’s Vote came up last year. The hon. the Minister then said that he had had these observations in which it was pointed out that these persons were not in fact aliens for all purposes as Clause 9 now provides. Clause 9 now provides that for all purposes, all these persons who did not register by 1 April, are to be regarded as being aliens and as having sojourned temporarily in the Republic for all purposes and for all times before that date.

Now, at that stage it became clear that the law did not say that. The hon. the Minister then said that he would investigate the matter and I think it is fair to say that the presence of Clause 9 in this Bill indicates that our view of the law at that stage was correct, i.e. that Commonwealth citizens who did not register for permanent residence, could become citizens if they waited for one year. In other words, if they registered for a permanent residence and resided here for a year thereafter, they could, at the end of that year, apply for citizenship and get credit for all the years during which they resided within the Republic while Commonwealth citizens.

The effect of Clause 9 is to remove this completely. Its effect is to say to these people that they lose all the credit they have before 1 April 1963. When the matter was again raised in this House, the hon. the Minister accepted that there was some doubt about the matter. According to col. 6068 of Hansard, Vol. 7, he said—

He is referring here to the law advisers and continued—

I want specially to emphasize the last sentence, namely that there was never any intention on the part of the Government to put people in a difficult position at short notice and to exclude those who settled here permanently but who have neglected to take these steps. Clearly, Sir, at that time, i.e. 1962, when these people became aliens, it was not a case of their being put into a difficult position at short notice. They were allowed six months and this was later extended by a further three months. The Minister in the debate from which I quoted also said—

This is perhaps the essence of what I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider, i.e. that these people at that stage were in a position where they did not have to start all over again, to start de novo and stay here for another five years before qualifying as citizens. All that was needed in terms of the law then was residence for a further period of one year after registration. All the years they lived here before that would count—at least four out of the previous eight would count towards qualifying for citizenship. This was publicized in the Press and became a matter of public knowledge. This is important because I believe there are a number of people—I cannot say how many—who appreciated what the position then was. They appreciated that there was some doubt and that they could become citizens after having resided here for one year after registration. That is important, I think. It is important because the hon. the Minister said that it was not the intention when introducing legislation, or with the already existing legislation, to put people in a difficult position, as he put it, at short notice.

The position in which these people now find themselves is this. They have now, if I may use the phrase, a vested right. They resided lawfully within the Republic, perhaps for many years, in circumstances which normally would qualify them for citizenship. Suddenly their position was changed so that they now find themselves in a position where, without any notice at all, they may lose those vested rights and the credit they have.

Does not this Bill meet them now?

No. It is just what it does not do. This Bill now says to them that if they did not register by 1 April they lose all their residence in the Republic. This is not the intention of the Minister. I quoted what he said. The position they were in before was that they could count to their credit that period of residence before 1 April 1963 because at that stage they were not temporary sojourners; they were lawfully here and their residence here would have qualified them but for our becoming a Republic. I hope the hon. member for Heilbron now appreciates the distinction. Instead of having to wait one year before obtaining their citizenship they now have to wait five years for it.

Now, Sir, I have indicated that we, on this side of the House, do not object to the principle of this Bill. We do not object to the stipulation that these people must make up their minds whether they are, or are not going to be, South African citizens. I think every one in this House will agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister that we do not want to place anyone in a difficult position at short notice. I want to inform the hon. the Minister at this stage that we intend moving as an amendment in the Committee Stage that the date mentioned in Clause 9 should be changed to 1 July 1964 from what it is now, i.e. 1 April 1963.

In the normal course this Bill will be passed within two weeks or so and it will then give to the people concerned the chance to make up their minds having regard to the new position they find themselves in. In other words, they will get adequate warning—just as the Minister gave them adequate warning before—that if they do not by a certain date decide what they want to be, i.e. whether they want or do not want to be South African citizens, they will have to face the consequences.

They had this chance last year but, as I said, since that time a new situation has been discovered, i.e. that these persons can become citizens after residence of one year.

And if they do not decide after having had this second chance?

If they do not decide by 1 July 1964, our attitude will be that they have had sufficient time to make up their minds and that we can do no more for them. No further concession will then be justified.

You are frightening these people so much that they will not register!

The hon. member for Vereeniging should not joke about this. The hon. the Minister himself is very keen to extend all possible benefits and concessions to people who are, or should qualify to become, citizens. This very Bill contains provisions entitling the hon. the Minister to grant citizenship to people who have been out of the Republic for more than seven years. I should like to ask the hon. member for Vereeniging: Who is more qualified to become a citizen, who is more desirable as a citizen—someone who has lived here for ten years and is aware of what is happening, of his rights and of his duties as a citizen, or someone who has been out of the country for ten years? Because it is also provided in this Bill that the Minister can concede to people who have been away from the Republic that they do not lose their citizenship after having been away for seven years.

It seems to me that these people who have been here but who have not registered for permanent residence although they have nevertheless lived here for a number of years, are far more qualified to become citizens, and are far more desirable to have as citizens, being aware, as they are, of what is happening, than those who have been away from the country for ten years.

Is the only thing you want a change of date?

Yes. That is all we want. Does the hon. member agree with us?

That is not the point. It is now clear to me what you want.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated to us that this Bill in fact also deals with people who have become citizens of another country and who then return to South Africa. These can then become citizens on application immediately …

Only ex-South Africans.

Yes, that I realize. But the position is that South Africans who have renounced their citizenship can come back to South Africa and the Minister is quite prepared to extend concessions to them too. He has indicated that he wants to help them as well. They must, of course, take the oath, etc. But these are people who have renounced their South African citizenship which, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said in connection with Clause 8 and to which I am coming in a moment, you cannot just do. The hon. the Minister is prepared to make concessions to these people, and we agree with him on that, but let us be prepared to make concessions also to people in the category I am talking of. I hope the hon. the Minister will find a way to do that. Consequently, I hope he will be able to give our proposed amendment his consideration.

There are other aspects of this Bill upon which we should like to dwell. Speaking of concessions, I should like to say at this stage that we welcome the attitude of the hon. the Minister towards those people who by mischance or misfortune lost their citizenship. We welcome his attitude to extend citizenship to them. I hope this benevolent attitude will also be shown to others.

The hon. the Deputy Minister dismissed Clause 8 rather lightly. He spoke of this clause as if it was a case of someone losing his citizenship because he has renounced his intention of remaining in South Africa. But Clause 8 goes much further than that. In 1955 the departure from the Union Regulation Act was passed. It was therein provided that one could not leave the Union unless one has either a passport, an exit permit, or an exit permit endorsed to the effect that one was departing permanently. Up to that stage it was in the discretion of the Government whether or not to grant anyone a passport or exit permit. In this Act, however, it was provided that if someone applied for an exit permit and he stated that he intended leaving permanently, it was obligatory to issue him that exit permit. It was not just a question of losing one’s citizenship either. It was also provided in the Act of 1955 that if one left South Africa with an exit permit endorsed to the effect that one was leaving permanently, one could be charged upon your return with having left the country without a valid travel document. A term of imprisonment of up to two years could be imposed if I remember correctly. That Act also excludes from the operation of certain of its provisions persons who were born in the country. That was done for very good reasons. It was provided in that Act that persons who were South African citizens and left the country with an exit permit, could, on their return, not only be charged, but could also be deported as prohibited immigrants. Excluded from this provision, however, were persons who were born in the country. This was done for extraordinary good reasons, namely that they obeyed public international law. As far as I am aware, public international law has not changed since 1955. Public international law provides that everyone has a country of origin and that everyone has a nationality. Everyone, therefore, belongs to some country. I need not remind the hon. the Deputy Minister that public international law is based on consent.

There are many stateless people in South Africa to-day.

Yes, there are stateless people in South Africa to-day. But let me ask the hon. member whether they originated in South Africa Of course they did not. May I ask him from where they did originate? I think it is safe to say that almost in every instance they originated from some country or other behind the iron curtain, and not from any Western country. I do not believe anyone of them originated from a country which, as I believe South Africa still is, is a participant of the comity of nations.

But you spoke of public international law.

Yes, and that is based on the consent of the nations of the world. That is its sanction. I should now like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he has consulted any of the other nations of the world before he introduced this provision?

We have our own citizenship arrangements just like any other country has.

I am not talking about citizenship. I am asking whether the hon. the Deputy Minister has consulted any of the other countries of the Western world in view of the peculiar cutting-across effect this would have on public international law.

That was not necessary. Every country is entitled to make its own arrangements with regard to its citizenship.

I agree that every country has the right to arrange its own domestic affairs, South Africa no less than anyone else. But what disturbs me is that the hon. the Deputy Minister has dismissed this clause as if it deals only with the loss of citizenship. It does not only deal with the loss of citizenship. It provides that a South African-born citizen who leaves the country cannot ever return. He then becomes a stateless person. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister why he has not consulted the other nations of the Western world who will be effected by this. Where do these people go to? Where do they go to when they leave South Africa on an exit permit?

They are stateless of their own accord. [Interjections.]

Order!

Are you pleading for Wolpe?

Order, order!

I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister where these people are to go to? Let us suppose that one of these people goes to England….

To Dar-es-Salaam!

All right. I do not mind whether it is Dar-es-Salaam or whether it is Great Britain. I specially mentioned England because the people the hon. the Minister has in mind under this clause are more likely to be turned out of England than out of Dar-es-Salaam. Let us, therefore, say that they go to Great Britain. Let us suppose that while there they engage in the same activities they engaged in while in the Republic and that this is frowned upon by the Government of Great Britain. You will understand now why I did not choose Zanzibar! Let us suppose that the Government of Great Britain declares such persons to be undesirable and decides that they must be deported. Now, if such a person has to be deported, Great Britain will only have one choice. There is only one place to which you can deport a man and that is to his country of origin, in this case South Africa Now, can the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us what will happen to such a person when he arrives here? It is no use saying that the shipping companies will not take him. In Great Britain the court will issue an order according to the dictates of their laws and in accordance with the dictates of public international law which they accept. So this man is going to be sent back to South Africa. I am asking these questions because I should like to know what the hon. the Deputy Minister has in mind in regard to such persons. [Interjections.] Just one moment please! Let us suppose that such a person arrives in Cape Town. He can be charged with having left the Republic without a proper document. He will be a prohibited immigrant in terms of this clause. So what is going to happen to him? For how long does he remain in the detention barracks in Cape Town? As far as I am aware, Sir, persons remain in the immigration detention barracks in Cape Town pending their deportation. But where is this fellow going to be deported to? What is intended to do with him? How is he to be provided for? These are the questions I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister. Does he know what the position will be of such a person?

I am not concerned with what happens to Americans. I do not know what happens to them. My difficulty at the moment is to find out what is going to happen to a South African in such circumstances. Perhaps if the hon. the Deputy Minister can tell us what is going to happen to South Africans, it may be a pointer to America as to what to do with Americans. As far as I am aware, a similar provision does not exist in America.

It is not clear to me what your plea really is. For who are you pleading?

I can understand the hon. member’s difficulty. He too is in some doubt although he was here when the hon. the Deputy Minister delivered his speech. So he is in as much doubt as is this side of the House because we too do not know what the position is. When the hon. the Deputy Minister says that such a person has thrown away his citizenship and cannot regain it, he contradicts himself because in some circumstances a person can throw away his citizenship while in other circumstances he can pick it up again.

My plea is this. This Bill, as I have already said, contains much that is good and desirable. As far as Clause 9 is concerned, the most important clause as far as we are concerned, I should like him to give us some indication whether he will consider the plea we from this side have made here for these persons.

What will be the position of persons naturalized here? Let us suppose he asks for a permanent exit permit and arrives in England. He is neither a British nor a South African subject. What is his position under the old law?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member exemplifies the Latin maxim in vino veritas The point is that it could not happen to a person under the old law. The overriding factor is the provision of public international law to the effect that a man has a country of origin and that he has a nationality which he never loses.

Even after losing his citizenship?

Yes, even after losing his citizenship. These South African-born nationals were specifically excluded from the operation of this provision relating to prohibited immigrants and to deportation.

However, I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will consider our plea for these Commonwealth people for the reasons we have given. I hope also he will give us some indication of the consequences of the effect of Clause 8. We express the hope that he will administer this legislation in the same spirit as he has administered previous legislation. As far as this side of the House is concerned we have nothing to complain about as far as his attitude so far to commonwealth citizens is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, it is a particular pleasure for me to give support to this Bill. As an English-speaking citizen, I see more clearly than ever that the old divisions are rapidly falling away. This Bill will affect some 2,000 British subjects who applied too late for South African citizenship. From the provisions of this Bill it will be clear that the Government is prepared to assist these British subjects who for reasons of their own failed to declare their intention to be permanent residents in the Republic. [Interjections.]

Order!

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker! Is the hon. member for Vereeniging entitled to call an hon. member of this side a hooligan? [Interjections.]

Order, order! Did the hon. member for Vereeniging call another hon. member a hooligan?

Mr. Speaker, I said he was behaving like a hooligan.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir, but reluctantly.

On a point of order …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it unconditionally, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, those who registered their intention after U December 1962 the deadline laid down by the Commonwealth Relations Act of 1963, will now be considered to be permanent residents of this country and may apply for South African citizenship at any time provided they have completed a period of four and a half years of residence.

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to read his speech?

Try to be a gentleman even if you find it difficult.

Sir, it is realized that there is still a large number of British subjects in South Africa who, for reasons of their own, or who were misled by sensational Press reports regarding the future of the White man in this country, are now thinking afresh and taking a fresh look at the Republic. No doubt they are comparing events which not only have taken place in Africa to the North but in many other parts of the world. These people must realize and must now be convinced that this country not only offers security, but a wonderful living for themselves and a future for their children. No other country offers so much as South Africa. To those British subjects in our midst who stand at the threshold I want to make a special appeal to make up their minds about permanent residence and eventual citizenship. They can at any time apply to the Department of Immigration for permanent residence and by obtaining permanent residence they will be able to become citizens after a period of five years from the date they obtained permanent residence.

He is still reading.

Order! Is that a reflection on the Chair?

No, Sir. I withdraw.

Sir, even the period of five years can be cut down by the Minister to a period of only one year in those cases where special circumstances are present.

I wish to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to assist those British subjects who now find that they were misled by Press reports or by certain politicians with a Jeremiah outlook who themselves failed to have confidence in their own country. Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of every British subject living off the fat of this lovely land in peace, happiness and prosperity, to now come forward and become a citizen of the Republic and assist us in building up a nation, one nation, with two languages, as a lasting outpost of Western civilization in Africa, ever mindful that in the near future we may be called to give relief to the suffering masses in parts of Africa where law and order have given way to chaos and despair.

It is with this aim in mind, Sir, that I appeal to all British subjects to become citizens as soon as possible and to go forward with us on the road to a glorious future started here in the Cape three centuries ago by men and women with courage, tenacity and a burning faith. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the hon. the Minister to assist to the uttermost of his ability.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite a surprise to listen to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Mr. Odell) in some of the remarks he has had to make in the speech he has just made. My own impression was that it was rather like listening to a tape recorder and I have my own ideas who pressed the button. I think that before reading speeches such as he has done this evening….

Order! Is the hon. member reflecting on the Chair? The hon. member must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it, Sir, and I apologize. No reflection was intended. Before delivering speeches such as the hon. member has to-night I think he might give them a little more attention and thought. For example, he makes a special appeal to those persons who are standing on the threshold of taking on South African citizenship. I think an appeal from that hon. member is enough to put anybody off. In regard to this statement about people having been misled by certain politicians, may I remind him of his own constituents who voted him to this House. Were they not misled by a certain politician? And then this hon. member has the temerity to stand up in this House and say that people who ought to be citizens of this country, useful citizens, have been misled by certain politicians. [Interjections.] He is the last member in this House to get up and make a statement like that. Absolutely the last.

Mr. Speaker, before I proceed to deal with one or two aspects, which I think the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) has not had time to deal with, I do want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister. My appeal is this: The legislation with which we are dealing to-night covers the cases of individuals, people who themselves, as ordinary persons, are considering the question of their citizenship and the whole future of their lives. To unravel that position and to decide what to do, they have to unravel a mass of legislation to try to determine what exactly their position is. The hon. Minister knows that legislation such as we are considering to-night is covered by some five different Acts, each one of which is amended from time to time. It is becoming so complicated for the ordinary person to deal with legislation which covers his life and his future, he has the greatest difficulty to sort the position out. I think, for example, of the Group Areas Amendment Act where the legislation has become so complicated by amendments that the Department, without bringing a consolidating Bill to this House, has consolidated it departmentally. I can assure the hon. the Minister that if his Department, which I know intend to do something of this nature, could do a departmental consolidation, it would help not only members of this House but it would help those people who from time to time come in contact with this law or have it applied to them. I am sure it would be much easier for them to understand their position and what they have to do in the matter. My colleague from Durban (North) has also appealed to the Minister to accept or to consider accepting our amendment. I think the legislation surrounding this particular type of person is complicated and in giving thought to the amendment which we shall move in the Committee stage the hon. Minister might also take into consideration the complicated effect of this legislation.

The other point I want to deal with is this: As the hon. member for Durban (North) has already stated the main portion of this Bill is contained in Clause 9. It deals with those people who are already in our country, people, in many cases, who have lived here for many years; people whom the Minister of the Interior has indicated he wants to assist to become South African citizens. I too think that this Clause is the main Clause of this Bill, and that is why I want to deal with it. This Clause has been introduced particularly to clarify the position of these people and to put it beyond doubt. It most certainly has done that. It has left no doubt that those people who are resident here now and who became aliens under the Commonwealth Relations Act of 1962 are going to lose the qualifying rights that they had. That is already well known. Whilst the hon. the Minister was introducing this piece of legislation he made the point quite strongly that he was not going to see our South African citizenship cheapened. We on this side of the House quite agree with that. But I think there is another angle from which he can approach this matter—and I think it is a far more intelligent one. I do not think anybody wants to cheapen their nationality, May I remind the hon. the Minister that the British Parliament is at the moment considering, or has already considered, legislation to try to restore citizenship to those people who have forfeited or given up their citizenship to assume the citizenship of other countries. That is a country from which we are drawing immigrants, yet they obviously want their people back and are prepared to take steps to encourage them to come back and, when they come back, to make it easy for them to resume the citizenship of their birth. I think that is a very good principle. I think it is a very good way of approaching people of your own country. But whilst the hon. the Minister is introducing legislation of this type, legislation which makes it more difficult for people to become South African citizens, and actually puts bars in their way, the hon. the Minister of Immigration is trying to bring people to this country. It seems so foolish to me that the efforts of the hon. the Minister of Immigration should be frustrated by the hon. the Minister of the Interior who is trying to make it more and more difficult for people, exactly the same type of person who the Minister of Immigration is bringing out here, to become South African citizens. It seems an awful waste to me, Sir. Because, whilst on the one hand we are trying to stop people from becoming South African citizens, the Minister of Immigration is paying R155 per head to bring these very same people to South Africa. To me it seems that the two Departments are working at cross-purposes. Having discussed with the Minister of the Interior the very situation which is dealt with in Clause 9 of this Bill last year, we then went on to the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Immigration. We repeated to him that we did not know how many of these people were affected in the Republic. The hon. Minister cannot tell us. We have had reports varying in number up to 300,000. I think, like the hon. the Minister of the Interior, that that figure is a great exaggeration. But if anybody were to tell me that that figure was somewhere in the region 65,000 to 100,000 I would be prepared to accept it. I believe that 65,000 to 100,000 immigrants in this country at this moment, especially people who have become accustomed to our way of life and in many cases have a stake in the country, are the most valuable immigrants that you can possibly get. I do not think that you can improve on that by going to other countries and bringing people here who are strange to our ways. I believe that this situation is one which the Minister must very seriously consider. I think he has flown in the face of these facts. When a flaw was found in the legislation which was introduced last year this Minister set about closing that gap instead of opening it up. I believe he is moving in exactly the opposite direction from that in which he should be moving in relation to those people who are already living in our country. I believe there is not a country in the world which wanted immigrants, that would not take the utmost steps to persuade those people, not to make their citizenship cheap, but to persuade those people to assume citizenship. The effect of Clause 9 of this Bill is going to be exactly the opposite, because where these people qualify under the Act as it exists to-day to become citizens of this country in one year, in most cases, from the date of notification of their intention to reside here permanently, the Minister intends, by this law, to extend that period to a minimum of five years. I do not think that is good business. I think it is very foolish. The hon. the Minister of Immigration has accepted the fact that we are looking for immigrants. I want to quote him. In col. 7240 of Hansard last year he said—

These people already have employment, Sir. He does not have to find employment for them; they are employed. Those people all earn a living and are contributing to the national welfare of our country. Yet here we are tonight considering a law to make it more difficult for those people to join us and to help us with our other problems—and South Africa has many problems.

I want to make another point. The hon. the Minister is also tightening up very considerably the position of those people who, for some reason or other, emigrated from South Africa on what, one might call, a one-way ticket, people who notified the authorities that they were emigrating for good, perhaps because of financial regulations. There were quite a number of those people. This Bill puts the position so that those people really have not got the right to come back; they will be considered prohibited persons if they did come back, unless they have an exemption from the Minister. And as the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated in his speech each case would be treated on its merits. I would like to ask him in passing whether that means that they would have to apply for that consideration whilst they are still in the country where they are residing at the moment, because if they come here, I take it …

Yes, if they applied for an exit permit.

I accept that because the moment they set foot in this country they are going to be prohibited persons. The reason I raise this point is this: Have we facilities in all the countries where these people went where they can adequately state their case; where they can find out what the position is? Because you see, Sir, there are many of those people whom we want back. And I am not alone in that thought. Once more I am going to quote the hon. the Minister of Immigration. This is what he said (Col. 7239, Vol. 7 of 1963)—

Are they treated as immigrants?

Yes. We treat them as immigrants and we give them the aid that we give to any immigrant.

In other words, the Minister of Immigration is prepared to give those people the same assistance as he gives to anybody in a European country to come as an immigrant to South Africa. They have left South Africa with their permit endorsed that they are not to return and yet here the hon. Minister of Immigration has stated quite clearly that he will give them exactly the same facilities to return to South Africa the land of their birth …

Yes, but they did not leave on a permanent exit permit.

Let me make the position quite clear to the hon. the Deputy Minister. There are three ways in which you can leave this country. There are only three ways that I know of. One, you can leave on a passport; two, you can leave on a permit and the third one is that you can leave on a permit endorsed to the effect that you do not intend to return. To the best of my knowledge and belief the only way in which you can get finances to finance you in your new home overseas, is by leaving on a permit endorsed to the effect that you do not intend to return, that you intend to remain permanently outside the Republic. The hon. the Deputy Minister said in his introductory speech that those people who left the Republic with the intention not to return, left on the same permit, endorsed in the same way, as the person who emigrated permanently from South Africa. That is the position; it is quite clear. I am not trying to catch the Deputy Minister out; I am just trying to get the position clarified. There is no catch to this; we just want him to understand what we are doing.

I want to repeat that the hon. the Minister of Immigration is prepared to give to those persons, in respect of whom the hon. the Minister intends to make it more difficult to return under this Bill, assistance to return.

That is State policy and it does not conflict with this Bill.

I want to give the position clearly. The Minister of Immigration said this—

It is rather interesting to note that the hon. member for Durban (Point) then interjected—

Much better than many of the members here.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Just let me finish my argument. The point I want to make is that we are tonight legislating in the face of statements made by the hon. the Minister of the Interior last year in which he indicated that he was going to give every assistance, not only to those people resident in this country, but the hon. Minister of Immigration said he was going to help those people who had left here and said they were never coming back but who now wanted to come back. Yet here this legislation does exactly the opposite. I believe we are doing a very foolish thing. On the facts that are before us, the facts that are recorded here in Hansard, the facts of the statement by the two Ministers are directly in conflict with one another. I believe that this is something the Minister should have sorted out before he brought a Bill of this nature to the House. He has been very forcible in protecting South African citizenship. Of course, as I said before, we all want to protect South African citizenship, but we don’t want to be so foolish that we block the flow of immigrants who are the life-blood of our country to-day. We cannot do without them. Even this Government has had to acknowledge it, in spite of the fact that for 14 years it turned its face against them. It has had to accept the fact that we needed immigrants. Now that they have accepted that fact, I appeal to the hon. the Minister not to go and impede the flow of immigrants to this country, not to put foolish legislation of this nature on the Statute Book without reconsidering it.

May I ask my question now? He says the Minister of Immigration wants those people who used to be in South Africa back. He says that is in conflict with the policy of the Deputy Minister of the Interior. Can the hon. member mention one person referred to by the Minister of Immigration who left this country under a permanent exit permit.

As I have explained already there are three ways in which you can leave this country. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I don’t go round asking people how they left the Republic. I can only tell the hon. member what the law is. If he wants to know the law he can look it up himself. I shall tell him what it is if he is too tired to look it up. I have already told him. But he asked me a question and that was my answer. I have not quoted any individual cases; I was talking about general policy and the advisability of this Act. I am sure the Deputy Minister can give him the names of people who have applied to come back to this country and who left on a permanent exit permit. I don’t know.

Sir, I want to repeat to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we do intend moving an amendment in the Committee Stage of this Bill. We are trying to treat this intelligently because we think it is a matter of vital importance to our country. To judge from the noise behind me, Sir, I am sure there are many members on the Government benches who treat this as a joke. Why do they treat it as a joke? Because I don’t believe they want immigrants in our country. They put up a member like the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) to put up a show, but they immediately wipe out the whole effect by their attitude when we discuss this matter. I must repeat my plea to the hon. the Deputy Minister please to reconsider this matter and to consider our amendment which is available through the Secretary.

I listened attentively to what the previous hon. member said and also to what the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) said. I listened to the arguments they advanced against this Bill. As I understood them they said that they did not really have any basic objection to the Bill but that they had certain doubts and that they would submit those doubts to the House and that if those doubts of theirs could be dispelled they would not have any objection to the Bill. I think that was more or less what they said. I suppose therefore that it is probably our duty on this side of the House to try to reply to the points raised by them and to give them more or less a satisfactory explanation. I intend to try to do so. I say “try” because I do not know whether I shall succeed, Mr. Speaker.

Before doing so, however, hon. members will forgive me for saying I find it very remarkable that they are so extremely irritated when the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Mr. Odell) speaks. I cannot help but feel that they would not have acted like that had he been an Afrikaans-speaking member. I can tell the Opposition that they give me the impression that it is an extreme case of sour grapes. I also want to tell them that the harder they laugh and the more noise they make the greater a sign it is to me and the country of how it hurts them when the hon. member, one of our respected English-speaking members in this House … (Laughter.)

Order! I must ask the hon. member for Durban (North) not to laugh so loudly.

I now want to deal with the Bill, Sir. If the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) will forgive me I want to start with the points raised by the hon. member for Durban (North). The hon. member said that Clause 9 was really the most important clause of this Bill and he gave the reason, namely, that in view of the fact that British subjects, in terms of the 1962 Commonwealth Relations Act, became aliens in this country since 31 May 1962 they had acquired a status different from that they had before. It is true that they were not South African citizens prior to that but they were at least not aliens.

And we agreed.

That is quite true. That group of people had seven months’ time, up to the end of 1962, to indicate that they wanted to remain permanently in South Africa. As the hon. member said some of them did not do so during those seven months. They are now given a further chance in this Bill, another three months, which is a great concession. They have therefore had ten months’ concession. But the hon. member says even that is not enough. The crux of the hon. member’s argument was that the Minister should meet them further. Well, I do not think it is for me to reply to that. I take it the hon. the Deputy Minister will give him a reply. As I have said I want to try to convince him by giving him the facts. I do not say I shall be successful because the matter is fairly complicated in the long run. I wonder, however, whether the point I am about to make is not a point which the hon. member ought to consider. That is that in terms of Section 8 of the 1949 Act the position of British subjects who wanted to acquire South African citizenship had already changed. The residential qualification was then increased to five years in all. Section 8 of the 1949 Act reads as follows—

An Act was therefore passed in this House in 1949 in terms whereof British subjects could only become South African citizens if they had been lawfully admitted to the Union (later the Republic) for permanent residence. Such a person has to convince the Minister of this fact. This group of people have known all this time what to do if they wanted to become South African citizens. When we became a Republic in 1962 and with the passage of the Commonwealth Relations Act in 1962 many warnings were issued to them by the Hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and by the Minister of the Interior that they should take the step. There is not one such person in South Africa who did not know what he had to do. He had seven months to think about it and this Bill now extends grace to the late-comers. My submission to the hon. member for Durban (North) is this, however, that those people did not only know in 1962 that they had to indicate that they wanted to remain here permanently. The person who entered this country in 1949 as a British subject has had the opportunity since then, not only from the 31st of May, 1962, to convince the Minister that he wanted to remain here permanently. He was warned and I maintain that he was already warned in 1949 and not only from the 31st of May, 1962. That is why I regard this as a very reasonable Bill, because is gives those people who, for all these years, from their arrival in South Africa up to to-day, have not heeded that warning to indicate their intention of remaining here permanently, further time up to the 1st of April and I think it is reasonable that they should be regarded as aliens in this country from the 1st of April if they do not indicate their intention of remaining here permanently. That is my reply to the hon. member on that particular point raised by him.

The hon. member made a very strong point of the fact that under Clause 8 those people who obtained a permit to leave South Africa permanently would be in a difficult position. He wants to know what is to become of them. I just want to point out that at no stage in his speech did the hon. member say that the United Party was opposed to such a measure and that they as a party were opposed to the introduction of permanent exit permits or temporary exit permits in terms of the 1955 Act. Neither that hon. member nor the hon. member for Umlazi said that they were opposed to such a measure being on our Statute Book. All they said was that the people were not sent away and they asked what were to become of them if they returned one day.

Yes.

We must be practical and ask ourselves who these people are who leave the country under permanent exit permits. That also brings me to the hon. member for Umlazi who committed the colossal blunder of comparing those people with those who had left our country as emigrants and who had gone to Australia, for example. Surely the hon. member cannot argue like that. Any person who wishes to leave South Africa applies for a passport to leave the country, and when you have received your passport, you leave the country and you travel around, or you settle in another country and when you arrive there you enter the country on your passport. Your passport tells the authorities there: “This is a decent chap, we have nothing against him; he has our blessing to travel around”. Our Citizenship Act says that if a man settles permanently in Australia and he applies for citizenship there by naturalization, his name is deleted from the Minister’s list and he forfeits his South African citizenship. That is what happens and it fully covers those people to whom the hon. member of Umlazi has referred. That is why I want to tell the hon. member for Umlazi that he is totally and utterly wrong, as wrong as he possibly can be, when he compares people who leave our country to settle elsewhere with people who leave on permanent exit permits.

Why has the system of permanent exit permits been introduced? It was introduced in 1955. The Government found that people went overseas on a passport, and in many cases they went overseas on a British passport; they then go behind the Iron Curtain and elsewhere where they indulge in subversive activities and receive training in sabotage work. They then return along the same channels whereby they had left. We then passed the 1955 Act which provided that nobody could leave the country without a legal passport or without an exit permit. I might add that 98 per cent or 99 per cent of the people who apply and who are respectable people get their passports. But there is a certain number, those who constitute the subversive element, who do not get issued with passports. Hon members opposite ask questions in that connection and they would probably know how many passports have been refused. The person who has been refused a passport cannot leave the country. The provision was accepted at that time that if such a person wanted to leave the country permanently (the person who cannot get a passport and who is an undesirable person to whom we do not want to extend our blessings to travel abroad on a South African passport), he could do so if he indicated to the authorities that he wanted to start a new or another life in another country. He must have some document, a travel document or a departure document, in order to get away. If he wishes to leave our country permanently the Minister must issue him with a permanent exit permit. The law states clearly that the Minister may refuse to issue him with a temporary exit permit but if he applies for a permanent exit permit the Minister has no choice; he must grant it. He then leaves. But, Mr. Speaker, people do not just go blindly on a ship to travel about. The hon. member for Durban (North) will not do so. You make arrangements. You want to go to a country; there is a country that must receive you; you have arranged everything beforehand. Such people may want to go to Tanganyika or Algeria or perhaps to Czechoslovakia or Ghana. They have made their arrangements. There are people who have gone there. But the hon. member for Durban (North) now says—I am not talking about the hon. member for Umlazi who said that people who had gone to Australia and regretted it could not return; they have come back in their thousands; there is provision in our legislation for them to come back—that you also have the subversive element that want to return. The Bill which we are passing here—the old Act also laid it down but it provided that he could return but then he had to appear before court and if found guilty the Minister could deal with him as if he were a prohibited immigrant, and as the hon. member rightly said the old act related to people who became South African citizens either by naturalization, registration or by descent—makes that applicable to born South African citizens as well. The Minister does not take action against them for having left without legal documents only after they had returned and if they had been prosecuted, but the Bill says that from the moment they leave and get beyond our territorial waters, they are prohibited immigrants. It makes no difference whether the person is a born or naturalized South African citizen, he is a prohibited immigrant. I notice that the eyes of the hon. member for Durban (North) are beginning to shine because I am now coming to the difficult point he has raised. The person has left, he regrets it and wishes to return, or perhaps he had done something over there and that country no longer wants him either and they deport him to South Africa because this is his country of birth. The hon. member wants to know how we get away from the international law.

No, I only want to know what is happening to it.

The hon. member has no objection to the Bill; he does not object to anything. He only wants to know. I shall try to give the hon. member the information. Firstly, in terms of Section 15 of the Citizenship Act, as amended, the Minister has in any case the right to deprive a South African citizen of his citizenship. The Minister has had that right since 1949. The whole issue to-day centres round the person who is a born South African citizen. The other people cannot become stateless because they can be deported to their country of birth. But the born South African citizen could, in terms of Section 15 of the 1949 Act, lose his citizenship from that date already. The Minister could deprive him of his citizenship from that date already. The point raised by the hon. member this evening, therefore, is something which is not even relevant under this Bill. It is something which has existed since 1949. In this respect I want to tell the hon. member—I am not quite sure, but I think so—that we are obliged under the Hague Convention …

Quite right.

We are compelled to accept such people back. Such a person need not even be brought before the court, because in terms of this Bill he immediately becomes a prohibited person, in terms of the 1913 Act, and we can then deal with him in the way we deal with a prohibited immigrant. We can detain him, we can deprive him of his right, he is prohibited from going into business, and he will be prosecuted if he goes anywhere where he should not go. We shall apply the whole Act of 1913 to him because he will be a prohibited immigrant in South Africa and he will remain it. I think that is more or less the only reply one can give the hon. member.

I want to put it to the Opposition that now that they have had replies to all their questions and if they have no more questions to ask, surely they can vote unanimously for this Bill.

I should like to reply to the debate by associating myself with what the former speaker, the hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. Loots) has said. I want to thank him for the very clear exposition he gave and also for the reply he gave to the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell). It is correct that if such persons who have been deprived of their citizenship here land in trouble abroad and that foreign power decides to send them back, South Africa is then obliged in terms of the Hague Convention of 1930 to accept them back.

Then why is the clause drafted in this way? Why does it not say so here?

The Hague Convention applies to all countries and it is not necessary to mention it in every Act. We are then in the position that in terms of Section 25 of the Regulation of Admission of Persons to the Union Act of 1913 we have to treat any person who comes back in this way, and who therefore is a prohibited person here, as a prohibited person. He will have to make arrangements anew for his temporary residence, and thereafter he will have to make arrangements to obtain permanent residence; he will have to follow the ordinary process of naturalization again. I think that is the reply to the problem raised by the hon. member.

The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) inter alia raised the case of people who depart permanently. That has also been replied to by the hon. member for Queenstown, but for the sake of clarity I want to state it again. The case was mentioned here and the question was asked: What about the South Africans who have now emigrated to Australia or New Zealand: if they want to return, are they also subject to this automatic termination of their citizenship? No, that is not the case. The persons who emigrated and went as immigrants did so with a passport, as the hon. member for Queenstown correctly said. It is necessary for me to emphasize that those persons to whom permanent permits for departure have been issued are persons who applied for an ordinary passport; the ordinary passport was refused for good reasons. Thereafter they said that they wanted a permanent permit of departure. But that will not apply to those South Africans who emigrated to Australia and elsewhere. In other words, those people can come back without this restriction. I hope this is clear now.

I must say that I was very upset about the bitterness revealed by the hon. member for Umlazi towards the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Mr. Odell). In season and out of it, one always hears from hon. members opposite the words “racial harmony”. It is always the United Party which wants to teach South Africa the lesson of racial harmony. They are the people who continually tell us how necessary it is to live together in peace and harmony and that there should be racial harmony between English and Afrikaans-speaking people. But the bitterness which emanated from the words of the hon. member for Umlazi against the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) is certainly no evidence of racial harmony: it is evidence of a deplorable bitterness. And it is not only that hon. member who revealed that bitterness here; it is the members on that side who treat any action, any statement or any plea made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) in that deplorable way. His great sin of course is that he is an English-speaking person who joined the National Party.

In regard to the hon. member for Pieter-martizburg (City), I want to say that he raised an important matter here. He made a plea and appealed to the British subjects who have not yet been naturalized and have not yet obtained citizenship to register now for permanent residence in this country. I want to support that plea very strongly, because in terms of the legislation now before us, we are now again in reply to the pleas made by hon. members opposite, making the greatest concession to these 2,000 slowcoaches by extending the date for making application to 1 April. Now hon. members opposite say the date should be extended still further. But where is it to end? Is that now how a country regulates the orderliness of its citizenship? Has one no self-respect and pride in one’s own citizenship? Must one make unlimited concessions to such persons?

You have deliberately misunderstood what we said.

Order! What did the hon. member for Durban (North) say?

I said that the hon. the Minister deliberately misunderstood what we said.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “deliberate”.

I withdraw the word “deliberate”.

In this Bill we are going very far in order to show a spirit of goodwill and sympathy towards the British subjects who are in our country and want to acquire citizenship. By extending this period we are making a great concession to them. Many warnings were given over the radio and in the Press and in other ways that they should before 31st December state their intention as to whether they wanted to become citizens of our country. This was known to one and all of them. Now we are extending it to 1st April 1964, which I think is a great concession. The legal position now is—and I think this should now be clearly realized—that however desirous we are to have the British subjects in South Africa as citizens, and however much value we attach to them, after this Bill becomes law any of them who by 1st April 1964 have not yet submitted that declaration and been accepted as South African citizens will then be in this country as temporary sojourners. Every country must regulate its citizenship properly. In order to acquire citizenship it will be necessary for them to realize that they must now register for permanent residence. Because as the law stands now they can only become citizens five years after having acquired permanent residence in our country. Therefore the first step which those British subjects should now take is to register for permanent residence. That is why I am so grateful for the plea made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) to those British subjects now to comply with this first requirement of the Citizenship Act. For those British subjects who are accustomed to an orderly and regulated government, this should be a very understandable arrangement.

During the course of his speech the hon. Minister referred to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) who spoke about 44 years in which they can qualify, but according to my calculation it is one year plus 4.

In fact it is five years, but a prospective citizen is allowed to apply for naturalization after 4½ years. He must apply six months before the expiry of the period. That explains the 4½ years.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) mentioned another point in regard to which I want to support him. In the first place he appealed to British subjects here to register for permanent residence in South Africa, because that is the first requirement for naturalization in our country, and I am very glad that the hon. member made that appeal.

We did so last year.

The hon. member further made an appeal to the Government to consider sympathetically the cases of people who now apply for permanent residence, and asked that we should consider speeding up their naturalization so that they can be naturalized before the expiry of five years. In terms of our law, the Citizenship Act, we can grant consideration to such cases in terms of Section 10 (8). I can only tell the hon. member that if we are convinced that British subjects are really serious in desiring to become South African citizens and they make use of this opportunity to apply for permanent residence in South Africa, and after a year they apply for naturalization, we will grant favourable consideration to such cases.

For the rest, there was not much objection to this measure. I am particularly gratified that it was accepted with a great measure of goodwill, and I do not think it is necessary to say any more.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

After the disappearance of the last constituent university colleges, which all became independent universities, the University of South Africa was placed on a different basis in 1951. At that time the question of donations was not a question which had received serious attention. The question of donations to the University of South Africa to strengthen its funds for its development has only recently become a real one. For example, the City Council of Pretoria donated a large piece of ground to the University of South Africa. But apart from that donation the City Council of Pretoria also decided to make a grant-in-aid of R4,000 per annum to the University of South Africa. The position is, however, that the City Council of Pretoria decided in the past that if the City Council of Pretoria made a grant to any institution of R100 or less, the City Council could demand to have one representative on the board of such a body, and that if the City Council made a grant of over R100 per annum, it could demand the right to have two representatives on the board of that body. Subsequent to that and after this donation the City Council approached the University of South Africa and drew their attention to the fact that they wanted representation on the council of that university. The University of South Africa considered their request and decided that, apart from the two representatives the City Council desired, they also had to consider the position of other donors, because, as I said at the beginning, it is only recently that the University of South Africa has been receiving donations. The Council of the University then recommended that the City Council of Pretoria should be allowed to have the necessary two representatives and that the other donors in the country should also be allowed to have two representatives. As a matter of fact, if this measure does not go through, thereby giving the City Council two representatives on the Council of the University, the University is in danger of losing that grant-in-aid and I do not think anybody wishes that.

Apart from this question of principle, the other provisions only provide for changes in the wording.

Naturally, Mr. Speaker, there can be no serious objection to this amending Bill in the changed circumstances of the University of South Africa. The hon. Deputy Minister has spoken of the old University of South Africa coming under a new organization, but it should not be confused with this University of South Africa. When the original Bill was introduced into the House, we suggested that this new university should be called the University of External Studies, to avoid the confusion which apparently still exists.

Mr. Speaker. I don’t see why the Bill should have been drafted in this way. We have clauses 1, 3, 4, 5 and sub-sections (a), (b) and (c) of clause 2 to say only one thing, which, I think, we could have stated in one clause in this way—

Then we would not have required the other four clauses.

I come to a point particularly mentioned by the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to donations from the City Council of Pretoria. Can one take it now that the University of South Africa has become a Pretoria University and not a university to serve the whole country, as we understood it would be? Is it to be permanently situated in Pretoria? I presume that must be the reason. If that is the reason, we shall have two universities in Pretoria, and I presume the City Council subscribes to both.

The most important point that I wish to raise in connection with this Bill is: Why should it have been sponsored by the Government? The original University of South Africa Bill was sponsored by the Government, but I think there was a good reason for that. Your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, ruled, when we had the Separate Universities Bill before the House, that the University of South Africa was sui generis and did not fall into the same category as the other universities. Can we now take it for granted that the Government will sponsor any amendment to a university bill? Up to the present we have regarded it as essential that a university bill or an amending bill should be introduced as a private bill. Can we take it now that the Government has adopted a new system of sponsoring every university bill? I think it would be a very good thing and I should like the Deputy Minister to tell us whether this indicates a change in the Government’s policy in introducing these bills.

That is not under discussion now.

In reply to the question whether the University of South Africa is going to remain in Pretoria I can only say that no decision has been taken to move it anywhere else. All the indications are that this university will remain there for many years when you consider the fact that the City Council had given them some land on which they can erect those buildings. The latter question, which the Speaker ruled out of order, I am not allowed to reply to.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, since the coming into operation of the Archives Act, 1962, (Act No. 6 of 1962) it has become apparent that it is essential to effect certain amendments of an administrative nature to that Act. The object of the Archives Act is, inter alia, to place the archives of local authorities under the control of the Director of Archives and this was welcomed by the four Provincial Administrations and by the Administration of South West Africa. It now appears, however, that because of the definition of the word “archives” in the Archives Act, the transfer of archives of local authorities does not fall under the Archives Act of 1962. In terms of Section 1 (iii) of the Archives Act documents or papers which are controlled by another Act, do not fall under the Archives Act. The result is that the archives of local authorities in the Cape Province cannot be transferred to the Archive depots because ordinances apply in respect of the archives of divisional councils, municipalities, town councils, etc., namely, Ordinance No. 15 of 1952 and Ordinance No. 19 of 1951.

The words “other Acts” in the Archives Act are now replaced by “Act of Parliament” in order to include the transfer of archives of local authorities in the Cape Province in the Archives Act of 1962. The transfer of the archives of local authorities in the other provinces and in South West Africa is already fully covered by the Archives Act.

The object of the Archives Act is moreover that only the archives officials can make the archives available to the public for research purposes. They can offer the necessary facilities and exercise the necessary control. It has, however, come to light that Section 9 (6) of the Archives Act can be interpreted to mean that “archives” in possession of State Departments can be made available by somebody in control of such archives. In order to put it beyond any doubt that it is only the officials of the archives who can make the archives available to the public for research purposes, some amendments are being made but I want to point out that it is being done in such a way that heads of State departments will not be hampered in the execution of their duties nor that their own officials will be prohibited from doing research work in their own archives. It is essential for sound administration that their own officials do that research work. Provision is made for that in Clause 5.

A new provision, namely, Clause 4, is being inserted in order to give the Director of Archives the right to request those research workers who use the archives to give one copy of a published work to the Director. In the past it was the custom for people who had used the archives for research purposes voluntarily to give one copy of their work to the archives as a gift, which was of course of great value, but everybody did not do so. Some were asked to do so but did not. We are now making it easy for them; they need not think about it; they are compelled to give it. This amendment is made because we think it is necessary for the archives to be placed in possession of the ultimate result of their research work.

Clause 2 deals with the chairman of the Archives Commission. I might just remind you, Sir, that the chairman of the National Film Board and the National Education Board are appointed by the Minister and that system operates very satisfactorily. That system is now introduced here. In future the Minister will have the right to appoint one of the members of the Archives Commission as chairman of the Archives Commission. The reason why this has become necessary is because of the increasing responsibility of the archives for State departments. The archive officials have now been given the power to go through the documents of State departments and to sort them out. The problem has become a big one because of the documents that have accumulated. Eventually there was no more space to accommodate all the documents. A great many of those documents had actually become of no value. It is a very responsible task to sort out these documents and it is now done by the officials of the archives. You can understand, Sir, that to sort out the documents of State departments is a very responsible task. If a mistake is made it can have repercussions in this House and the Minister concerned can be held responsible for any documents that have been injudiciously discarded. Because the sorting of these documents has to be done under the supervision of the Archives Commission, the Government feels that it is only right that in this case too it should have the right to appoint the chairman of that commission, in view of the fact that the Archives Commission will in future carry a greater responsibility.

Those are the main provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, there can be no objection to this Bill. It is obviously introduced in the light of the experience gained since the 1962 Act was implemented. It was found that there were these difficulties in implementing the Act, and we welcome this Bill and will assist in any way we can.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The measure furthermore places the validity of all such marriages that may possibly have been solemnized illegally beyond any doubt except in those cases where a competent court has already declared such a marriage invalid. I may just say that neither I nor my Department know of any marriage that has been declared illegal, and this step is only taken to prevent such a possibility.

A second practical problem is also being met in this Bill. That is in connection with the person who sometimes undertakes the service in a congregation. In terms of the existing provision in the Act a substitute who leads the service may call the marriage banns but he can apparently not issue a certificate that he did so. To put this beyond any doubt as well, it is provided that such a substitute be specifically empowered to issue such a certificate and to decide, for the purpose of calling the banns, whether or not the parties usually practise their religion in that congregation. These amendments can only have the effect of preventing any possible embarrassment to married couples. That is the object of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support this Bill. It does do what the Minister says it does, and whilst I have the complaint that it perhaps ties the bonds tighter for the men, nevertheless, yielding to the pressure of the women members on this side of the House, we have been induced to accept this. I think at the same time it might prove to the women of South Africa how well provided they are for in the women who represent them in this party in the House. Therefore we welcome this Bill, because we believe it fills the gap in the law.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

Sir it gives me great pleasure to introduce this Bill. Hon. members who have read this Bill, particularly hon. members who are connected with the Bar or the Side-Bar, no matter on which side of the House they sit, will, I believe, heartily welcome the provisions of this Bill. We who belong or who have belonged to the legal profession know, of course, what problems confront the advocate who has a flourishing practice and who is called to the Bench, in many cases at a salary—I admit there are exceptions—less than he earned at the Bar. This Bill now tries to amend the 1959 Act which governs these cases. Hon. members who know the 1959 Act will know that it deals in the main with three aspects, firstly, with the salaries of judges, secondly, with the pensions of judges and, thirdly, with the pensions of the widows of judges. Hon. members will notice that this Bill only deals with the first two, the salaries and pensions of judges, and that it does not deal with the pensions of widows. I immediately want to anticipate the question why it does not.

The reply to that is that in terms of the 1959 Act where it is a question of the pensions of judges’ widows it is a contributory scheme. Judges, just like members of Parliament and Senators, contribute to the pensions that will ultimately be paid to their widows. At the moment that amount is laid down at R8 in the 1959 Act. I have informed judges that if they wish to make an increased contribution in terms of the provisions of Section 59, I shall be prepared, without committing myself in any way at this stage because I first want to go into the whole aspect after I have received their replies, to investigate the matter, if they indicate that they want to make increased contributions, or to amend the Act so as to make such increased contributions possible and to revise the widows pensions along those lines and bring them in relation to the increased contributions. That is my reply should hon. members ask me why steps are only taken in respect of the first two and not in respect of the third aspect.

Because this Bill deals with the Bench, with Judges and with the Supreme Court of South Africa, I hope, Sir, that in spite of the fact that it has nothing to do directly with this Bill, you will allow me to make a few observations about the Bench in South Africa, observations which I believe are fitting to make at this stage and which I believe should be made in this House. It is namely this that we in this country, no matter which party has been in power, have every reason to be proud of the way in which the Supreme Court has always in the past and still to-day, performed its duties. I think we all rejoice not only in that knowledge but in the fact that we can say to the world that here in South Africa, even perhaps under the most difficult circumstances, we have a Bench which is completely independent and that judges realize that and that in no circumstances will they hesitate to mete out justice according to their convictions, whether it pleases man or not; that we have always had judges who interpret the law as they see it in the light that is given them, whether it pleases the Government or not. As long as you have such a Bench, Sir, you have every reason to be thankful and you must at all times very jealously guard the interests of such a Bench. Because I as Minister have the highest esteem and respect for the Bench, not only as an institution, but for the judges as individuals, I have on various occasions, and again only recently, expressed myself very strongly against the organization known as the International Society of Jurists which has had the temerity to send people to South Africa to come and see, it was alleged, how justice was administered in practice here in South Africa.

Let them come. We have nothing to hide.

No, we have nothing to hide, but what sticks in my throat—and I was very grateful that those newspapers which otherwise do not support the Government, adopted the same attitude—is the way they acted. We have nothing to hide and our courts are always open for anybody to enter to see how justice is administered. But what I take strong exception to is the fact that those people asked for a special permit to come and see what was happening in the courts of South Africa, and the implication of that, of course, is very clear. You only ask for such a special permit if you wish to insinuate thereby that everything is not above board. Otherwise there was no reason for them whatsoever to have asked for such a permit. Funnily enough those same people had come here in the past without asking for a permit. They came of their own free will and attended the courts and nobody objected. The only thing that I resented, and I resented it on behalf of the General Bar Council and the various Bar Councils of South Africa, was the fact that in the past so-called “observers” had come to South Africa and they did not even have the elementary courtesy—I asked the Bar Councils and that is why I can speak with authority—of even introducing themselves to the senior members of either the Johannesburg or the Pretoria Bar. That is not the way to act. Because I felt that courtesy called for it I expressed myself very strongly on that and I again wish to express myself strongly on it. I must say that when the latest “observer” came to South Africa he, I believe, after I had taken very strong exception to it, introduced himself to the Bar Council and he also asked for an interview with me. I granted him the interview and I told him exactly what I have told hon. members to-night in this House, namely, that I took the strongest exception to the fact that people wanted to drag in our judicature and place it under suspicion and to interfere in our judicature in that way. I did not mince words. I told their representative, a certain Mr. Arnholdt, that in my office at Pretoria in very strong language. As far as I am concerned I shall at all times resist it when our courts of law are interfered with and made suspect.

To return to the Bill, hon. members will know that in the 1959 Act, in the First Schedule of it, both the salaries and pensions of judges are laid down. Hon. members will notice that according to the Schedule the pensions were a fixed amount in the past. In the case of the Chief Justice it was a fixed amount of £1,800 per annum, and in the case of an Appeal judge £1,700 and in the case of the Judge President it was £1,600 and in the case of an ordinary judge £1,500. It made no difference how long he had served the amount was fixed. [Interjections.] I think hon. members have developed a complex to go home early but I do not want them to get used to that. According to the new Bill the position will be that the salaries will still be determined in terms of the existing Act, provided that where a Chief Justice received £5,500 or R11,000 he will now receive R12,500, an Appeal judge R11,500, the Judge President R10,500 and an ordinary judge R10,000. In other words, there is a salary increase of R1,500 in each case. I do not think hon. members will fight with me because we are now increasing the salaries after they were considered in 1959. I think where we are now dealing with the pensions, hon. members will admit that the first attempt is now made in this Bill to place the pensions of judges on a sound basis inasmuch as we are now dealing here with a fixed amount, but that the pensions of judges will be determined according to a scale which hon. members will find in the Bill. That is also why it is being taken out of the Schedule where it has appeared in the past and incorporated in this Bill.

Hon. members will find the provision governing those pensions in sub-section (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill, the clause which amends Section 3 of the 1959 Act. I shall read the clause because it states it very clearly. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Yeoville asks why I want to read it. I am doing so because I know my colleagues in this House very well. Hon. members do not read their Bills. (Laughter.) Furthermore I want to save hon. members the trouble of reading the Bill. One good deed from the one side invites a similar deed from the other side. The hon. member wanted to save me something, and now I am saving him something. I read—

I shall not read the whole clause because time does not permit my doing so nor is it necessary for hon. members to know what it says.

Will the Minister be kind enough to read that clause again? We did not hear.

That shows you, Sir, that hon. members do not listen because I have not even read the clause.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjournd.