I want to reply to what was said by the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) in connection with the report of the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Commissioner. He referred to paragraph 3 of the report and said that as at 30 September 1963, there were 1,609 persons to whom lump sum benefits had been paid but who were not drawing pensions, and that as at 31 October 1963, 1,264 of these persons had been reexamined and granted pensions. He then asked the hon. the Minister to see to it that pensions were also paid to the remaining 345 persons who were not drawing pensions. I do not object to the granting of pensions to people who are entitled to them but I do not think the hon. member interpreted the position correctly. The fact of the matter is that under all our previous laws—and that is still the position—these persons had to apply for an examination in order to become entitled to benefits. In this case it simply means that as at 31 October these 345 persons had not yet been examined and still had to come up for examination. We must bear in mind the fact that at that date some of them may no longer have been employed on the mines. It is also quite probable that these persons have been examined since 31 October last and that they are now drawing the pensions to which they are entitled.

The hon. member also pointed out that apart from these 1,264 persons who were regraded, a further 859 were certified for the first time and he asked what this meant. He then tried to suggest that there was something radically wrong somewhere; that there had been great laxity, that a shocking state of affairs prevailed with the result that mineworkers who should have been certified in the past have only now been certified. But what is the actual position? It is true that 859 new cases were certified. This can only mean two things. On the one hand it means that we are having the same experience that we have had in the past whenever a new law has been passed in this connection. Every time a new law is passed there is a sudden flood of applications from persons who wish to be recertified. That is also what happened in this case. There was a sudden flood of applications from people who wanted to be reclassified and that is the reason why more people were examined and why more cases came to light. If the hon. member had only looked at page 9 of the report he would have found that there was also a sudden increase of 556 new cases in 1957, just after the passing of the 1956 Act, whereas the following year this figure dropped to 285. That is one reason for this increase in the number of cases. But there is also another reason and I want to say that in spite of all the criticism, in spite of all the suspicion that has been sown, these figures prove that under the new law, because of the improved methods of examination, because of the improved standard of certification, more cases are being detected, cases which would otherwise not have been detected at all. That is the reason why more cases are being certified. The hon. member knows very well that too much reliance was placed in the past on X-ray findings. I am sure he will agree with me that it often happened that an X-ray proved negative, or was very doubtful, and because no unmistakable signs of pneumoconiosis showed on the X-ray plate, those persons could not be certified as suffering from pneumoconiosis. But in terms of the 1962 Act, if there is any doubt in regard to the X-ray, or if a lung function test indicates that a person’s respiration is 20 per cent impaired, that person is certified. Such a person would not have been certified in the past. I say that that is one of the reasons why more cases have been detected and it is not only I who hold this opinion. I want to refer to the report of the Chairman of the Chamber of Mines for 1963. Mr. Anderson had the following to say in connection with the question of certification (translation)—

In other words, he supports my contention that the improved methods and the improved standard of certification have benefited the mineworkers in that they are now certified much sooner than would otherwise have been the case. Mr. Anderson also refers to the pneumoconiosis certification standards. I do not want to quote the whole passage; I just want to point out that these are the standards laid down in the Act. He says (translation)—

What does this mean? It simply means that if an X-ray plate is taken of a person’s lungs and there is a doubt as to the presence of pneumoconiosis, it does not necessarily follow that that person will be excluded. If his lung function tests indicate that his breathing is impaired by more than 20 per cent, he is still certified. The other instruction is as follows (translation)—

This means that if a person’s X-ray plate shows the unmistakable presence of pneumoconiosis but his lung function test does not indicate a disablement of more than 20 per cent, the doctor cannot disqualify him. That person must then be regarded as 20 per cent disabled. It is as a result of this improved classification and better examinations that the number of certified cases has increased.

While I am dealing with this aspect of the matter I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to have more clarity in connection with cases which are only discovered after death. In other words, if a post mortem examination reveals that a person suffered from pneumoconiosis, is it not possible to lay down specifically that that person must then be regarded as having had a more than 20 per cent disablement during his lifetime so that his dependants can draw the appropriate benefits? There are some people who believe that that is in fact the position but there apppears to be some doubt in this regard.

The hon. member for Rosettenville also referred to the increase in the number of tuberculotics. He said that this increase was disturbing and he suggested that all persons should be tested by means of a skin test or otherwise if they work underground on the mines. I agree with him that we must be extremely careful as far as cases of tuberculosis are concerned. I have stated previously and I want to repeat that the conditions under which a mineworker has to work in the mines form a fertile breeding-ground for tuberculosis. [Time limit.]

I want to ask the Minister a few things, due to the lack of information we have as to what is happening in the asbestos mines and the asbestos mills generally. The asbestos silica is the most potent for producing pneumoconiosis; it produces it in the shortest period. Whereas in the gold mines the average working life of a miner is 20 years, or was the last time we had a report, the average working life of an asbestos miner or worker is between six and seven years. In the last report of the Mines Department there has been no further indication as to what is being done. In the ordinary way pneumoconiosis is a world-wide disease produced by numerous types of agents, but we in this country have the asbestos mines. Only we and Canada produce asbestos, and therefore the problem is one which we have to settle ourselves. We cannot very well look to other countries for assistance in solving this problem, and this problem is aggravated by the fact that you cannot use water in the mine. You cannot handle asbestos in a wet state, so that the problems multiply. But surely there must be some research going on to try to overcome this problem, because if it cannot be overcome, and unless we can prolong the lives of the workers in the asbestos mines, I am sure that the country as a whole will be faced with the problem of abandoning the working of asbestos at all. We cannot have an industry in which the life of the working man is reduced to about seven years. I do not think any civilized country would tolerate such a state of affairs. Therefore I should like to know what is being done, and whether the Minister is insisting on such safety measures as are available. I understand that a great part of the risk is in the actual mills. I am told that by the Minister’s Department. If that is so, is the Minister insisting that every new idea or new mechanism which can be applied to the mills so that the fibre is sealed away as much as possible is being applied? Other things that can be done is to insist on the men wearing masks. But here it is not a question of air being forced underground, or of grilles which can be wetted, but the problem lies in the crushing in the mills. I understand further that there is at least one mill, newly constructed, which is almost hermetically sealed, and it is hoped by this means to avoid the high incidence of asbestosis among these people. If that is so, I think nothing can excuse the Minister from insisting on the immediate application of this principle to all other mills. We cannot tolerate this terrible disease afflicting these men at this rate.

Another point is that we are completely in the dark as to what is happening in regard to mesothelioma, the cancer produced by asbestos. We had information some three years ago from a certain doctor, and I have since heard that Dr. Webster is doing research on it, but we have no information. Unfortunately the health statistics do not give us separate tables for the various types of cancer, so that this particular type of cancer can be put in a separate category. This is a matter which I will take up with the Minister of Health, to see whether it is possible to do so. But the fact remains that we are in complete ignorance as to what is happening, and I think it is something which should not be kept from this House. This House ought to know what risks the asbestos miner is running of acquiring asbestosis, which is silicosis in its worst type, and we should also know what is the incidence of the cancer caused by this dust.

The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) and other speakers raised the old but very important subject here yesterday of the desirability and the urgent necessity of extending the lives of our gold mines and they suggested that as much gold-bearing ore as possible should be extracted from those mines. In that regard I should like to support the remarks made here by those members. There are some people who only look for the rich gold reefs; they are only interested in picking the eyes of the mine. In the main those people think only of their own financial gain. That attitude is not in the interests of South Africa or in the interests of the mining industry. That is why, having regard to the enormous costs involved in bringing mines to the production stage, a very urgent appeal should be made at the highest level that mines should be operated until they are worked out, until all the ore has been brought to the surface and until every ounce of gold has been extracted.

On this occasion I want to pay tribute to the late Mr. Willem Boshoff, an Afrikaner, for everything he did in this sphere. I want to pay tribute to the Boshoff mining group for the work which they have done in the past and which they are still doing in extracting the less payable low-grade ore and in recovering that gold for South Africa. This group is not mining gold simply for its own benefit; in many respects it is rendering a very great service to the country. I want to mention one example. When we talk about extending the life of a gold mine I want to mention the case of the Stanhope mine which originally, in the nineties, belonged to a Mr. Geldenhuys. This mine was originally called the Geldenhuys Deep and it was taken over at a later stage by Rand Mines. The Boshoff group purchased this mine from Rand Mines in 1949 and has been working that mine ever since. When the Boshoff group took over the Stanhope shaft all the equipment had been dismantled but within three months the group had completely re-equipped that mine and it was ready to start production. It is estimated that that mine will continue to produce gold for the next seven years. Let me say just as a matter of interest that that mine has already produced gold to the value of R2,035,000,000. This is a mine which was abandoned by its previous owners. Here we have a striking example of the way in which gold can still be recovered from the less payable ore and how the life of a mine can be extended. Then there are also the Wilfred, Princess and Roodepoort shafts. It is anticipated that these mines will continue to produce for the next 15 years. These are all mines which have been taken over by the Boshoff group. That is why I say that I think we must pay tribute to the late Mr. Boshoff and his group for the work they have done. I take the liberty of recommending to any person who is interested in this subject that he read the interesting work by Mr. Piet Mering which was published recently entitled “Goud vir die Soeker”.

There is another matter that I want to touch upon and that is in connection with the evil of employing foreign Bantu labour in our gold and affiliated mines. The State has been taken to task in many debates in this House because of the increase in the number of foreign Bantu in the Republic. This thing is assuming alarming proportions. I exclude the Shangaans from the Portuguese territories because we have a permanent agreement with those territories but it is disturbing to see the increase in the numbers of foreign Bantu in this country. We know that the State has practically no control over the recruiting organizations which recruit foreign Bantu for work in the mines. I want to say that these foreign Bantu are responsible to a large extent for the growth of the Bantu population in the Republic. I do not want to discuss this matter but it does create social and political problems the ramifications of which one can hardly assess. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister and also to the Chamber of Mines to see to it that the organizations which recruit Bantu labour for the mines concentrate to a greater extent upon the Ciskei and other areas in the Republic. I want to tell the House what the position was as at 30 June 1961. Out of a total of 426,325 Bantu employed in the affiliated mines, 393,100 were employed in the gold mines and 33,225 in the coal mines. Of these recruited labourers, 233,972 were employed in the gold mines of the Witwatersrand and 100,273 on the goldfields of the O.F.S. Out of this total of 426,325 Bantu, 263,972 or 61.9 per cent were foreign Bantu. There were 162,534 indigenous Bantu or 38.1 per cent. This labour was recruited as follows: 22.7 per cent in Moçambique, 12.6 per cent in Basutoland, 11.6 per cent in other Africa territories, 9.1 per cent in the Federation, 4.1 per cent in Bechuanaland and 1.8 per cent in Swaziland. I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that in one year, 1961, these foreign Bantu took R16,100,000 out of our country. Over a period of ten years, therefore, an amount of R160,000,000 has been taken out of the country by these foreign Bantu, although there is unemployment amongst our own Bantu in the Ciskei and the Transkei. I want to ask that we encourage our indigenous Bantu in the Republic to seek employment in the mines and that we recruit less labour in those countries to the north of us which are so hostile to the Republic of South Africa. I make this plea also because I do not want our gold mines to build their economy and future on a foreign Bantu labour force. [Time limit.]

I do not want to follow up what has been said by my hon. colleague. I can only say that he mentioned some very interesting figures and I congratulate him because they were most enlightening.

The matter that I want to discuss amounts to a request to the hon. the Minister. Nearly all our newspapers have carried reports recently dealing with the question of prospecting for oil in this country and in every report reference has been made to the interest which the Government itself has in these prospecting operations. Let me tell the hon. the Minister that in this respect the newspapers are giving the country very good news indeed. It is not necessary for me to comment on the necessity of having our own oil supplies in this country. I just want to mention in passing that I think it would be unwise for us to say too much in this House about the importance of oil in view of the fact that beyond our borders we face a hostile world. We know what a mighty weapon this could be in their hands. We do not know whether they will make use of it but we do know how disastrous it would be for our country if they did. It is gratifying therefore to hear that the Government itself is intensely interested in the question of prospecting for oil. We read that geologists and geophysicists from all parts of the world will be called upon to advise these prospecting companies. That is very gratifying news. I just want to add, in case I may be asked how much money this is going to cost, that in my opinion no sum of money would be too great to spend on efforts to discover oil in this country. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to be so good as to tell us something about the possibilities in this regard.

Then I want to say a few words in regard to another matter and that is the question of alluvial diggers’ certificates. The hon. the Minister and the Deputy Minister are well acquainted with the position. They have received numerous deputations in this regard. I myself have accompanied six deputations to Ministers, including Dr. van Rhijn and all his successors, and the point at issue has always been the question of a Union certificate. As the position is at present, there is a provincial certificate. The Cape diggers cannot dig in the Transvaal and vice versa. I feel that we are playing the diggers in the two provinces off against one another. There is a great deal of friction between these two camps, the Cape and the Transvaal, and I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to give this matter his careful consideration. We know that there are two opposing camps but I still believe that if the hon. the Minister will use his influence the Transvaal diggers’ committees and the Cape committees can be persuaded to discuss this difference of opinion in a sensible way with a view to repealing the provincial ordinances. I also believe that we are restricting the rights of these people as citizens of the country. A Cape digger cannot dig in the Transvaal, and vice versa. This is a restriction upon the freedom of these people. I think they ought to have the right, as they used to have in the pioneer days, to take out a licence in any province they like; that is not the case at present. I make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister in this regard because I think the time has come for us to settle this whole matter. We as the representatives of these people have had to complain to the Ministers on numbers of occasions. On each occasion we have had to return to these people and tell them that the Minister says that if he accedes to their request there will be dissatisfaction either in the Transvaal or in the Cape. [Time limit.]

There are one or two matters I should like to discuss with the Minister. I want to make a plea for consideration to be given to the mining of our base minerals. We have heard some discussion here about marginal mines and dying mines and what is to happen to certain towns when these mines are worked out. It is a well-known fact that due to the depression and for other reasons the City of Kimberley once landed in the position where things were very bad. Due entirely to the efforts of local men some efforts have been made to stimulate interests in other industries. The point I wish to establish is this. Will the Minister not give consideration now, to making provision for those cities and towns which rely on diamonds and gold for their welfare. I should like to mention a place like Postmasburg, for example, which for a long time was in a very bad way, but with the discovery of the Brits diamond mine has seen a new lease of life. This leads me to the point that in order to establish industries certain things are necessary. I believe that we are not making the best use of our wealth in the shape of minerals and base metals. I refer particularly to the Japanese contract where 5,000,000 tons of iron ore are being carried away from the Northern Cape at the rate of 500,000 tons a year to be processed into pig iron, after which it is shipped to Japan. Responsible people have stated that this undertaking, in the area where the mine exists, will give employment to 140 non-Whites and 50 White workers. One asks oneself whether or not, that material should have been processed closer to the source of supply. I also refer to the position regarding manganese. We know that the supplies of manganese are practially unlimited. It is a well-known fact that estimates, as to the quantity, vary between 50,000,000 and 100,000,000 tons. That manganese is also being carted away via Port Elizabeth, and one wonders whether the time has not arrived when better use should be made of that material near to the site where the manganese is found. As the hon. the Minister himself said yesterday, we would like to diversify our industry. Here is an opportunity which the hon. the Minister could well take. I do not cavil at the decisions which have already been made, because I think there is still enough manganese to warrant some of the decisions which I should like to be taken. We have the situation, that the suggestion which has been made that a steelworks should be erected at Barkly West, which is believed to be the best site, in order to use this material from the mines to the best advantage, is not a feasible proposition, because it is a long way from the coal fields and because it is costly to transport coal. In the report of the commission of inquiry into the use of nuclear power in South Africa, the question of the transport of coal is dealt with. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) has mentioned that uranium is no longer in such great demand and that the world to-day is switching over to nuclear heat as a means of generating electric energy. I therefore submit the proposition to the hon. the Minister that the time has arrived when the Northern Cape region should be developed as a whole and that the raw material, which abounds there in plenty, should be processed as near to the source of supply as possible. I say that, because the time will come when these deposits will be worked out. When that happens we are going to be faced with the same problem which is facing the Reef, the old Witwatersrand. I want to take time by the forelock, with the experience of the City of Kimberley as an example. As far as nuclear power is concerned the commission itself says that the time must come, in the not too distant future, when consideration will have to be given to making a start in using nuclear power as ordinary commercial power. It can be said, of course, that it will take many months or years to plan, and many years to bring about, but when one sees what is done in Britain, where there are also tremendous deposits of coal, one cannot help thinking that the Government could with advantage go into this matter of putting up a nuclear power station and make a start. Sir, a very useful report was prepared in this connection, for quite a different reason. That was because, at that time, the Railways could not cope with the transport of coal. That is no longer the case. The Railways are able to cope with the transport of coal and, according to the report, the Railways would like to keep this traffic. We have seen what surpluses have been earned by the Railways. I believe that with the development of this country, there will be no loss of revenue for anybody, if a nuclear station is established in the Northern Cape for the express purpose of making the maximum use of the minerals and the base metals which abound there. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will give this matter his most serious attention, because I would remind the Minister that with 50,000 tons of iron ore per annum being carted away for ten years to Japan, a lot of work is going to be created in Japan. I say that we should create employment in this country for our own people. As I said earlier there is enough iron ore to carry out this contract and there is probably a lot more. The hon. the Deputy Minister did give an undertaking in this connection not so long ago, and is in the process of investigating the prospects with regard to minerals and base metals in the Northern Cape. Sir, we, in that part of the country are dependent on mining, and I think the time is overdue when we should seriously consider this matter well in advance, instead of having to come here cap in hand to the Government and to plead for relief to be given to marginal and dying mines. We must not forget that similar situations can arise in other directions.

The last matter which I want to raise with the hon. the Minister is this. He can correct me if I am wrong. I understand that in dealing with the diamond deposits, which we believe exist in Namaqualand, it is intended to differentiate between the land which is known as Coloured land, the Coloured settlement, and land which is going to be prospected by Whites. My information is that there is a possibility that the advice of several White groups might be followed and that the Coloured people will be required to work as employees only on the development of any scheme which might be initiated in Namaqualand, in the Komaggas area in particular. I know that the hon. the Minister has appointed a committee to go into this whole matter. I put some questions earlier this Session as to the position of the Coloured diggers and who would look after their interests. Sir, I have studied the personnel of that particular committee very closely, and I think some of the selections are very good. What I say is not said in any disparaging way as far as the others are concerned, but I do not think many people on that committee know anything about diamonds and digging for diamonds in alluvial deposits. Alluvial deposits and mines are different propositions entirely. I think the country expects to hear what the Minister’s intentions are, because this business of the Komaggas diamonds and the diamonds in Namaqualand has been under discussion for a very long time. [Time limit.]

There are a few matters I should like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister. We all realize that in time the gold mines will become exhausted and will have to close down. In that case there are two interested groups which are affected by such closing down or by a decrease in production. In the first place there are the owners of the mine. Much is already being done for them by the Department and by the State as such. Assistance is given to them in regard to the pumping out of water, tax relief, etc. But I really want to talk about the second group which is affected by the closing down of a gold mine, and that is the town in which the gold mine which has to close down is situated. I want to say immediately that the Opposition has adopted a more intelligent attitude in this debate than ever before in regard to this very difficult matter. The attitude adopted previously, particularly by some members of the Opposition, harmed the Rand more than it benefited it. I want to put the matter to the Minister very clearly. I want to say that we on the Witwatersrand realize that in time the gold mines there will become exhausted, but I just want to bring a few matters to his notice because I think that this need not discourage the establishment of industries on the Rand, but that it should rather be an encouragement, in spite of the concept of decentralization. I know that we talk about the decentralization of industries to replace the closing gold mines for the specific reason that we are concerned about the consumption of water and electricity in that area and the further increase in the numbers of Black people in that area. These are all hampering factors which perhaps justify restrictive measures to keep industries away from the Witwatersrand. In regard to water, I want to say immediately that as soon as the mines close down there will be a tremendous amount of water available which was formerly used by the mines and which will now be available for other purposes. The same applies to electricity. The same also applies, in my opinion, in respect of the problem of Black-White relations, because every gold mine which closes down, depending on the size of the mine, means that between 5,000 and 16,000 Bantu leave that area, which immediately makes a tremendous difference in the ratio as between the Blacks and the Whites. But I want to add that on the Witwatersrand we now have in certain areas the establishment of Coloured areas. Employment will have to be provided for these Coloureds, and in order to do so we ask that industries should be established there to replace the gold mines so that employment can be provided for the Coloureds, even though we have to compel the industrialists by legislation to employ Coloureds in their industries. I feel that in this case it is essential.

Sir, I leave that thought with the hon. the Minister. Then I want to mention two matters affecting the mineworkers specifically. In the first place, when a mineworker has gone to the Bureau for an examination, he receives a certificate which sets out his position. The hon. the Minister has already explained this matter to us, but I should like him to repeat it for purposes of the record. On that certificate given to the miner these questions appear: “Are there signs of pneumoconiosis, yes or no?” Then a cross is drawn which indicates that there are signs of pneumoconiosis. The next question on the form reads: “In what stage? Under 20 per cent lung impairment, above 20 per cent, etc.?” Then perhaps a cross appears to indicate that there is less than 20 per cent lung impairment. The miner simply cannot understand it. There is a definite finding that he has contracted pneumoconiosis, but his lung impairment is less than 20 per cent. He is therefore not placed in the first category, and then he wants to know why he is not certified, because the form indicates that he has pneumoconiosis. I understand the position, but doubt still exists in the minds of the mineworkers, and I want to ask the Minister please to state the position very clearly.

The second matter I want to refer to in regard to the miners is the question of skin diseases. We know that any impairment of the chest or lungs is now classified as an industrial disease in the mining industry, but now we find, in my own constituency and everywhere else, that mineworkers are not so affected by their work in the mines, but that they develop skin diseases as the result of the damp and moist conditions underground. They contract eczema, skin rashes and all kinds of other diseases. I understand and accept that this can also be the position in other industries, but I just want to ask whether this has not already happened so often in the mining industry that we can specifically ascribe this disease to working in the mines, so that compensation or relief in some form or other can be given to the mineworker.

In order to save time, I do not propose to reply to every hon. member who has taken part in this debate, but I shall deal with each of the various subjects which have been raised here by hon. members.

I want to deal in the first instance with the problem of marginal mines which has been touched upon by speakers both on that side and on this side. I want to give a few answers to questions which have been put to me in this connection. I refer in the first place to what was said here by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) when he pleaded that we should do everything in our power by means of a scientific approach to exploit and to retain in this country the greatest possible tonnage of ore. He also urged—and this is a matter which falls more appropriately under the Department of Economic Affairs—that we should encourage the establishment of industries in towns which are threatened by the closing of marginal mines. The hon. member for Springs also dealt with this matter, and although he expressed his appreciation of what the Government had done in this connection, he accused us of having done too little too late; he said that we should have tackled this work sooner.

Hear, hear.

The hon. member for Benoni says “hear, hear”. In this connection I want to say that this problem of marginal mines is one which has not existed in recent years only; it has been a problem in this country over the past 25 to 30 years. Hon. members will recall that as far back as 1947 investigations were instituted and recommendations made in this connection by the Social and Economic Planning Council. But hon. members must also remember that the Free State gold-fields were discovered immediately after the war; those gold-fields had to be developed as well as the gold-fields in the Western Transvaal area. During that period immediately after the war there was an acute shortage not only of capital but also of labour in the mining industry in general and particularly in the gold-mining industry, and because of the discovery of new gold-fields and the shortage of labour, this problem of marginal mines was not regarded at that time, as it is to-day, as a matter requiring urgent attention. Neither the previous Government nor this Government regarded this problem initially in the serious light in which we view it to-day. Hon. members must also remember that the gold-mining industry itself has always been very sensitive as far as the question of subsidization of the gold-mining industry is concerned. That is why one of the obvious methods, which is perhaps used in certain countries, was always rejected, namely the possible subsidization of marginal mines. But let me put this to hon. members on that side who have been criticizing us, particularly the hon. members for Springs (Mr. Taurog) and Germiston (District). They have been accusing the Government in recent years of having done nothing and of having been negligent in this matter. Let me ask them whether they themselves have ever put forward any positive proposal as to how these marginal mines can be assisted. It is true—and I do not hold this against them—that they have been talking about taking care of those towns in which gold mines will have to close, but have those hon. members ever put forward any positive suggestion, either in debates in previous years or even in this debate, as to how to lengthen the life of these marginal mines?

Look at Hansard.

I know of no positive proposal that they put forward, and I do not really blame them for not having done so because I know bow difficult it is to find the answer to this problem; I know how difficult it is to find the solution. Sir, you will recall that in 1956, when the first round-table conference was convened, a conference which was attended by all the various interested parties, to suggest ways and means whereby the life of the marginal mines could be lengthened, only a few trivial proposals were put forward which, if given effect to, would have made a difference of only a few cents in the production costs. No proposal of any real significance was put forward, and in spite of all the investigations which have been instituted in recent years nobody has been able to come forward with any suggestion of real significance, apart from the proposals that we have adopted in the past year or two. We have granted assistance to the marginal mines in respect of the pumping out of water, and in this connection the State will be spending R1,750,000; this year we have made provision for loans to marginal mines, and this will possibly cost us R3,500,000 this year. What other solution would hon. members suggest? There are two solutions which have been suggested; the one is that the production of marginal mines should be subsidized. We investigated that proposal very thoroughly in respect of each of the mines concerned and we came to the conclusion that it was not a practical solution, quite apart from fundamental objections, because the cost of subsidization would be so high in comparison with the additional gold which would be mined that it would not be worthwhile. Another solution which was proposed by the Chamber of Mines was that gold-mining taxation should be reduced. But, Sir, a reduction of gold-mining taxation would not help the marginal mines either because they pay no taxation in any event. We have been in touch with the Chamber of Mines for years with regard to this problem; we have been putting our heads together for years in an attempt to find a solution, but it is difficult to arrive at a solution. The Government has again set aside R15,000,000, part of which will be used in an attempt to solve this problem, and I cordially invite hon. members on the other side, in the interests of this country and in the interests of the gold-mining industry, to come forward with positive, acceptable suggestions. I would also point out that it is wrong to allege that we have only been able to produce these two schemes after seven years of intensive investigations. The Government has assisted the marginal mines in various ways in recent years.

I am referring to mines such as Virginia Merriespruit, Free State Saaiplaas, Freddies, etc. Various schemes have been implemented by the Government which have not amounted to a direct grant of money to those mines but which have meant a loss of revenue to the Government. These mines have been enabled to remain in production for a longer period by means of governmental measures.

With regard to the question of ensuring that the maximum amount of gold is obtained from all working mines, I want to refer to the fact that tax and lease formulae are of such a nature that they encourage mines to mine a low-grade type of ore. The Government Mining Engineer, through his Inspector of Mines Leases, continually keeps a close watch on behalf of the Minister over all leased mines in terms of the gold law. I can assure hon. members who have raised this matter that these officers are very accurate. They keep a close check on mining operations with the object of ensuring that the eyes of the mines are not picked and that the maximum amount of gold is mined. The officers of this Department are devoting considerable time and thought to the question of preventing mineable gold from remaining un-mined.

*The hon. member for Springs, as well as other hon. members, has asked what my views are with regard to an increase in the price of gold. That question, of course, is one which should more appropriately be directed to my colleague, the Minister of Finance, and in the circumstances I do not want to go into this matter too deeply. I just want to say what my own experience has been in recent year’s, in spite of the official opinions of governments: Wherever I have come in touch with economists and financiers, particularly in Western Europe, I have found that economists at any rate have been more and more inclined to advocate an increase in the price of gold. In other words, I have found that more and more the thinking people in Europe, who reflect upon and investigate these things, are adopting the attitude that eventually there will have to be a more realistic gold price in relation to the dollar. I think people are beginning to realize that in spite of all other more or less artificial means which are being applied to preserve international liquidity, the only real way to ensure that is by means of an increase in gold production, and an increase in gold production can only be brought about by an increase in the price of gold. The argument which has always been advanced against an increase in the price of gold is that it will promote inflation and that Russia will benefit if the price of gold is increased. I think it is being realized to-day that an increase in the price of gold will not necessarily result in inflation because there is already inflation in America and other countries in spite of the fixed gold price, and that an increase in the price of gold would merely give recognition to the already existing inflation. I think the attitude of certain countries towards Russia is also gradually beginning to change. It is said that if the price of gold is increased Russia will benefit, and the question which is being posed to-day is why there should not be an increase in the price of gold when the prices of all other products supplied by Russia have increased in past years. People are beginning to realize that if the price of gold is not increased in due course Russia will eventually be the only country mining gold. When the cost of mining gold in South Africa eventually rises so steeply that it no longer pays us to mine gold, the mining of gold in South Africa will be discontinued, and then the largest source from which the West to-day obtains its gold will no longer exist. Russia is a country in which the cost factor does not enter into the picture, and Russia will be able to continue to mine gold whatever the costs of production may be. Russia will then be the only gold-producing country and the West will have no source from which it will be able to augment its stocks of gold. This is an idea which is beginning to penetrate the minds of people in Europe and which may eventually lead to an increase in the price of gold.

The hon. member for Aliwal (Mr. H. J. Botha) has asked me to investigate the northeastern Cape. I want to say to the hon. member that I will follow up the idea put forward by him to see what can still be done there.

The hon. members for Springs and Lichtenburg (Mr. M. C. van Niekerk) put certain questions to me in connection with oil. I just want to say that in terms of the Petroleum Act, Act No. 46 of 1942, the Minister may grant a lease to prospect for petroleum to anybody who in the opinion of the Minister has the necessary technical and financial means at his disposal. About a dozen such areas have so far been allocated to prospectors. The majority of these prospectors are South Africans. Some of them are making use of foreign capital and foreign experts. The largest part of the country is already covered by prospecting leases which have already been granted. The Department of Mines exercises very thorough supervision and will see to it in the future that these people to whom prospecting rights have been granted carry out their obligations under those agreements. Sir, a few days ago the newspapers carried a report which practically suggested that oil had already been discovered in Natal. I just want to say in this connection that one must not pin one’s hopes on such exaggerated reports. The fact of the matter is that fossil oil was discovered there as far back as 1956 by the Department’s geological survey division. There are very favourable indications there. Research workers found a year or two ago that it would be worthwhile to investigate that area further, and a special departmental team, which was specially constituted for this purpose, together with Biological Survey, is carrying out a very thorough investigation in a portion of that area in Natal. It will still take some little time to come to a decision. But one cannot say that there is oil there until such time as boreholes have been sunk to a great depth and until such time as oil has in fact been found there.

Will the hon. the Minister please tell us how much prospecting for oil is going on in South Africa at the present time?

Prospecting rights have been granted to about a dozen prospectors, but the contracts have not yet been completed.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) has asked me about the marketing of uranium and about the stretched-out agreement. This is a matter of secrecy and I cannot give him all the information that he might want. I can only tell him that the original contract with the Combined Development Agency provided for the sale of uranium up to the end of 1966. All the uranium was to be delivered by the end of 1966. Afterwards two stretched-out agreements were arrived at. The first stretched-out agreement was that deliveries be slowed down up to 1970. Subsequently there was a second stretched-out agreement in terms of which deliveries had to be concluded by 1973. That is the only information I can give the hon. member. By these agreements the bulk of the deliveries is currently being made to the United States of America and during the latter half of the programme the balance will be delivered to the United Kingdom.

In regard to the further sale of uranium I may add that there is hardly any demand at the present time for uranium but that the uranium producers in South Africa, in conjunction with the Atomic Energy Board, have set up a sales promotion organization throughout the entire world. Numerous trips have been undertaken and valuable contacts have already been established for future sales. I am sorry that I am unable to furnish more information as regards to the results, because I have to observe certain secrecy provisions in this regard. In regard to the peaceful use of uranium it is known that fossil fuels are about 20 per cent cheaper than fission materials. But there are optimists who believe that within the next decade there will be a break-through as the result of research which is being conducted in most countries to-day. There is also a general feeling that some stock-piling may be commenced within a few years’ time. A proposition, which has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Karoo, is a nuclear power station for the Cape, for instance. This has already been investigated by a specialist committee a few years ago. As hon. members will recall they recommended that such a station would not be economically advisable at the present moment. It is still much cheaper at the present moment to generate electricity in the ordinary way than by means of atomic power.

What would it cost approximately?

At this stage the cost of generating electricity is higher by means of nuclear power, much higher, than by means of the conventional thermal stations which we have.

What about the capital costs?

The capital costs are also very much higher because you must have a very large installation and the bulk of electricity to be delivered must also be very large. You could not install it for a small town, for example. A very large bulk of distribution is required. I must add that although this committee has recommended in that way the work is still being continued by means of a nuclear power sub-committee of the Atomic Energy Board. This sub-committee is keeping abreast with current events and is from time to time making reports. So this matter is not forgotten. We are still at it.

The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) raised certain matters in regard to pneumoconiosis which have already been replied to by the hon. member for Odendaalsrus. The hon. member for Rosettenville mentioned paragraph 3 of the report of the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Commission of last year. He drew certain conclusions from the figures mentioned in that report. I am sorry to say that those conclusions of his, although well meant, were not entirely correct and that they do not reflect the true position. I recall that in correspondence with the hon. member it was already explained that reclassification into higher categories of disability could only take place after further medical examination. Until 31 October 1963 the 345 cases of miners, on whose behalf the hon. member pleaded for pensions, had not yet presented themselves for examination at the bureau. I am quite sure that by now the majority must have presented themselves, that they must have been examined and that they probably already receive pensions. The hon. member also referred to the comparatively large number of miners who had not previously been certified to have pneumoconiosis but who have since been certified to have pneumoconiosis or pneumoconiosis plus tuberculosis. These figures do not provide a basis for criticism but they are a very good testimony of the success of the new Act and the efficiency of the Miners’ Medical Bureau. A fair percentage of these certifications is due to the more scientific approach which is permitted by the new Act. I must also say that an upsurge in certification is natural immediately after the introduction of new legislation, as the hon. member for Odendaalsrus has already mentioned. The reason is that miners who are no longer employed on the mines apply for examination once a new Act is passed and as these examinations are worked off the rate of certification drops and may even reach a more stable level.

The position in regard to tuberculosis is really not as serious as the hon. member concluded from the figures. The hon. member has probably misread the paragraph concerned in this report. The report gives the total number of new certifications without breaking them up into pure pneumoconiosis on the one hand and the combined condition on the other hand. It is therefore not right to conclude that the majority or even an undue percentage have the combined condition. There has been no increase in the incidence of tuberculosis amongst miners; if anything there has been a slight decrease. The hon. member suggested that every miner should regularly undergo special tests for tuberculosis. I am not a medical man, but I am not aware of any tests that can be carried out effectively at an ordinary medical examination. Apart from this there would be no point in carrying out these tests on Europeans unless the Bantu workers were also tested in a similar way. When one considers that there are approximately 50,000 European miners and approximately 500,000 Bantu miners who would have to be tested at least once every year it must be clear that this suggestion is really not very practical. However, the bureau has introduced a system of regular sputum culture testing for all miners who have been found to have pneumoconiosis in any degree, and quite a number of cases of tuberculosis which are undiagnosable by ordinary means are detected in this way. I am afraid that, except for very strict periodical examinations, this is all that can be coped with at the present moment.

With regard to asbestosis the hon. member for Rosettenville suggested that I should consider making a regulation to regulate the establishment of residential areas near asbestos mines. He suggested that no residence should be permitted within five miles of any asbestos mine. Well, I do not think the suggestion is feasible but I am quite prepared to go into this matter. This is, however, one of the matters which will receive attention in the research programme on asbestosis and mesothelioma, which is already in progress. This might interest the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford). If the escape of asbestos dust from mills can be controlled effectively such a regulation will probably be unnecessary. The problem which has therefore to be tackled very seriously is the problem of dust prevention and dust control. I wish to assure the hon. member that this matter is receiving active attention.

*The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) spoke appreciatively of the State’s attitude towards pneumoconiosis sufferers in the past. I appreciate what he said. In this regard I should like to make a little announcement which may perhaps interest hon. members. Hon. members know that at the moment negotiations are taking place between the Chamber of Mines and the Mining Trade Unions in regard to a new method of pneumoconiosis certification and compensation. During the past week the Chamber of Mines and leaders of the trade unions approached me and submitted to me a scheme on broad lines. Because I know that Parliament is, and has been for all these years, interested in the lot of the mineworker as such and in the compensation and treatment of the pneumoconiosis sufferer, I felt that this was a matter which we should tackle very seriously. I have, therefore, decided to appoint a commission of inquiry. This commission will not be very large, but it will have to work very speedily. The task of that commission will be more particularly to investigate the proposals which have now been made by the Chamber of Mines and the trade unions, especially in regard to the pneumoconiosis compensation paid to our mineworkers. I do not want this commission again to cover the whole field which has already been covered by various commissions, but I want them more particularly to investigate the proposals submitted to us and to determine whether those proposals are really in the interest of the mineworkers or not. I hope hon. members will agree with me there.

Will the workers’ and officials’ organizations be given representation on this commission?

I have not yet considered the personnel of this commission. There are various ideas in this regard. But I think the idea should be to have a completely objective commission and that not even my Department or the workers or anybody who is slightly interested in the matter should be represented on this commission. I think it would be best to have a completely objective commission.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) has mentioned the question of asbestosis, and lung cancer. I can inform him that a programme of intensive research, which will provisionally stretch over a period of five years, has been put into operation with effect from 1 April 1964. This research covers two aspects. In the first place there is the aspect of dust control and the prevention and extraction of dust and the prevention of air pollution in the vicinity of asbestos mines and mills. Secondly there is the aspect of medical research in connection with the causation and the prevention of these two diseases. The work in connection with dust will be undertaken and controlled by the Mine Air Research section of the Government Mining Engineers’ Division and the cost will be borne by the State. Considerable progress has been made in connection with the improvement of dust conditions in asbestos mines and mills. The position is being carefully watched by way of regular inspections in dust cellars. The hon. member mentioned a certain mine. I do not know whether we have the same mine in mind but there is a mine in the Northern Transvaal which has made considerable progress in regard to dust control and the dust counts for last year were considerably lower than those of previous years. I do not know whether it will be possible to force the mines, particularly the smaller mines, to make use of the same methods because these methods will be too expensive for the smaller mines. But the Government mining engineer is watching the position and shall force smaller mines to make use of those particular dust control methods that they can afford.

The research on the medical side is being undertaken by the Miners’ Medical Bureau and the pathological research section of the Pneumoconiosis Research Unit of the C.S.I.R. This unit has already done a considerable amount of work and steps are being taken to expedite and to extend this work. The medical part of this research is being financed jointly by the State and the asbestos mines on a rand for rand basis. It appeared from discussions which took place recently in London, at which my Department was represented, that the problem of asbestosis and mesothelioma was an international one. And as hon. members know research is now being conducted on an international scale. The Department is cooperating fully in this international investigation and further discussions will be held later this year in New York. I may also add that this is not only a problem of the mines it also occurs in factories and other industries. For this reason research over a very wide field is necessary. I can assure hon. members that the Government is fully aware of the importance and the urgency of the matter and is giving it its active attention.

*The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) paid a tribute to the Boshoff Group. I may tell him that to a large extent I share in the tribute he has paid to them. I just want to say in passing, without derogating from that tribute, that the methods adopted by that group have cerain limitations and that those methods cannot be applied to the gold-mining industry as a whole because they can operate only under certain working conditions, at certain depths, in certain temperatures and with due regard to certain water problems. Nevertheless, we recognize the great work which has been done by that group.

The hon. member also referred to the foreign Bantu in the gold-mining industry. Although I agree with the hon. member, I just want to tell him that it is not so easy to reduce the percentage of foreign Bantu in the mining industry. In the first place, we know that our own Bantu are not so keen on working in the gold mines. Secondly, we know that our own Bantu are willing to work for only 10 or 11 months in the gold mines, whereas the foreign Bantu work for 16 months and longer. They have a longer contract and that of course reduces the cost of recruiting and training. Then our Bantu also tend, after having worked in one mine for a little while, to go to another mine. That is not the case in regard to the foreign Bantu. We should like to reduce the number of Bantu coming from beyond our borders, but there are certain problems involved. That is one of the first matters which I, as Minister of Mines, took up with the Chamber of Mines after I became the Minister. I can only say that there is already an improvement, because whereas in 1957 36 per cent of the Bantu on the mines were South African Bantu, to-day they constitute 40 per cent.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg spoke about oil. I have already dealt with that. The hon. member also spoke about the national character of diggers’ licences. At the moment the plea is that diggers’ licences should not be valid for one province only, but that if a digger has a licence he should be able to use it in respect of the whole country. I can just tell the hon. member that after the great discoveries at Grasfontein and in the Transvaal in 1927 the Cape diggers asked that their licences should be valid in the Transvaal, and the Transvaal diggers opposed it. The same happened when the discoveries were made at Goedvooruitsig and Pypklip in the Transvaal. Then the Cape diggers again wanted to be allowed to go to the Transvaal, and the Transvalers again refused. Later, when discoveries were made in the Cape, the Transvalers wanted to come to the Cape but the Cape diggers refused. So we have a difference of opinion among the diggers. I told a deputation which came to interview me that if the diggers could arrive at unanimity among themselves, I would consider making their licences national in character. The matter therefore rests with them. In this regard I also want to say that we hope, when the Namaqualand fields are distributed, to give greater opportunities to diggers to go and work there. They need no diggers’ certificates for that; a certificate as to their moral character is sufficient for that.

May I ask the hon. the Minister further to explain the last point he mentioned? That matter contains dynamite for many people.

I can only tell the hon. member that we have already discussed the whole matter with the Members of Parliament concerned, who are interested in the subject, and we are prepared to have further discussions with them if hon. members still have uncertainty in this regard.

The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) raised certain matters in regard to the processing of raw materials. I can only say that I fully agree with the hon. member that it is necessary for us to process our raw materials to a much larger extent before they are exported. There are many problems connected with this processing, particularly with the marketing of those materials. These matters fall under the Department of Economic Affairs and if the hon. member is agreeable I shall refer the matter to him.

The hon. member asked me about the participation of Coloureds in the Namaqualand diamond diggings. This matter is also being given attention to. We are co-operating with the Department of Coloured Affairs. As the hon. member knows a committee is in session at the present moment and we are doing our best, in conjunction with the Department of Coloured Affairs to try to see to it that the Coloureds will have the best possible opportunity to participate. Lastly the hon. member said that there was nobody on that committee who had any knowledge of diamonds, particularly of alluvial diamonds. I may say that one of the members is …

On a point of explanation I referred to the Coloureds’ interests in regard to alluvial rights.

I am sorry. In case other hon. members have misunderstood the hon. member I can just say that we have on that committee Mr. Orsmond who is perhaps one of the greatest authorities on diamond digging. He is the manager of our State alluvial diggings at Alexander Bay.

*The hon. member for Randfontein mentioned certain matters which I should like to deal with briefly. He referred to skin diseases. I can only say that if it is proved that skin diseases arise as the result of working in the mines, special provision will have to be made for it. This Act deals with pneumoconiosis and with the heart and with the lungs. It does not cover skin diseases. If it is found that working on the mines causes skin diseases, we shall have to make provision for it in a different way, and not in this Pneumoconiosis Act.

The hon. member also had much to say about industries which should be established in various spheres. I shall refer that to the Minister of Economic Affairs.

What about the person who has pneumoconiosis to the extent of less than 20 per cent? I put that question to the hon. the Minister pertinently.

The hon. member said that the bureau states on its certificate that a man in fact has pneumoconiosis, but less than 20 per cent. That happened a long time ago, but it has already been changed. The certification is not done in that way any more. It no longer appears on the certificate.

Vote put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.

I move as an amendment to this amendment—

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining amendments put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

I move—

As I see it this Bill consists of two parts. The first one gives the hon. Minister additional powers to build houses and it also enables him to build different types of houses. The second part provides the machinery for the transfer of the various works of the Group Areas Development Board to the Department of Housing. I think these are the two main aspects the Bill is intended to provide for. We support the third reading of this Bill because we think both these objects are necessary. But that does not mean that we are not perhaps critical of some of the methods that are incorporated in the Bill to achieve these two ends. For example, during the Committee Stage of this Bill, we on this side of the House moved certain amendments to Clauses 4, 6, 12 and 13. The object of those amendments was to try to introduce something into this Bill which we thought it seriously lacked and that something is a spirit of co-operation. We on this side of the House believe that to achieve the objects of this Bill, in other words, to provide more houses and quicker, a method of co-operation with the local author rities concerned would have been a far better approach than to take almost dictatorial powers to make these people do the job if there were any hold-ups or any reasons at all why the schemes did not go as fast as the Minister wanted them to go. But unfortunately the Minister has rejected all those proposals. He has decided to do it by the method he has enunciated in this Bill. At this stage we want to repeat that we would far rather have seen him adopt the other method, that of cooperation. Because we would like to remind the hon. the Minister that we do not know of one local or regional authority that does not want to provide housing for its people. I do not believe there is any such local authority in the Republic of South Africa. I believe that every one at all levels is just as keen to provide housing, and proper housing, for their people as I believe the hon. Minister is. That is why we believe he would have got the co-operation of all of them without resorting to the means he has adopted to achieve his end in this Bill. I would like to remind him too that in the application of this Bill I think he should remember that in the case of many local authorities their resources are already overstrained. He must not believe that the only thing they have to do is to provide houses. Their means are already overstrained by many things, and one is the matter that the hon. the Minister himself has to deal with, namely the proclamation of group areas. Sir, when group areas are proclaimed in quick succession, it puts a terrific load on the resources of local authorities who have as well, to provide all facilities and amenities that are required by the existing community as well as those the Minister wants to be provided for the new community. Then in addition to that you have this movement from the platteland to the towns which is also occupying the thoughts and taxing the resources of the local authorities to a large extent at the moment. That movement is a very big one and it requires houses and the provision of all the things that the local authorities are set up to provide for the people living in their area. In addition to that you have the problem of providing for immigrants. All these things add up to the fact that local authorities in almost any area have their hands full already, and new housing schemes have to be inaugurated, planned and carried out with the co-operation and the sympathetic co-operation of those local authorities. I might remind the hon. the Minister that in Durban alone one of his proclamations of last year, I think the number was 272 of 4 October, displaced 2,000 White people from Isipingo for whom housing has to be found somewhere. But the same proclamation displaced an estimated 49,000 Indians for whom housing will have to be found. Now whilst this Bill is obviously designed to assist to a certain extent to provide housing for those people, the hon. Minister must remember that those two areas which are being vacated by those two groups will also have to be dealt with by the local authorities, and it is not quite so easy as to say that the one group moves out and the other moves in. The hon. Minister knows that without me having to tell him. The difficulty of repopulating an area evacuated by Indians is considerable. It is not so easy to get that area repopulated by the European section of the community without extensive work and money being spent in the area. All these are problems which I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister so that, where he has these terrific powers, he applies the Act with a sense of co-operation and patience. In addition to all these factors, when you start to increase the size of a local authority, or provide a housing scheme, it is not merely a question of building houses. Perhaps your water resources are totally inadequate to cope with such an area. And this Bill provides that another local authority can in certain cases be called upon to provide those services, but they in turn have planned to provide for their own people and not for the people in an adjoining local authority area. All these are problems, the provision of water and services, the provision of transport, because many of these new schemes and townships will be established some considerable distance from the area where these people work. We have had the experience of that in most of our big centres where there is a tendency to put the non-European section on the outskirts of the towns. So quick and cheap transport has to be provided for these people, and that is another feature that I want the hon. the Minister to take into consideration when planning and approaching these problems.

Then there is also, of course, the question of the manpower shortage, and if the hon. Minister is going to push on regardless with these schemes, of course, he is going to run other sections of the work of the community short of skilled men and artisans. We have a shortage in all sections, and if all the manpower is going to be taken for the implementation of this specific Act, then obviously it is going to create certain shortages elsewhere. That is another factor that I wish to bring to the notice of the hon. Minister now. Then, as has already happened, these schemes, have created shortage of materials. We have in Durban at the moment, I believe, one of the biggest shortages of bricks that has been experienced for many, many years, and whilst the hon. Minister is experimenting with other types of building material, and this Bill provides that he can launch out in the direction of wooden houses, and housing of that kind, nevertheless, this shortage of manpower and material becomes very important in the light of this Bill, and I hope that he will take those factors into consideration as well. Whilst we are on the question of the provision of new types of houses, I noticed in the Digest that a convention is taking place in Pretoria in the near future to discuss all types of new building material, not just wood. I would ask the hon. the Minister to try and keep both himself and ourselves in touch with the result of that meeting, because it might produce building materials of a type better even than wood, or it might produce materials which combined with the wooden structure might do away with some of the complaints we have against wooden houses, and it might remove some of the fears we have in that regard, such as the fire hazard and the infestation of wooden houses by pests. I think I have brought the points that we want to bring in connection with that particular aspect of the Bill to the attention of the hon. Minister.

Then we come to the taking over of the functions of the Group Areas Development Board. We welcome this transfer. I made this quite clear to the hon. the Minister at the second reading, because we believe that the Group Areas Development Board has failed. We have always advocated that the whole of the transfer of population and the sorting out process of the groups should have taken place via a progressive and well-planned housing scheme and that people should rather have been induced to go to the areas by providing housing of a better type and conditions of a better nature, and I believe that this move of transferring the bulk of the work of the Group Areas Development Board to the Department of Housing will probably be a step in this direction. I sincerely hope it will be. But I hope too that in transferring the work of the Group Areas Development Board to the Housing Commission and the Department of Housing, the hon. Minister will have learned the lessons that have caused the failure of the Group Areas Development Board. I hope that under the new powers and under this transfer, the Housing Commission will be able, for example, to deal with the properties, the buildings that they are now going to take over from the Group Areas Development Board under Clause 5. I hope they will deal with them more expeditiously than the Group Areas Development Board had done. I believe that that has been one of its biggest failures. I hope that they will make these buildings, these houses, these homes, they are going to take over more readily and more quickly available to the people for whom they are intended. I hope too that they will quickly recondition those that are in bad shape, and there are many; some are derelict. I would like to mention to the hon. the Minister that I received a telegram following the second reading debate on this Bill from Isipingo asking me to please try and induce the hon. Minister to do something because the houses of the Group Areas Development Board, the houses taken over by them, in many instances are lying derelict and are being occupied by hoboes and people of bad character, who are bringing fears into the minds of the people at Isipingo Beach. That is one example of a spontaneous reaction from an area asking that something should be done. The reason why this telegram was sent was that the houses are not being used for the purpose they were intended for. They are taken over by the Group Areas Development Board and there they stay and they are not transferred to the population group for whom they were intended. I hope that in making these houses quickly available, that the Housing Commission and the hon. Minister’s Department of Housing will make these houses available to people first of all at rentals they can afford and if they are going to purchase, at prices they can afford. I sincerely hope that the Housing Commission will stop this practice of making a double profit on the transferring of houses from the original owner to the final owner, so that the man who purchases the house and the man who is selling the house do not bear this terrific extra cost. I believe it is inflating the prices of houses to the persons to whom the houses are transferred, after the area has been proclaimed under the Group Areas Act. If the Housing Commission does this and has learned the lessons of the failure of the Group Areas Development Board, then I believe in the process it will save a considerable amount of the taxpayers’ money, money which has been spent on buying in properties which have been put to little or no use and properties which have deteriorated very, very quickly indeed and are in need of a great measure of repair, which is going to cost quite a lot of money in many cases.

The other point that I would like the hon. Minister and the Department to take into consideration in taking over the administration of this work is the question of the throwing together of people of all classes after a proclamation has come into effect. What I mean is this: Amongst all colour groups in our country, the people of those groups have sorted themselves out into classes.

What bearing has that on the Bill?

Sir, I am coming to that. I just want to make this point to show what I mean in the provision of houses. When these people are put into an area which has been set aside for that particular colour group—and this Department is going to carry out that work, Sir, by the provision of houses and the development of those schemes—the tendency seems to be to bring all those people who have sorted themselves out into different classes back together again because a housing scheme has been provided which throws them together again. This is causing a lot of hardship and a lot of trouble to people. The hon. Minister shakes his head. Let me give him an example of what I mean. There is a Coloured man employed in the fishing industry who has worked hard and earns R28 a week, which is quite a good income for this Coloured person. He has had to live in a township where all of these classes have been thrown together. What has happened as a result? He does not mind living in that township. But because the houses are all of a similar type and various classes have been thrown together there he cannot have a party of his friends at his home at night unless it is invaded by people of lower classes in that village. This is actually happening. And if he is rude to these people, the wheels are removed from his motor car and things like that. This is the point I want to make to the hon. the Minister that in the provision of housing, he should try and sort out the types of houses according to the class of people, so that he attracts to one area people of that particular class who will occupy those particular houses. This is very important. I do not want to go on with it, because I think the hon. Minister knows what I mean. We have had cases of this kind in Paarl, and I think the hon. members who represent the Coloured people here can quote to the hon. Minister very many cases of complaints of this nature. I do not want to take it any further.

Sir, with those remarks I want to say to the hon. Minister that he must approach this question constructively. I believe he will, because his object is the same as ours, namely, to provide houses. But in approaching it he must take into account these various aspects I have put to him so that in rehousing these people who are being replaced, they will be rehoused in the best possible manner and they will have the best type of houses and they will live there under the best possible conditions.

The hon. Minister has been entrusted with one of the greatest tasks that can be given to anybody. He has, I think, been entrusted with what will be the future appearance and the future layout of the whole of the country, and depending on how he approaches his task, will depend what this country will look like in the future. In years to come it will be decided whether his name will go down as one of the great developers, one of the great original thinkers and workers and organizers of the country, or whether the country will be blotted and spotted with ugly houses in regular rows, and in the latter case he can only hope that people will forget that he was responsible for it.

In housing we have to consider two aspects, namely the aspect of economics and the aspects of social services. Most of what I will say will be confined to the social aspect of it, because from my point of view, I feel, that housing is a most important social service. Speaking of the housing of an individual who pays for his own house is of course one thing. He provides, or the community provides for him at his expense certain facilities, such as water supply, lighting, sewage, garbage removal, hospitals, libraries, etc., but when we come to housing which is a community development we are faced with entirely different problems, and the social service aspect becomes more prominent. And in a country where segregation is compulsory there are unavoidably groups of people who are allotted certain areas and for whom therefore inevitably there must be to a large extent housing which is really a social service to the people as a whole. So we must take a completely different view of this type of housing. One or two aspects I would like particularly to emphasize.

I wish to emphasize two factors, both of which are safety factors. The most important, to start with, is physical safety. It sounds perhaps a little unusual that we in a civilized country should be concerned about our physical safety, but nevertheless in the great housing schemes physical safety should be the most important and the first attended to item in the planning. The first place that should be built in a housing scheme is the police station and the second house should be the house for the policeman to live in. Physical safety in these housing schemes in the early days (I think it is better now) was terrible, it hardly existed at night. Recently, I visited Baragwanath Hospital. This hospital is probably the largest hospital in the southern hemisphere and it serves the large south-western housing area of Johannesburg. As you stand at the entrance of the hospital you can look over the wide area, extending for miles, which consists of housing which has been carried out under State control. You might say it is almost across the road. But until fairly recently, there was no street lighting. Slowly the Government has installed lighting in this area. It is not yet complete. At least a few months ago there were still areas which were not lit. This unlit area was at night a place of terror. The people in these unlit areas would not leave their houses at night. Seriously ill people, or people who were hurt seriously would not leave their homes, they would rather lie in pain in their homes than allow themselves to be taken out to the hospital, no distance away. Women in labour would not send for the midwife, and it would not have mattered if they did send for a midwife, because she would not come out anyhow. In other words, there was no safe movement at night in this area, and in the unlit portions of the area it still applies. As the lights have been switched on in the various areas, so has crime tended to disappear, so much so that the doctors at Baragwanath tell me that as before they only received their patients in the morning they now receive them during the night and they find that the crime level has fallen enormously. So much for the police aspect. You see, these people have no remedy if the law is not provided for them. In an ordinary city the people if they do not get the law enforced, will meet together and they will form ratepayers’ associations and property-owners’ committees, etc., but this cannot be done in a new housing scheme, and in any event most of the occupants in these new housing schemes are not educated up to that standard. They do not appreciate yet the value of co-operative effort. Therefore the onus rests on this Minister to see that the people that he puts into these housing schemes are adequately protected, and he should also continue to protect them. In certain of the Southern States of America where housing schemes have been installed for many years now, I understand that the authorities who erected these houses appoint a housing manager, and the housing manager is a man with a great deal of power. He not only sees to it that the people keep their houses in decent order, but he also sees that the local authority gives them service. He looks at it both ways, not only from the point of view of the local authority, but also of the individual occupier of the house. Where the people have no local vote, social amenities and public amenities generally are not up to the standard of those in the area where there is a vote. Anybody can see that if he takes the trouble to go into areas where they have no vote. This is no better to be seen than in some of the Indian areas of Durban, where since the Indians were deprived of their municipal vote, the standard of service they receive, in the way of roads, water sewerage, etc., does not match up to that in the other areas.

Now I want to refer to density in housing. What should the density be in a housing scheme, the density of people? Because density is a most important thing. How many people can you put on an acre of land in a decent housing scheme? If you are dealing with people on a Transatlantic liner or in a multi-storeyed first-class hotel, 1,000 people to the acre is luxury. But if you put 100 people in single-storeyed houses on an acre in the ordinary way (that is a tenth of the others) it is crowding. Therefore we come to the problem that the hon. the Minister must remember that the poorer and the humbler the people, the more space you must give them. It is not purely economic. He must also provide the amenities and parks, etc. on a scale which will provide for the people to have some leisure. If we are to civilize these segregated people, we must given them an opportunity to lead a civilized life, and it is difficult to lead a civilized life if you are over-crowded and if the local authority is not attending to the communal wants. Therefore more space must be allowed. If you have no internal plumbing, and cases will happen of this nature, then you must provide for water storage; if you have outside latrines (which I hope they never will have), then that also has to be provided for and more space must be given to these people. One must not ask too much of the humbler group in looking after their homes. The smaller the ground that they are given to look after themselves, the better it is. They cannot afford the time or money to look after it. By that I do not mean that their houses must be planted on small pieces of ground, but I do mean that verges of the roads, etc., where grass can be planted and looked after by the authorities are better than to give the people large bare areas of earth which will be dust-bowls and merely breed germs.

Now I want to turn to another aspect, the aspect of the segregated industries in which these people will work. We have not only segregated the people but we are segregating the industries.

Where do you find that?

I will show you segregated industries. We collect groups of garden factories. You see a very lovely garden factory when you drive from the airport into Durban, garden factories with lovely green lawns all around them, with trees, beautiful roads. Nobody lives there. These people who are encouraged to segregate themselves or to segregate their industries, ignore the fact that smokeless power travels in wires, that pure water runs in pipes and that the raw material and the finished product can be put on the road. Surely, it is cheaper to move the water and the power and the material in this way rather than to move every day anything from 1,000 to 10,000 workers 16 to 20 miles back-backwards and forward. These grass lawns are not even used by the Whites, the non-segregated group; they are used by nobody. They look nice and they give so-called fresh air, but they do not give fresh air where it is needed, where the people live. The loss in time and money to the country is appalling. The money has to be provided by industry and I am not particularly interested in that, because others can speak on it better than I can, but I want to say something about the time that is lost. That is paid for by the workers, and this lost time must run into centuries. How many centuries, even in a young country like ours, have been spent by workers travelling to and from their work? Time does not belong to us, nor to the Government; it belongs to the worker, and who will give it back to him? The one thing in life, Pascal said, that you can never repay is the time that you steal from another man. The most noticeable sign in these garden factories is “Keep Off The Grass”.

I want to turn for a moment to housing standards. This country need not follow blindly the standards and types that have been used in other countries. I do not think they do. What they do follow is a standard type which they pick out, an ugly square box like a match-box, and they leave out the inside doors as a rule and they are not very good houses. These houses do not need to be ugly. There is no need for them to be bare and miserable match-boxes. I would suggest to the Minister that he go to Rongaat on the north coast of Natal and see what one has been able to do in housing his workers in beautiful, simple homes—nothing extravagant. It will do him good to see it. We can suggest some other homes, but the great difficulty about the homes the Minister is providing at present is that they lack privacy. Nothing is more destructive of family life than a lack of privacy. Imagine a condition in which you are never alone and never know what it is to be able to sit down with your head in your hands and have a cry, as a woman might, or sit and smoke and think, as a man might do, but you are living a communal life. The result is not regarded as a home. It is regarded as a place to shelter from the weather, and to sleep and eat, and to get out of as soon as possible when the sun shines again. But it certainly is not regarded as a home. That is one of the main reasons why the bulk of the children in the poorer areas are playing in the streets. I feel that we must at all costs attempt to recreate among these segregated people the sense of family. It is not often realized that the only institution in our social life which has not changed to a large extent is the family. From the days before Christ the family has existed as an entity, and we in this country are, I think, tending to destroy it among these people, and we should make it our duty to maintain the family and to support it at all costs, because civilized life turns around the family and it tends to create a stable population.

I want to return to the question of privacy. Everyone must have somewhere, albeit a cubby-hole, which is his own. We must sit down and consider what we should do if we did not somewhere have a room where we can sit down quietly and be ourselves by ourselves. In Greece, which is an old civilized country, this problem—and I commend it to the Minister—is solved by the house consisting of a large living-room with a number of small rooms leading off it. The average size of these room is about six by six feet. Such a size would not be tolerated here by the Department of Health, even for the lowest classes, but in Greece, which has a climate not unlike our own, it is considered to be the most convenient form of house, because it has that great thing that the father or the mother or the child can be alone in his own spot. He can have his own things there and leave them there. Then again there is the growing house. The houses I have seen in the housing schemes have been square blocks with no passages and where the rooms cannot have more than one window. To add to a house of this nature means that generally you have to pass through one room to get to another. I think the Minister should bear in mind that the time comes to a family where it needs more room and can afford more room, but it cannot afford to move. To move house is a difficult and expensive matter. It often means leaving friends behind. So he should provide some houses at any rate in the better areas, the middle class areas, where the houses will be able to grow and the people will be able to increase their living space without having to move. He must make provision for the middle class person in his housing scheme.

Lastly, I want to come to the question of indoor sanitation, for the protection of health. He must make every effort to provide indoor sanitation in every house. It is unreasonable to expect a mother to keep her baby clean if she has no access to a private lavatory for the private use of a family. A communal lavatory becomes like a cesspool. It is not possible to keep it clean. You only have to go into public lavatories in various parts of the world to see what they are like. In America I could not find a public lavatory in a large city like Boston with 2,000,000 inhabitants. So I made inquiries and I was told that there used to be public lavatories but they were abolished because they could not be kept clean, and this is a White population, highly educated and industrialized. So they were abolished, but they made every large store or restaurant put lavatories in their buildings, and they were held responsible for keeping those lavatories clean. That is what I want to bring to the notice of the Minister, that if he gives a family a lavatory inside the house the place can be kept clean by the family. As I have said, the Minister has a great task before him. I have tried to give him some assistance in his thoughts, and I hope he will be able to carry out his duty and that in future his name will be blazoned throughout the world as the man who built beautiful and great suburbs for South Africa.

I am afraid that if I concern myself only with the provision of toilet facilities I shall never be able to perpetuate my name. [Laughter.] But since toilet facilities form an essential part of the provision of housing, the experts in my Department will certainly give their attention to this matter. The hon. member mentioned the problem of density. The density of population is a problem, of course, that is experienced throughout the world. I agree that one must do everything one can to overcome this problem. This problem is also influenced by the availability of transport facilities and other amenities. But in South Africa the density of population per morgen is from 13 to 15 families, which is a much lower density than the population density in other parts of the world. On my recent trip overseas I visited one of the new towns outside London where the density of population is about 30 families per morgen. In many European countries it is as high as 70 families per morgen. We in South Africa have a low density because we have the space. But the density of population is also determined to some extent by the way in which one plans. There are methods of planning to-day which are in direct contrast to the old method of simply drawing squares. In Western Europe they have circular planning by means of which one can increase the density of population and still have sufficient open space. One can also protect one’s pedestrians. All these matters are being dealt with by our experts and I can give the House the assurance that we are well-informed as far as the latest methods of planning are concerned.

But I also want to give the hon. member the assurance that the question of protection for the public which he raised is not a matter which is my responsibility. It is not my task to build police stations. That is the task of the Department of Public Works in consultation with the Department of Justice. When we establish a community we as a Department can draw the attention of other departments to the requirements of that community but I do not think we should try to take their work out of the hands of the Departments of Justice and Public Works. They themselves must ascertain what the requirements are and provide the necessary facilities. I, as Minister of Housing, cannot undertake to build police stations and provide protection for the public. If I were to do so I would be exceeding my authority. [Interjection.] If it is part of a scheme, it must be done in consultation with the other authorities concerned, but it is not our task to provide it. The Development Board is prepared under certain circumstances when we establish a new community to provide certain facilities out of its own funds and has in fact done so in the case of Lenasia, for example. The Development Board built a post office there, but we did not provide the other services connected with a post office; all we did was to erect the building as part of the complex of buildings which was established there.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) referred to sub-economic schemes and associated himself with the statement made by the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) that we should not settle people in such a way that the more well-to-do people are forced to live amongst people who are less developed. In point of fact that does not happen. If it does happen it is only in exceptional cases because wherever housing is made available on a large scale the scheme is first planned and approved. Such a scheme also has to be approved of by the Townships Board. In most cases when a master plan is not available, we try to draw up such a plan which reflects the eventual development, even though that development may not take place immediately. Hon. members must not make the mistake of jumping to the conclusion, because we may perhaps give preference to sub-economic houses in particular areas, that that is the only type of housing that we provide, because sub-economic housing does not make up the bulk of the housing that is provided by my Department. As a matter of fact, it forms the smallest part. The bulk is economic housing because the policy of the Government, with the approval of the whole country, is to place the emphasis upon economic housing. Sub-economic housing is only intended to meet the position in time of need or when one is dealing with families whose incomes are so low that they cannot afford economic housing. But I do want to remove any wrong impression which may exist in the country that the Department of Housing only provides sub-economic housing. I think much of the prejudice to these housing schemes made available by my Department flows from the fact that people are under the impression that we only provide sub-economic housing. The Department provides excellent homes on an economic basis, in terms of specifications which we draw up, homes which conform to modern standards. This is not simply theoretical. When hon. members consider what we are doing at the moment at Triomf in Johannesburg, at Bosmont for Coloureds, at Kroonstad in the form of housing for Whites, at Crown Gardens in Johannesburg and at numbers of other places—I am only mentioning a few examples—and also what we have in mind at Bosmansdam, I am sure they will agree that the Department has succeeded in setting a standard of economic housing which is adequate for any decent family and which meets all the demands put forward by the hon. member for Durban (Central)—privacy, the protection of family life and so forth.

When we come to the provision of sub-economic housing, I am sure hon. members will agree that in the nature of things sub-economic units must do without certain of the amenities which are provided in an economic house, otherwise they could not be sub-economic. We in South Africa have not yet resorted to subsidizing housing and I hope we never will do so. All we do is to make cheap money available for sub-economic houses, at three-quarter per cent, interest. But because the State makes money available for sub-economic housing, I think the State is entitled to say that only those people who cannot afford economic housing must be settled in sub-economic homes. If a man cannot afford certain conveniences, he must be satisfied to do without them.

We have various schemes. We have a sub-economic scheme at very low rentals for persons who have been sleeping out in the open, and who are simply given a roof over their heads. We have such a scheme which is resorted to in extreme cases. Then we have the basic sub-economic scheme of houses with two rooms, a scheme which has been greatly criticized. But the two-roomed house is not the type of house which is generally provided; it only provides the basic requirements because we say that if a man cannot afford anything more it is better to give him two rooms than to let him live under a bush. Large sub-economic units are also available in the case of larger families, but these again are also stripped of all the conveniences which are provided in economic units. One must protect those families against wet, cold weather and, as far as possible, provide a number of rooms for them, but all this must be done within the limits of the family’s income and in accordance with the standard which is accepted internationally nowadays, i.e. that a person should not spend more than one-fifth of his wages on housing.

I want to go further and tell the hon. member for Umlazi in particular that under these housing schemes or town planning schemes it ought to be possible for the more well-to-do person, if he can afford economic housing, to rent a home or otherwise, to build a house with the assistance of the Department or with the assistance of a local authority through the Department. He can then have his own house built in an area which has been planned for the more economic and developed group. That is our policy. I agree with the hon. member on one point and that is that we must guard against monotony in our sub-economic schemes. I can give the hon. member the assurance that I have already asked the Department to guard against this and that we do not build large schemes in which the houses are monotonously alike that people are deterred from occupying them. The hon. member for Umlazi went on to say that the Group Areas Development Board acquired properties and then neglected them, leaving them to the mercy of the elements. Well, that may be so in a few cases but when we bear in mind the fact that the board has acquired thousands of properties over the past years, properties which it has then disposed of again, the few that are neglected make up a very small percentage of the total. But we have our regional offices everywhere and the public need not hestitate to submit their complaints. They can report the matter to the regional representative of the Department and I am sure he will give his attention to it immediately. It is true that properties are damaged hut we cannot put a policeman on every property. I want to give one example. Here in the Peninsula alone we have acquired 175 properties over the past 10 months. We have renovated these properties and then disposed of them again; in other words, we have made them more habitable than they were formerly. I myself have gone to look at properties which the Development Board acquired in a poor state in Bellville but which were renovated and repaired and modernized and made quite habitable for the economic groups so as to meet the existing housing needs.

The hon. member raised the question of the spirit of the Bill. He said: “The spirit of the Bill lacks co-operation.” I do not think the hon. member is correct. I stated at the outset that we had the wholehearted cooperation of the vast majority of local authorities but unfortunately there was a minority of local authorities which were not housing conscious. There are certain local authorities which are obstinate and which have adopted the attitude that it is not their duty to provide housing, in spite of the provision contained in the Slums Act and the Housing Act that they must give priority to the provision of housing. Does the hon. member know that last year we had to return to the Treasury R6,000,000 which had been earmarked for certain local authorities but which they did not use? In other words, the State and my Department made provision to meet the needs which we knew existed but this money was simply not used because of the laxity of certain local authorities and in other cases because of an unwillingness on their part to make housing available. But those local authorities are not in the majority. We are enjoying the wholehearted co-operation of most of them. The other day I visited a town in which there is a need for at least 60 to 70 houses for Whites but the town clerk told me that there was no housing need there and that it was not their intention to apply for a loan. That sort of person understands only one language and that is the language contained in this Bill. We cannot allow a man to thumb his nose at the State from his own little kingdom and not to do his duty simply because he is in all probability too lazy to do it. It is those people whom we have in mind. I have no quarrel with the vast majority of local authorities who are giving us their wholehearted cooperation.

The hon. member also mentioned the question of the shortage of building materials. That is true; there is a shortage of building materials. But because this Government foresaw that there would be a shortage of building materials it appointed a committee under the chairmanship of Professor Louw, after my officials and I had returned from a visit abroad. This committee has now to report to us in regard to the materials that are available for building, apart from wooden houses, and also in regard to the question of costs and the question of the availability of these materials in the country. I know of one factory which has only recently been established and which is manufacturing these industrialized houses. I also know of another large firm which is operating on a large scale in Europe in regard to the manufacture of heavy concrete buildings and which is very interested in and will quite probably come to South Africa. If they do come to this country they will bring with them a unit which will enable them to manufacture 1,000 units per annum. While I am on this point, I must emphasize one matter and that is that we must take care when discussing these matters that we do not talk about “prefabricated” houses. That is not what the State has in mind. What the State has in mind is houses which are produced through the medium of factory processes. These houses are not the same as the ordinary prefabricated homes in the usual sense of the word. The industry is rather concerned that we may possibly at this stage harm their cause by talking about “prefabricated units”. I want to tell the hon. member that Professor Louw will quite probably submit his report in regard to this matter during the course of June. That report will be made public.

The hon. member also raised the question of transport facilities. I may tell him that, together with other Departments, we serve on an inter-departmental transport committee. When communities are established, very careful consideration is given to the question of the transport facilities which must be made available there eventually. Even though those transport facilities cannot be made available immediately, things are planned in such a way that these facilities can be made available there over a period of years. There is the closest co-operation with the Department of Transport in this connection.

There is always a long delay.

Planning involves delay in any country. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that one can only avoid this delay by doing the job shoddily. It appears to me that if we want to plan properly we must reconcile ourselves to the fact that there will be some measure of delay. It is unfortunately a prerequisite for good planning that there has to be some measure of delay. I think that I have now replied to most of the points raised here by hon. members.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Orders of the Day Nos. III to IV to stand over.

I move—

Amongst other things the amendments provide for an extension of insurance coverage for servants who own properties under the Administration’s House Ownership scheme and for facilitating the application of the departmental disciplinary code. The Bill is also designed to clarify an aspect in regard to which there is not complete clarity in the existing legislation.

Clause 1 contains a consequential amendment which arises from the amendments contained in Clauses 3 and 8.

Clause 2 extends the insurance coverage for servants who participate in the Administration’s House Ownership scheme. The present insurance benefits are only applicable in those cases where a servant dies or leaves the service because of serious physical injury, provided he has been declared to be 100 per cent disabled. The proposed amendment extends the benefits on a percentage basis to servants who sustain less serious injuries and who cannot be offered alternative work in accordance with their capabilities.

Clauses 3 and 8 refer to the higher retiring ages of the staff. Legislation which was passed in this connection in 1955 provides that servants may remain in the service for a further three years after reaching the normal retiring age.

So far, however, only a small percentage of the staff has made use of this concession, this is due largly to the fact that servants had to exercise their option irrevocably at least nine months before they reached the lower retirement age as to whether they wished to stay in the service for a further three years. The result is that we have not fully realized our aim to retain the services of experienced servants after they have reached the lower retiring age. The amendments contained in Clauses 3 and 8 are designed to make the conditions more attractive. A servant will now no longer be bound to stay on for a minimum period of three years; he will be able to retire at any time after having given six months’ notice. At the same time the pension benefits payable to a widow whose husband dies during his extended term of service are also being improved.

Clause 4 is designed to give the Administration specific authority to accept a cession of a claim for damages ceded to the Administration by an injured servant or by the dependants of an injured servant, and to institute such claim against a third party on behalf of the persons concerned.

The Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1941 provides amongst other things that a workman who is injured on duty under circumstances in which a third party can be held responsible, may claim damages from the third party in addition to the compensation to which he is entitled in terms of the Act. Similarly the employer may take steps to recover from the third party the damages which he is called upon to pay to the workman.

In order to save a railway servant or his dependants the worry and expense usually involved in litigation, it is the practice to permit the persons concerned to cede their claim for damages to the Railway Administration which then acts on their behalf.

Some doubt has arisen recently, however, as to whether the Administration is entitled to accept such cessions. The proposed amendment puts the position beyond all doubt.

Clause 5 proposes an amendment to the Railways and Harbours Service Act. In terms of the existing provisions a servant who is sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine (excluding periodic imprisonment) is automatically dismissed from the Railway Service. There are numbers of offences which are punishable with imprisonment without the option of a fine in terms of various laws and ordinances, for example, to smoke on railway premises, where this is forbidden, to neglect to take out or renew a radio licence, and also traffic offences. In the nature of things these offences do not affect a servant’s capability and his usefulness to the Railway Service; it can be assumed therefore that when the provision relating to automatic discharge was originally inserted in the Railways and Harbours Service Act, the draftsmen did not visualize that offences of this kind would be punishable with imprisonment without the option of a fine.

The object of the amendment is to limit automatic dismissal to cases where servants are guilty of serious crimes and crimes involving fraud or dishonesty.

Clauses 6 and 7 increase the maximum fine which can be imposed for a minor offence in terms of the Railway disciplinary code from R4 to just less than R10.

Because of the fact that disciplinary officers are inclined to impose a fine of more than R4 because of the present-day value of money, many offences which from a departmental point of view are really of a minor nature are converted into offences of a serious nature. The result is that such penalties are recorded on a servant’s service card whereas this would not be the case if the fine were R4 or less. That is why it has been decided to increase the maximum fine for an offence of a minor nature to just less than R10 and at the same time to fix the minimum fine for an offence of a serious nature at R10. No existing rights of appeal are being restricted as a result of these amendments.

The Federal Consultative Council of Railway Staff Associations has been consulted with regard of the proposed amendments to the disciplinary code as well as the amendment in respect of the higher retiring ages, and they are in agreement with these amendments.

As far as Clause 9 is concerned, hon. members will remember that the construction of a guaranteed railway line between Delmas and the farm Middelburg, No. 39, was approved by Parliament last year. Since then, however, the guarantors of the railway line have requested the Administration to change the route so that the railway line will be 2½ miles shorter which will reduce the cost by R257,127. Provision is being made in Clause 9 to comply with this request.

Clause 10 makes provision for the authorization of certain improved conditions of service for the staff which were introduced with retrospective effect.

Since this Bill consists mainly of provisions which will benefit the employees of the Railways, it is only natural, of course, that we on this side of the House will support it, and in the circumstances we wholeheartedly welcome this Bill. The hon. the Minister may rest assured that we will help him to expedite its passage through the House as much as possible. We are particularly pleased to see that provision is now being made in Clause 2 for people who become less than 100 per cent disabled as the result of injuries. A sound precedent is being followed here which has already been accepted in many other legislative measures such as our insurance laws and other legislative enactments. It is possible to determine medically to-day whether a person is totally disabled or what the degree of his disablement is and what work he is still able to perform. We particularly welcome Clauses 3 and 8 because we realize what an extremely difficult problem we have in South Africa in retaining for the community, not only for the State and the Railways but for the community as a whole, the services of people with ripe experience and a high degree of skill. When one bears in mind that 3,000,000 Whites in this country have to provide practically all the managerial talent and all the technical knowledge and all the academic guidance for a population of 13,000,000, when one bears in mind that even if reforms are introduced which will make it possible to make better use of the services of other elements of our population it will still take years before it will be possible to absolve the White man from this responsibility to any great extent, then it is tragic to think that so many people have to retire at a comparatively youthful age thus depriving the community of their valuable services. It is a pity particularly when one bears in mind that thanks to the contribution of medical science, with its increasing knowledge of the process of ageing, one reaches the prime of one’s life, mentally, at the age of 60 nowadays. That is the age at which one can achieve most in the career for which one has equipped oneself. We sincerely hope that this experiment by the Administration will succeed and that the result of it will be that South Africa will be able to retain for the Railways for a longer period than at present the services of people with very valuable experience and knowledge, people who cannot easily be replaced.

There is only one clause which gives us a little difficulty and that is the one dealing with railway construction. Other members on this side of the House have drawn attention to the fact that this Bill departs from the sound practice, which is laid down by law, that new constructions must be recommended to this House by the Railway Commission. In this case that practice was followed originally, but important amendments are being effected here and this House has not had the benefit of a report from the Railway Commission with regard to these amendments. Perhaps it was not very important in this case, but is it a sound precedent which is being created here? Does the Minister propose to make this his regular practice? Is it going to happen often? Or is the position perhaps that the reports of the Railway Commission are not really valuable? That is not my view, and I hope that we do not want to create the impression, by bypassing the Railway Commission, that their services are of no real value to this House. However, other hon. members who feel strongly with regard to this matter will take it further. I just want to say to the hon. the Minister that where administrative experience has shown that an improvement can be brought about in our services in the interests of the employees and where the Government is prepared to translate that experience into legislation such as this, we will always support such legislation in this House.

In the first place I want to express my appreciation and gratitude for this White Paper which very clearly and explicitly sets out the amendments which are being brought about in this Bill. I also want to express my gratitude to the hon. the Minister for the further benefits which are being granted under the insurance coverage scheme. I want to point out that these benefits are being given without any increase in the premium. The only condition is that it will be subject to a trial period of five years. Sir, one must welcome this step, particularly when one bears in mind that before 1958 the only insurance coverage which then existed was in those cases where servants died before they had paid off their loans. In 1958 these benefits were extended to officials who became 100 per cent disabled, and this was also done without increasing the premium. At that time the premium was also made subject to a trial period of five years, but nevertheless no increase has taken place since then. These increased benefits will be of very great assistance to those unfortunate officials who have to give up their means of livelihood as the result of serious physical injury sustained by them. I want to point out that fine progress has been made in the past year in respect of this insurance coverage scheme which was introduced for the benefit of railway officials who purchase houses under the existing house ownership scheme. We are grateful to the hon. the Minister and the Administration for the fact that it has become possible to make this further concession.

Then I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) in connection with the concession which is being made to officials who prefer to retire from the railway service at the age of 63 rather than at the age of 60. As the hon. the Minister has correctly stated, as a result of the fact that these people were called upon to make an irrevocable decision before they reached the retiring age of 60 as to whether they wished to carry on until the age of 63, and the fact that the widow, if the railway servant were to die during this period of three years, would be in a much worse financial position than she would have been if her husband had retired at the age of 60, most of these people preferred to retire at the age of 60. Having regard to our manpower position in South Africa, as the hon. member for Yeoville has quite correctly stated, the Railways cannot afford to lose the services of experienced officials at a time when they can render valuable services to the Railways because of their experience and when they are willing to place their services at the disposal of the Administration for a further period of three years. However, because of the considerations which I have just mentioned and which are now being removed, it has not been possible hitherto to retain their services.

As far as Clauses 6 and 7 are concerned I want to say that it almost goes without saying, having regard to diminished value of our money, that it has become necessary to increase the figure in respect of fines in the case of contraventions from R4 to R10 and to regard a fine of less than R10 as a minor disciplinary contravention which will not be recorded on the service card of the offender. Obviously the same applies to Clause 5 where an official is sentenced to a term of imprisonment without the option of a fine but where his contravention is such that it does not affect his suitability or his usefulness to the railway service. I happen to know the official concerned and I can testify to the fact that this particular official, who was sentenced by a magistrate to a term of imprisonment without the option of a fine, is a capable, experienced official. The offence he committed was that he crossed a full-length white line on the road while he was overtaking three motorcars which were ahead of him. His appeal is still pending, but if his sentence of imprisonment is confirmed it will mean that the Administration will lose the services of an outstanding official. As the present railway regulations read, his services will have to be terminated automatically. I fully sympathize with this person because a few years ago in the Cape I sinned in the same way and committed the same offence.

Then you ought to be in goal!

Perhaps I was less audacious than this official; I preferred to pay the fine, but if I had not done so and had gone to court, I might also have been sentenced to imprisonment. Fortunately in the case of a Member of Parliament I believe one only forfeits one’s seat if one is sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment without the option of a fine!

Since there is some doubt as to whether the Administration is legally entitled to institute a claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act on behalf of an official or his dependants, one welcomes the fact that this matter is now being put beyond all doubt in Clause 4.

Then I just want to say a few words with regard to the remarks made by the hon. member for Yeoville in connection with the shortening of the proposed railway line at Delmas. Sir, I do not regard this situation as strange at all. After all, the position is that the Railway Board brought out a report which was submitted to this House; this House duly passed a Construction Bill, and this matter now comes before the House again at the request of the guarantors who are asking for a shorter line, which will mean that the costs of the Administration will be reduced. I do not see any reason therefore why we should have any misgivings with regard to this matter.

In conclusion I want to say that the hon. the Minister has come along almost every year with amendments of this kind to make provision for better conditions of service and greater benefits for the staff. Most of these improvements go unnoticed and yet they are important because they affect more than 200,000 people and their dependants in this country. I feel therefore that we should express our thanks to the hon. the Minister on this occasion for keeping a very watchful eye over the interests of the staff and for the sympathetic attitude which he always adopts towards the staff in giving them more and more privileges and benefits whenever it is possible to do so. The hon. the Minister deserves our thanks and the gratitude of the railway officials generally. No wonder the railwaymen realize that in the present Minister of Railways they have a true friend.

As the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) has indicated we welcome this Bill which makes provision for an improvement in the conditions of service of the staff of the Railway Administration. We also appreciate the fact that the hon. the Minister has presented the House with a White Paper which clearly sets out the terms of this amending Bill. But, of course, we know from past experience that when you get an explanatory memorandum on a Bill such as this, you still have to go into the Bill carefully and examine it with a critical eye. There are certain matters which I should like to put to the hon. the Minister with a view to obtaining greater clarity and possibly a greater appreciation of the contents of the Bill by the railway servants who are affected by this measure.

The first point I would like to make is in regard to Clause 2. As the hon. the Minister has stated, and as hon. members well know, insurance cover at present is only extended in the case of death or 100 per cent disability. What is proposed here is that if there is a partial disability the railway servant will enjoy insurance cover according to the percentage of that partial disability. But the point is that he does not automatically get insurance cover: he gets it under conditions which will be laid down by the Minister. The Minister has not indicated those conditions in his speech but he has certainly done so in the White Paper. The Minister has given examples of the conditions which he envisages will apply to the granting of these particular benefits to a railway servant. It is indicated clearly in the White Paper that insurance will only be paid to the servant who is partially injured or disabled if he does not refuse to accept an offer of alternative employment from the Administration. The point that arises from that is this: Take the case of, say, an engine driver who has suffered a 50 per cent disability. He is then offered alternative employment. He gets the benefit if he accepts that offer of employment. But what about the financial obligations of that servant? Because one can hardly envisage that an engine driver, for example, who has suffered a 50 per cent disability and who has accepted alternative employment, will receive anything like the remuneration which he received as an engine driver. It is possible that he will be offered a job which carries a lower rate of remuneration than the position of engine driver.

That happened to-day.

Well, the Minister acknowledges that this is possible. The point on which I should like to have some clarity from the hon. the Minister is this: What about that servant’s obligations to the Administration in respect of the house ownership scheme?

He will make the same contribution.

Will he still have to pay the same rate or will he get a reduced rate of contribution in view of his reduced remuneration?

The same rate.

Well, that is the point. What then is the advantage to the servant? That is the point that I should like the hon. the Minister to clear up; that is why I brought an inquiring mind to bear upon this provision. What benefit does the railway servant derive then? Under the existing Act he gets his insurance cover, but here he is only getting an extension of insurance cover under conditions to be determined, for a five-year period, by the Minister. He is placed in this position that he gets no extension at all if he refuses the offer of alternative employment. He may be 70 per cent disabled and he may then be offered a job by the Administration as a messenger boy. If he refuses this offer on the ground that he can do better outside, then he does not get this cover at all. I think the hon. the Minister should tell us clearly in his reply what his intentions are in this regard so that there will be clarity in the minds of the railway servants themselves in regard to the extension which he proposes here. We welcome this provision; it is an improvement, but I think the staff should understand precisely what they are being given here. I want to say here that I do not like the trial period aspect. I think when we introduce legislation of this nature we should lay down specifically under what conditions the railway servant will enjoy full insurance cover. It should not be possible for the Minister or his successor, who may wish to folllow another policy, to alter the conditions under which railway servants will enjoy full insurance cover. These insurance benefits must not be dependent on the whims of the Minister who happens to occupy this portfolio. I think these things should be specifically laid down in the legislation, and I hope the Minister will clarify this issue when he replies.

In regard to Clauses 3 and 8 the Minister himself took the step of extending to officials the right to stay on for a further three years after their retiring age when he was faced with a shortage of personnel, particularly a shortage of trained and experienced personnel in the higher echelons. He conceived the idea of offering them this extension provided they gave notice of their intention nine months before the time and contracted for the full period of three years. As the Minister says in his introductory speech and as is well known it has met with very poor response for the reasons that we well know. Now the Minister comes with this proposition that they can opt to stay on for a longer period but they will have a certain discretionary right after six months to leave at time they like plus, of course, the additional benefit that is provided under Clause 8 to the widows.

How many servants, experienced trained staff, have the Minister attracted under this policy? Is it left entirely to the discretion of the servant to approach the Administration for permission to stay on or does the Administration follow any policy at all in special fields, such as technical fields, of approaching them and saying “What about staying on?” What has been the response of the staff to such a suggestion? Does the Minister think these further facilities will now assist him to retain some of the men who, as my hon. colleague has pointed out, are quite capable of carrying on a very useful life for three or four or five years in certain fields.

Clause 4 really only gives statutory recognition to a position that has existed for a long period of time. Then I come to Clause 5. There was something in the Minister’s introductory speech which puzzled me. I do not know whether I have his exact words, but he more or less said the following—

The Minister then adds an “and”—

As I read it, and I think I understand Afrikaans, I get the impression that the inclusion of the words “an offence involving fraud or dishonesty” in Clause 5 is intended to cover any serious offence, any serious offence where the courts will impose a sentence of imprisonment without the option of a fine. That is what worries me. As the hon. the Minister knows this provision has been amended on several occasions. The Minister did not tell us whether this particular alteration was discussed with the Federal Staff Consultative Committee. I do not think it was. I know the other provisions were. But the hon. the Minister can enlighten me on this point when he replies to the debate. What puzzles me is this: A case is cited in the explanatory memorandum, to justify this provision, of an apparently high-ranking officer in the Administration who, through negligence, was found guilty by the court of a traffic offence and sentenced to 100 days’ imprisonment. We all know that no court will sentence anybody to 100 days’ imprisonment unless it was a very serious traffic offence. Nobody in this House knows whether this particular servant had been guilty of any traffic offences previously. Whether it was a case of drunken driving or not we do not know. What worries me about this is this: Formerly the policy that applied as far as high-ranking servants of the Administration were concerned was that they had to set an example to the public, that they had to be beyond reproach, that they had to be men of good character, people who earned the respect of the public. But as the amendment is worded it is confined to only two specific categories. I can assure the hon. Minister that I took the trouble of consulting legal opinion on this. It is confined only to two categories, i.e. if a servant commits an offence involving only two factors, namely, fraud or dishonesty. He must either falsify books or commit a theft. Sir, we are given other examples in the White Paper of offences which carry as a penalty imprisonment without the option of a fine. The one offence given is if you do not possess a radio licence. This is the first time that I have learnt that you can go to prison without the option of a fine if you have not got a radio licence. I took the trouble to look that up and it is not true: you are given the option of a fine.

You are quite misunderstanding the object of the amendment.

No. It gives that as an example of a case where an official can be sentenced to imprisonment.

He can be sentenced to imprisonment, without an option of a fine, for a serious crime. Are you objecting to this?

I am coming to that. I am not objecting to this. I want to get something better to protect the interests of the servants and the Administration. I do not think you can relate the fact that a radio licence has not been paid to the example which is given here of a traffic offence involving a sentence of 100 days because the one is of a far more serious nature. What crime must be committed in South Africa that will lead to imprisonment without the option of a fine? What about arson or rape. I can give hundreds of examples of serious offences involving imprisonment without the option of a fine. Are those crimes not to be included in a provision of this nature? What the Minister has obviously got in mind—because he also mentioned it in his introductory speech—is that this amendment must cover serious offences. I think it is wrong to create the impression amongst servants that it is only in respect of two categories of crime that their services will be dispensed with by the Administration. I think any servant who has been found guilty by a court of law of having committed a serious crime is not worthy of holding the office he does hold in the Administration. I do not think that principle can be argued away.

What I want to suggest is that he should ask his law advisers to consider this again and when we come to the Committee Stage, instead of defining the offence as he is doing now, amend this clause to the effect that if a servant is found guilty of an offence and sentenced to, say, a minimum of six months’ imprisonment, he will be dismissed from the service of the Administration. Lay down the minimum in the clause instead of only mentioning these two offences, namely, fraud or dishonesty. I do not think the explanation given in the explanatory memorandum is entirely satisfactory.

One small point in regard to Clauses 6 and 7. Far be it for us to enter into a discussion on an agreement the Minister has already arrived at with the staff associations. But there is one point that puzzles me very much and it is this: As the Act stands at the moment any offence which only elicits a caution or a reprimand is not recorded on the record of the servant. In other words the existing Act provides for two degrees of offences as far as a caution and a reprimand are concerned. There can be a caution and a reprimand for a minor offence and that offence is not recorded in the record of the official concerned. But you have a reprimand and a caution which can also be classified as a serious disciplinary infringement of the regulations of the Administration. According to the amendment of the Minister a caution or a reprimand is now to be considered only as a minor offence which will not be recorded against the record of the official. If you look at the Auditor-General’s report you find a number of cases where servants have been seriously reprimanded for even defalcation and such serious reprimand is obviously recorded against that servant’s report. I want to know from the Minister why a distinction is made between the two types of offences which elicit a caution and a reprimand, i.e. a minor and a serious offence. Why is the caution or reprimand in respect of a serious crime recorded on the servant’s report and the caution or reprimand in respect of a minor crime not similarly recorded? I shall be pleased if the Minister would give us the reasons why that was acceded to by the Administration. I think it is important that we should know.

In regard to Clause 10 I hope the Minister will give us an assurance in connection with the retrospective aspect of what is being validated in this clause. I admit frankly that I have not had time to study all the notices listed in the First Schedule. I should like to have the assurances that none of the notices we are asked to validate in regard to any promulgations or staff regulations are detrimental to the interests of the servants because of their retrospectivity which we are asked to agree to in this clause.

I now want to deal with Clause 9. As my hon. colleague has pointed out this is the first time that we are establishing a precedent which I personally do not like. I tried to find another example, but could not, where, after this House had passed a construction measure based on information given to it by a report of the Railway Board which had carried out a full investigation of any proposed new construction, this House has been asked to go over the head of the Railway Board and amend that construction measure. This line is now to be reduced by 2½ miles and the expenditure is to be less. We have very little information, Sir. I do not know whether these 2½ miles are to come out in the middle of the line or whether it is going to come off the terminal point. The Minister has not given us any information on that. But I cannot even balance the figures. Because when the Minister replied to the second-reading debate in which we approved of this line he indicated that it cost something like R196,000 to build one mile of railway track. If you calculate what these 2½ miles would cost it comes to something like R490,000 on the Minister’s own calculation, but the actual reduction in costs we are asked to approve in this Bill is only R257,127, whereas, according to the Minister’s figures, it should be something like R490,000. I took the trouble of looking up the former debate and I find that I asked the Minister how the routing of that line was determined. The Minister said the reason why the line was 16 miles long was because it followed the shortest possible route to the terminal point where the coal was actually going to be mined. Let me remind this House that that line was agreed to as a result of an agreement arrived at by the Administration with certain mining houses. They were given the right to mine coal at a certain place. We were informed in the last debate that the terminal point of this line was actually going to be near the pithead for easy loading because the responsibility rested on the guarantors to load the trucks at the terminal point. We were also told that this line would follow a distance of three miles along the main line before it would branch off. We were also told at the time that it was going to show a profit of something like R428,000 per annum. We were told a great many things by the hon. the Minister but we have not been told anything to-day. What on earth is the use of a board report upon which this House passes Bills for railway construction if the Minister comes and alters the whole proposal in one little clause without giving the House any information? If you carry this principle through to its logical conclusion why have a Railway Board construction report; why have a Construction Bill? Why have a board? The amendment contradicts entirely the report of the board. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) will see that I am right if he takes the trouble to read the board’s report. I think it is the duty of the Minister to give this House much more information about what he proposes here. I regard the steps taken by the Minister in this matter amount to no more than contempt for the opinion and the sense of responsibility of hon. members of this House. I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will give us the fullest possible information as to why this line is to be reduced by 2½ miles. What will be the economic effects as far as the guarantors are concerned and as far as the Administration is concerned; which new route will it follow; is there going to be a change in the terminal point; is there going to be a change in the junction point or has the whole thing been re-conceived altogether? We should like to know. What we would also like to know is whether the Railway Board has in any way been consulted about this prior to the Minister agreeing to this shortening of the line, because he said in his introductory speech that this was in terms of an agreement arrived at with the guarantors.

I thank hon. members for supporting this Bill. As the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) has said it is in the interests of the staff and I can assure my friend, the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), that the staff will welcome all these changes. In addition they are apparently much better informed than the hon. member in connection with the implications of the changes.

In regard to Clause 9 which deals with the shortening of the railway line, I can only say that the Act provides that only when a new railway line is to be constructed must the Railway Board first submit a report. The Act does not say that the Railway Board must again submit a report if the route is changed or if a line is shortened in respect of which a law has already been passed. This is a very simple case. It is a guaranteed line, in other words, the Railways are guaranteed against any losses. The firm who issued the guarantee asked us to move the terminal point to the farm Middelburg. Because of that the total length of the line will be reduced by 2½ miles. All this House is now asked to do is to approve of the shortening of the line. There is nothing sinister in it. Everything is in order. It is simply that the law provides that this House must approve of this change. It is totally unnecessary to ask the Railway Board for another report. What purpose will that serve? The report of the railway is at the disposal of hon. members; it was submitted last year and it gives all the details in connection with the original line. I think something similar had already happened in the past. I speak subject to correction but as far as I can remember a railway line in one of the Native areas near Germiston was either shortened or lengthened a few years ago and it was done in the same way, namely, an amendment to the original Act. The Railways are in any case guaranteed against any losses that may be suffered on that line. Whether the line is 16 miles or 131 miles long all the losses that may be suffered will be carried by the firm who issued the guarantee.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) wanted to know what conditions I envisaged in regard to the concession to servants who become partially disabled and who had purchased property under the house-ownership scheme. The position to-day is as follows: Unless a servant is 100 per cent disabled he does not get the benefit of the insurance cover. In other words, if a servant is 50 per cent disabled to-day and he leaves the service of the Administration, due to the inability of the Administration to provide him with other work, he receives no insurance cover at all. I am introducing this amendment at the request of the staff. This is a concession to them. This really means in effect that if a servant becomes partly disabled and the Administration is unable to provide him with other suitable work and he is compelled to leave the service he receives the benefit of this insurance cover. The hon. member should welcome that. The staff welcomes it. It has nothing to do with the contributions they have to make because the contributions are based on his wages and length of service before reaching the retiring age. The contributions remain the same. Even if an engine driver is offered another job at half the salary he got as an engine driver he still has to pay the same contribution. This does not change that position at all. This is merely an additional benefit to the servant who cannot be accommodated and who has to leave the service. He now gets the benefit of this insurance cover based on the percentage of his disability.

Does that mean that his monthly payments are also reduced?

No, the monthly payments remain the same. But when he leaves the service he receives his pension payments, of course; and that is sufficient to pay the balance he owes on the house. Or he can obtain a loan from a building society.

Did I understand the Minister correctly that although he is given suitable employment at a much lower salary or wage his payments on his house are not affected?

That is the position to-day. This amendment does not change that; it has nothing to do with the payments. This amendment only has to do with the insurance cover.

Will the hon. Minister look into this.

There is no necessity for it. His payments are based on his wages and length of service before retirement. Let me put it this way: I am placing an additional burden on the insurance fund without raising the premium. I have to see during the next five years what affect that will have on the insurance fund. I cannot say to-day how many cases there are going to be that will be covered by this amendment. There may be many or there may be few.

The hon. member for Turffontein wanted to know whether the management approaches members of the staff and asks them whether they would like to stay on after their retiring age. Whether the management approaches individual members of the staff I do not know; but on the whole it is left entirely to the staff to decide whether or not they wish to stay on for the additional three years.

Has the management the right to refuse to allow them to stay on?

Yes. If the hon. member will look at the original amendment of 1955 he will see that it is within the discretion of the Administration to either accept or refuse a request from any servant to remain on over and above his normal retiring age.

Has the management to give six months’ notice too?

Yes. It all depends on the servant’s record. There have been cases where the management has refused a request to remain longer in the service. That position still obtains.

The hon. member for Turffontein also criticized the amendment in Clause 5. As I said by way of interjection the hon. member is apparently under a misunderstanding. The present position is that if a servant is sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine he is automatically dismissed. All I am doing now is that, except in the case of dishonesty or fraud, dismissal will not be automatic but that it will be within the discretion of the Administration. In the cases the hon. member has mentioned it is obvious that he will be dismissed. It all depends on the seriousness of the crime for which the particular servant is sentenced.

If there is a discretion why add these two offences?

Because the Railway Administration is an undertaking which has to safeguard public money and public property. It has to create confidence in the public. That is why any servant who is guilty of dishonesty is dismissed from the service even if he is not taken to court and sentenced to imprisonment.

In regard to Clause 10 I can give the hon. member the assurance that all the circulars referred to improve the conditions. I can give him the list after the debate.

I am also making a concession in Clause 6. The present position is that a reprimand or a caution or any fine of R4 or less is treated as a minor offence and the servant’s record is not endorsed. I am now raising that to R10. That is in the interests of the servants.

Why do you draw a distinction between the two classes of reprimand?

There is no distinction. The hon. member must have read the Bill; he must read the amending Bill. It used to be like that but it has been changed.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

On Clause 2,

One does not want to plead for this too seriously, but I am apparently misunderstanding the position and I just want to put this question to the hon. Minister: If suitable alternative employment cannot be found for a servant and he retires is he paid insurance compensation in relation to his injury? But if he does stay on and he has to work for a lesser wage or salary, because of his disability, than he used to receive is the position that he does not receive that compensation? And although his remuneration is less he may still have to pay the higher contribution? Will the hon. the Minister not give us an undertaking that he will go into the matter and see whether it is not possible to say that in such a case his capital obligations will also be reduced in conformity with his injury so that he will pay less monthly? While the Minister is taking a very important step and a good step in the interests of his employees I think it follows logically that he should also consider this further step.

The position to-day is that the moment a servant has paid his purchase price in full he is given transfer. In other words he can raise a bond outside and pay off the balance he still owes to the Administration. The payments are usually calculated according to his salary and the period he must still serve before he retires, so that the day he retires his house will be fully paid for. The difficulty is this that if he is allowed to make smaller payments his house will not be fully paid off when he retires. That will be to his own detriment.

Not if the purchase price is reduced.

No, the purchase price cannot be reduced. This is a concession. The present position is that when he leaves the service, even if he is 70 per cent or 80 per cent disabled, he is not covered. I am now giving him the benefit of the insurance cover which is based on his percentage of disability. But we cannot go further otherwise we shall have to make the premium very much higher. It must be remembered that the purchaser himself pays the premium. If I were to make any further concessions it would step up the premiums very considerably.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I took the trouble to again look up the provision that is amended here, and I think the hon. Minister missed my point that I made in my second-reading speech. The original wording was “if a servant is convicted by a court and sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine …”, then there was no doubt whatsoever, he had to be dismissed from the service. That could involve any crime for which he had been sentenced without the option of a fine. Now the hon. Minister inserts here “of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty”. It then reads “if a servant is convicted by a court of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty, and sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine”. It is classified now. It applies only in the case of two crimes where he is sentenced without the option of a fine.

Then he is automatically dismissed.

Yes, there is no question about that, but before it could be any crime if he was sentenced without he option of a fine. Then he had to be dismissed. Now, if he commits two particular crimes, if he is found guilty of dishonesty or of fraud and sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine, then he is automatically dismissed. But if he is found guilty of any other crime for which he gets a similar penalty then he is not automatically dismissed.

That is what I said.

That is wrong, because I stand on the principle the Minister put when he replied. I take the stand that because we deal with public money and because railway servants should have the trust and respect of the public in every sphere, also their private life, we should be very careful. I think it is wrong in principle. I think it is a bad thing for the hon. the Minister to issue an explanatory memorandum and to say that because a servant committed a serious offence in terms of the court, nobody else having found him guilty, but the court, he should not be automatically dismissed. He can be convicted to 100 days imprisonment without a fine, and I say that the court would not inflict such a sentence without being aware of the full conditions. To me it is wrong that Parliament must come along and set an example like that to the public that it does not matter what you do outside, you can be drunk on the road, you can drive under the influence, you can be sentenced, but as far as we in the Railway Administration are concerned, we do not mind at all. We will continue to employ you. Any other self-respecting corporation or company would not retain such a man in its service. He must carry the penalty of his conduct. That is my objection to the manner in which this clause is worded. I see the point of the hon. Minister, but should not a limiting factor be inserted, for example, to say that if he is sentenced to a period say of no less than six months, then this provision will apply. If he is convicted to less than six months it cannot be such a very serious offence, and then he would not be subject to automatic dismissal and it would be at the discretion of the Administration. But as the clause is now worded, on the face of it, legally if a servant commits arson, rape, culpable homicide, anything, he is not subject to automatic dismissal. I say that that is wrong. If the Minister says that he is quite prepared to give a man who has been found guilty by the courts and sentenced without the option of a fine because he was guilty of culpable homicide or arson or of rape, that he is quite prepared to give such a man another chance and to keep him in his service …

I never said that.

But that is what the hon. Minister is saying when he draws this distinction. I am quite sure that this amendment that the Minister proposes was not asked for by the staff associations, because I do not believe that the staff associations would act in such an irresponsible manner. Let me draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the previous section as it is now on the Statute Book says quite distinctly that if a servant is convicted by a court and sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine…he is subject to dismissal. Why not leave it like that? I would appeal to the hon. the Minister to consult his law advisers again in regard to the wording here, and if he finds that my contention is correct, will he undertake when the Bill goes to the Other Place to have an appropriate amendment inserted there to meet the situation that he obviously does want to meet?

The hon. member. I think, will recollect that a year or two ago, I also amended the Act to prevent servants who receive periodical imprisonment from being automatically dismissed. I do not think there was any objection on the other side of the House. Now all the present amendment does is to say, that except in the cases where there is fraud or dishonesty a servant who is convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine must not automatically be dismissed. It is will be within the discretion of the Administration. That does not mean to say that a man who has committed rape or culpable homicide will not be dismissed. It will only take effect in regard to offences that have been committed by a servant that are not serious, or do not deterimentally affect that servant’s work and that servant’s employment with the Administration. But there is no question of slackening of discipline. As a matter of fact, as I told the hon. member, there are numerous cases of servants who have been dismissed for matters that have not even come before the courts. It must be left to the discretion of the Administration as to whether a servant must be dismissed. Now this particular case that has been referred to, whether it was a senior or a junior servant would have made no earthly difference—the only offence committed by this man was that he passed certain cars where there was a solid white line. Originally he had to pay on admission of guilt a fine of R30. Instead of paying the R30 and admitting guilt, he decided to fight the case. For some reasons the magistrate sentenced him to 100 days’ imprisonment. Now does the hon. member seriously suggest that that servant with so many years’ service, who committed that type of offence, a man who had a clear record, should be automatically dismissed from the service?

I did not suggest that.

By implication the hon. member suggests that. I am giving an example. The original Act was passed by Parliament about 40 or 50 years ago and conditions have completely changed. Many new offences are to-day on the Statute Book. This is merely that the Administration must have a discretion as to whether a servant must be dismissed or not, and if not dismissed whether he must receive some other punishment. That is all that this amendment purports to do.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot …

Order! The hon. member cannot take this matter any further. If he did it would extend the scope of the Bill.

I am not taking it any further. Certain words are inserted in the existing legislation.

The hon. member must confine himself to those words which are inserted.

I am not disputing at all the discretionary right of the Administration, not in the slightest. That is not what is at question here. What is at question here is the amendment proposed by the hon. Minister to insert certain words into existing legislation. With due respect to the hon. Minister, I think he creates the wrong impression when he says that this particular section which is now being amended has been on the Statute Book for many, many years. The hon. Minister changed the wording in 1963 by way of an amending Bill, and in 1960, the real change was made in an amending Bill and it was found to be unsatisfactory and last year the Minister came and he inserted these words which I have referred to and now in 1964 he is adding further words. I am not disputing the question of the discretionary right of the Administration as to who they should sack or not sack. I am only questioning the provision he is seeking to exempt himself from, and that only in the case of two particular offences there should be automatic dismissal. By that the hon. Minister creates the wrong impression. Serious offences of another nature can be committed and a man may be convicted without the option of a fine and he should also automatically be sacked, as this section originally said he should be. What the Minister is saying is that he should not be, that only a man who is sentenced because of dishonesty or fraud must be sacked. I would appeal again to the hon. the Minister to give further consideration to the matter and to try and fix a limitation if he wishes to insert provisions of this nature.

The point that I wish to raise is in relation to the Railway Police. I agree that this amendment is necessary and desirable so far as the ordinary servant of the Railway Administration is concerned. Of course the Railway Police are also servants as defined in the Act as I read it, and if they are servants as defined in that Act, with this amendment we would have an anomaly in relation to the practice so far as the South African Police are concerned. I am glad the hon. Minister of Justice is here, because he indicated in reply to a question in this House earlier that where a policeman was convicted and sentenced by a court to imprisonment without the option of a fine, he was in all cases dismissed from the force. Of course after a departmental inquiry had been held, but in every case that man was found so guilty and sentenced by the court to imprisonment without the option of a fine, he was dismissed. Now this Bill has to do with the Railway Police. A Railway policeman who for example commits an assault upon a prisoner and is sentenced by a court because the court considers the assault of such a serious nature, to imprisonment without the option of a fine, then you have an offence that of course does not involve fraud or dishonesty, but nevertheless it is a very serious offence and perhaps in respect of any policeman (including a Railway policeman) one of the most serious offences he can commit because he is placed in a special position where he is entrusted with the safety of that person.

It does not mean that he will not be dismissed.

I appreciate that it means that he won’t necessarily be dismissed, but I want to put to the hon. the Minister that if he (that is a Railway policeman) were a member of the South African Police he would automatically be dismissed.

That is not what the law says, that is the practice, but the law says that he must be dismissed by a board.

That is so, but if he is convicted without the option of a fine …

The practice is to dismiss him. But there is nothing in the Act that says he must be automatically dismissed.

That is quite true, but that is the practice as far as the South African Police Force is concerned. I think it is a good practice.

It does not mean that that practice won’t be followed in our case.

Would the hon. Minister give us some indication as to whether now that these people fall without the ambit of the statute—in other words, the law before provided in respect of the Railway Police what the practice is in relation to the South African Police. Now the law is changed. Will the hon. Minister follow the practice in his Department of the example set by the hon. Minister of Justice?

Every case will be dealt with on its merits.

Can the hon. Minister give me the assurance that all these people will be dismissed? It seems if you are a Railway policeman, you are placed in a special position. I am very serious about this. This is a very serious matter, regarded as so serious by the hon. Minister of Justice that in all cases members of the Police Force are dismissed. The hon. Minister of Transport says that he is going to treat each case on its merits.

The law was changed years ago.

As this Section 19 stands without the amendment, he would be dismissed if sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine. Is not that correct? We are now amending the law in this clause to provide that they shall not be dismissed automatically except in the case of fraud or dishonesty. I accept that that is a very good amendment for the Railway servants in the normal course. But the position of the police is different, and I hope the hon. Minister will indicate that he will follow the practice of the Minister of Justice. If he does not do that, then he is setting a different standard for the Railway Police who, after all, have by-and-large the same sort of powers to deal with prisoners as have the members of the South African Police. I hope the hon. Minister will give us the assurance that the practice of the Minister of Justice followed in relation to the Railway Police.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I come back again to the point in regard to which I was seeking information from the Minister during the second reading debate. The Minister said just now, on a previous clause, that the Act was amended many years ago. Let me tell the hon. the Minister that Section 20 of Act 22 of 1960, says this in regard to the question of caution and reprimand …

If you look at the amendment you will see that it is amended.

I know, but I am seeking information on it. We are now only busy making the law, it is not the law yet, and I want to know why we are making the law in this way. I suggest with respect to the hon. the Minister that he should not take the explanatory memorandum at its face value. The position is simply that the Act, as it stands at the moment, states two classes of crime which may be placed on the record of service of a Railway official. In regard to minor offences there is a caution and a reprimand which will not be recorded in respect of a minor offence. But when you come to paragraph (b) of Clause 20 of Act 22 of 1960, then the Minister will see that there is also a caution and a reprimand for a serious infringement which is placed on the record of service of the official. Now I would like to know from the hon. the Minister why the two categories of infringement which caused a caution or a reprimand have been done away with, because as far as the amendment in this clause is concerned, a caution and a reprimand will be classified only as a minor offence. I query that, for this reason that year after year, we have reports from the Auditor-General in the Railways and Harbours Select Committee dealing with defalcations of public money in the Railway Administration, and in a number of cases where there have been these defalcations of a minor nature, it is pointed out that the official was seriously reprimanded or cautioned, and that serious reprimand goes on his service record, so that when it comes to promotion or the placing of additional responsibility on an official, a full picture of his service and his record is presented. Now how is this class of offence going to be classified? It is being done away with. That is the information I am seeking from the hon. the Minister. I put the question pertinently: What was the reason for doing away with the two classes of offences as far as caution and reprimand are concerned?

The explanation is very simple. I don’t regard a caution or a reprimand for a serious offence as severe enough. If a servant is guilty of a serious infringement then he should receive a more severe punishment than a caution or reprimand. If he is guilty of a serious offence, then he must be punished accordingly, and a caution or a reprimand is not sufficient punishment for a serious offence. Caution and reprimand in future will not be endorsed on his record, but if he is fined R10 or more it will be endorsed.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

I raise again the question of the reduction of this terminal point, the reduction of this line from 16 miles to 13½ miles, a reduction of 2½ miles, and the reduced expenditure on the original construction of something like R257,000. Now the Minister’s only answer to me when I raised the matter at the second reading was that he said that the terminal point of this line had been shortened and was now being placed in the farm “Middelburg”.

Why do you want to know all these particulars?

I do not know how the hon. gentleman as chairman of the Railways and Harbours Select Committee approaches his responsibilities. I do not know if he is at all interested in what is going through the House at the present time. I had a suspicion that when the hon. member made his speech that he had simply taken the explanatory memorandum, made a few notes and parrot-wise repeated in this House what was said in the memorandum. The hon. Minister said that the reason was that the terminal point was being moved into the farm “Middelburg”. I have got the plan in front of me now. It is not being moved to “Middelburg”; it has always been there. It always ended in “Middelburg”. How can it now be shortened by 2½ miles? I am getting up to point out to the hon. the Minister that when matters are explained to us in this manner, I personally object. When we ask reasons, we are entitled to the fullest information before acceding to a request of this nature. I hope this is the last precedent we have had where alterations of this nature are made to important construction works involving large sums of public money, and this House does not get the information to which it is rightfully entitled.

Clause put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

I move—

Hon. members are no doubt aware that this Bill is the product of a series of investigations of the various aspects of compulsory motor vehicle insurance—commonly known as third-party insurance—as applied in many countries of the Western world. The investigations referred to were first of all conducted by a commission of inquiry under the chairmanship of Mr. D. H. C. du Plessis, a former General Manager of Railways, then by a delegation of members of my Department and the Department of Finance who visited New Zealand, and finally by a Select Committee of this House. I want to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the members of this Select Committee. I think they had a very arduous task and extremely difficult problems to solve. I think they have acquitted themselves of their task very well. I am especially pleased that the recommendations of the Select Committee, as embodied in this Bill, were unanimous.

The investigations became necessary as a result of general dissatisfaction on the part of the public with the way in which insurance companies generally handled the matter, especially in regard to the payment of compensation and the ever-increasing premiums. We are all aware of the happenings during the past few years in the third-party insurance field and the consequent effect this has had on the public’s mind and pocket. Having imposed an obligation upon the public to take out compulsory motor vehicle insurance, I have always felt that the State should be entitled to know how the obligation which it has imposed upon its citizens is handled by private enterprise. As has been stated on many occasions in this House, I have every confidence in private enterprise and for that reason I refused to deny the insurance industry the opportunity of undertaking third-party insurance. My trust in the insurance industry, however, relies on the knowledge that the industry is making a sincere effort to operate a system as effectively and economically as possible. I therefore wish to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of reassuring the insurance industry and I do not judge its efficiency and honesty in dealing with third-party insurance by the conduct of a few companies who have been the cause of grave concern in the immediate past.

As hon. members are no doubt aware, the provisions of the existing Act do not call upon me to interfere in the determination of tariffs of premiums, which are applied by registered companies in respect of the different categories of vehicles and areas in the Republic, otherwise than to publish such tariffs when presented to me. This state of affairs has often given rise to adverse comment when I was called upon in terms of the Act to announce increased tariffs. In order that this position may not recur in future it is now proposed that the Minister of Transport should have the final say in the determination of the tariffs of premiums at which any registered company will in future be allowed to undertake third-party insurance. It has been realized, however, that the determination of a tariff of premiums in respect of an industry handling over R16,000,000 collected in respect of 1,500,000 vehicles, is a task of such magnitude that it requires the attention of experts well-versed in this intricate field of economics. It is proposed therefore that a special premiums committee should be set up, consisting of representatives of the Department of Transport, the Department of Finance and of Census and Statistics, as well as of three representatives from registered insurance companies, whose task it will then be to advise the Minister on the tariff of premiums to be applied. Another new principle embodied in the Bill provides that no insurance company will be allowed to charge a tariff lower than the tariff determined by the Minister, thereby preventing new companies or existing registered companies from undercutting with a view to attracting business. The Bill does, however, provide that registered companies may apply for a tariff which is higher than the general tariff.

Hon. members will remember that several of the companies which have lately been the subject of court orders, have come into the insurance market as a result of the fact that they charge tariffs which were much lower than the average tariff and which have proved to have been the cause of their eventual failure with consequential financial suffering by the public. In order that the premiums committee may be able to fulfil its task, the Bill empowers the Minister to prescribe that statistics should be kept by registered companies for submission to the premiums committee. The Secretary for Transport will be required to provide the staff to assist the premiums committee in the performance of its functions. However, as the tariff of premiums is not the only consideration associated with third-party insurance, it is also proposed to establish an advisory committee which will be representative of all parties concerned. This advisory committee will provide a forum for discussion of all the general aspects of third-party insurance, such as the introduction of a scale of medical and hospital fees and the ways and means of giving publicity to the various aspects of third-party insurance and the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act. As in the case of the premiums committee, the Secretary for Transport will provide all offices necessary to assist the committee in the performances of its functions.

Another very important feature of this legislation is the fact that the Minister of Transport will in future be empowered to refuse to allow insurance companies to undertake compulsory third-party insurance unless such companies have complied with such conditions as may be imposed by the Minister. This position does not interfere with the functions of the Registrar of Insurance in regard to the registration of Insurance companies undertaking motor insurance business. Insurance companies who wish to undertake insurance business, i.e. compulsory motor vehicle insurance under the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, 1942, must in the first place be registered with the said registrar to carry on motor insurance business. This provision does, however, empower the Minister of Transport to impose additional conditions on companies undertaking, or wishing to undertake, insurance business under the said Act, particularly conditions relating to the giving of security or other guarantees for the payment of claims for compensation, or refund of premium moneys in the event of such companies becoming incompetent to fulfil their obligations. In practice this means that the Minister of Transport may call upon existing registered companies and companies intending to become registered companies for the purposes of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, 1942, to provide guarantees which would protect the public against financial loss in the event of the insolvency of such companies. Hon. members may be aware of the fact that an agreement exists at present between the Minister of Transport and all registered insurers who have formed themselves into a registered company known as the M.I.A. This agreement provides for the payment of compensation to victims of accidents caused by the negligent driving of uninsured vehicles, vehicles of which the identity of the driver or owner, or of the registered company which may have insured the motor vehicle, cannot be established. I am referring here to the hit-and-run motorist.

The Agreement, is, however, at present the subject of cancellation and consequently a provision has been embodied in this Bill which empowers the Minister of Transport to make it an obligation upon all companies desiring to undertake third party insurance either to be members of the MIA or to contribute to the funds of a Contribution Fund which the Minister is empowered to establish in the place of the MIA.

These provisions will ensure that the public will at all times be protected against the evils caused by irresponsible drivers of uninsured motor vehicles or drivers who fail to stop after accidents.

Whilst I do not wish to embark on a campaign against the legal fraternity in respect of their actions in claiming compensation against registered companies, I am able to advise the House that numerous complaints were received by my Department which indicated that it was a common practice amongst claimants to deny registered companies all information in regard to accidents until such time as the companies admitted liability.

In order to overcome this difficulty the Bill now provides that claimants will have to complete claims forms and they will be unable to issue summons against a registered company until a period of 60 days has elapsed after the date of receipt by the company of such claims forms.

It is hoped that by supplying a registered company with all the information relevant to the claim, a large proportion of legal and other costs will be avoided and that fewer cases will proceed to Court.

Representations were received from registered companies to the effect that the present wording of certain paragraphs of Section 11 constituted some difficulty of interpretation. An effort has been made to clarify that position by re-writing paragraph (ii) of the proviso to sub-section (1).

In terms of the provisions of the present Act all claims by third parties against registered companies must be intimated within two years. The Workmen’s Compensation Act, however, provides for a different period of prescription in respect of recoveries by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner against registered companies. With a view to the determination of a tariff of premiums, however, it is considered essential that all claims against registered companies should be intimated within two years, and a provision has accordingly been inserted in the Bill limiting the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioners’ right of recovery in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act against registered companies to a period of two years from the date of the occurrence which gave rise to the claim.

In a decision of the Court of the A.A. Mutual Association Limited vs. the Administration of the Transvaal during 1961, it was ruled that hospital authorities and other suppliers of medical services to victims of motor vehicle accidents have no claim against a registered company for the recovery of any costs incurred as a result of such an accident, except in cases where the amount of the compensation payable has been determined and includes such costs. The Bill now purports to confer such a direct right of action on hospitals and other suppliers of medical services, also in cases where the amount of the compensation has not been determined, but such right is also subject to a period of prescription of two years.

In order to ensure that the provisions of the Act are properly implemented the Bill provides for the appointment of inspectors, and for the extension of the powers and duties of road transportation inspectors to include duties in terms of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act.

In order to ensure that mony received by way of compensation is not squandered, the Bill now empowers the Minister of Transport to make regulations in consultation with the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions prescribing the circumstances under which such compensation should be paid to the Secretary for Social Welfare and Pensions and the manner in which the said Secretary shall deal with the money.

Mr. Speaker, this provision seems to make inroads on the private affairs of our citizens, but, I am able to state without hesitation that the inclusion of this provision was preceded by very careful consideration of all its aspects including such matters as the composition of our population.

Many sad tales are told about the way in which people, not accustomed to own or control large sums of money, have been guided by less scrupulous friends always ending with sorrow and suffering.

The Bill empowers the Minister of Transport after consultation with the provinces and the Medical and Dental Associations to establish scale of hospital and medical fees generally which may be claimed from registered companies in cases where such companies are liable for the payment of such costs.

In concluding my introductory remarks I wish to assure this House that every effort has been made to avoid the recurrence of the unpleasant happenings of the past as far as third party insurance is concerned.

With the co-operation of the insurance industry and the medical and legal profession, I am satisfied that we shall experience a long period of stability in this field and that there should be very little ground for dissatisfaction or complaint by anybody.

When Mrs. Bertha Solomon, who was then the member for Jeppes, persuaded Parliament in the 1940s to accept a motor vehicle insurance Act very few people realized the problems that were being created for the legislators. To judge by the speech the hon. the Minister has made this evening, he is becoming very acutely aware of these problems. The fact that this legislation has been examined by a commission which had to visit Australasia and that it has been examined by a Select Committee during two sessions shows how it bristles with difficulties and what tremendous responsibilities rest on the shoulders of those who are charged with its administration. I want the Minister to know that he has the sympathy of this House in the most difficult and complex problems he is called upon to face in administering this law.

This legislation seems to be an attempt to bring about a law which will reconcile divergent interests and which will look after the interests of the people after some very unhappy experiences the public has suffered in the past. We see in this Bill an attempt to reconcile the rights of the public with the rights of some 50 insurance companies who joined together in the agreement of 1942 and the one remaining large independent company and with the interests of no fewer than 15,000 agents who are all engaged in writing this type of insurance. But we feel that the most important of these three elements to be protected is the public. Some people will say—it has been said to my knowledge—when they read this Bill, that there is not enough apparent action taken to protect the public, that it seems to protect the insurance companies, to see that they can collect proper premiums, to see that they are protected against unscrupulous lawyers, that they are protected against too high fees charged by the medical profession and by the provinces which administer our hospitals and against members of the public. Sir, I think it is inevitable—and I think the Minister agrees—that when you want to protect the public and maintain the principle of private enterprise, on which we are at one, the companies should be assisted to function properly and that they should be protected against unfair competition and undue exploitation. In order to allow private enterprise to function properly one has to guard against the tendency for a monopoly to develop. Yet I believe that with this type of insurance, where the risks are high and where the profits are of necessity minimal, the danger always exists that insurance companies will naturally tend to combine in order to fix premiums and in order to try fix standards of compensation, a fact which may—I say “may”—be against the interests of the public. That is why we are glad that, whereas the Minister is undertaking the great responsibility of fixing the premiums, he is fixing a minimum premium and not preventing companies from charging higher premiums. He is to some extent permitting the laws of compensation to operate in this very important field of insurance. At the same time, by fixing reasonable minimum premiums, we hope, with the Minister, that he will prevent the activities of fly-by-night organizations, organizations which spring up to rake up as much of the public’s money as possible and then, by reason of weak administration, fail in their ultimate enterprise, let the public down, while some of the so-called entrepreneurs may come out richer than they went in. We believe that one of the most important inducements that such fly-by-night organizations can hold out in order to get hold of the public’s money is a low premium, a premium which sometimes from the nature of things must be uneconomic. We are glad that the Minister has accepted this responsibility to see that the minimum premiums are realistic in relation to the service that is supplied to the public and that such premiums will be maintained. It is right that the premiums should be as low as possible. This is one of the few forms of compulsory insurance that we have. It would be utterly wrong if, by this type of insurance which is intended to meet a real social need, a type of insurance that is intended for the general protection of the whole public, people could unduly enrich themselves at the expense of the public.

It is not an easy problem to solve. When one speaks to people and examines the evidence or reads about it, the public always say that the premiums are too high, whereas the companies will always emphasize that they run this business, or if not at a loss, then almost at a loss, but certainly always risking a loss more than in the case of other types of insurance.

We believe this Bill to be a worth-while experiment and one which we support. But I think it would be wrong for us to say that we think this is the final answer to the problem. We believe that to a very large extent the Select Committee, which has done excellent work, has offered to Parliament and to the Minister only an experiment. But it is an experiment which, now for the first time, will be conducted scientifically. One of the problems that the Minister and others who deal with this matter had to face in the past has been the absence of really reliable statistics. The various companies kept their statistics in different ways; it was not always easy to correlate the information that was received. But machinery is now established whereby the Minister, over a period of years, will get full and reliable statistics in accordance with a system to be prescribed by him. I believe that one of the fine results of this legislation will be that, within a period of time, it will be possible scientifically and accurately to analyse these statistics and to find out what is really happening to the public and to the insurance companies in the field of compulsory third-party insurance. If it was only for that very important reason this legislation deserves the support of every member of this House. We now ensure that there will be constant examination of all the facts concerning motor vehicle insurance; we now ensure that this is undertaken scientifically and that the solutions which should be found for the problem will be based on a scientific basis. To-day, I think the Minister will agree, the situation—and I am not guilty of a pun—is a real hit-and-miss situation, a lot of it has been guesswork up to now. Now at last it will be possible to devise over a period of time a scientific approach to this problem.

One detail that worries me a lot, and I would very much like the hon. Minister to comment upon it, is the fact that it appears from the evidence before the Select Committee that as many as 10 per cent of the motor vehicles on the roads of South Africa are uninsured.

And unlicensed!

Yes, of course, unlicensed. It is very difficult to understand how that can happen. I noticed that some of the witnesses before this Select Committee suggested that it was due to the shortage of manpower. That may be so, but even if one takes into account the shortage of manpower, the fact that one out of every ten vehicles, something like 150,000 vehicles, travel on the roads of South Africa without carrying this most essential protection for the public, that is to say, the third-party insurance, and are not making their fair contribution to the funds that should exist for the protection of the public, makes one feel that something must be done in that connection. How does it come about? When people take to the road in a motor-car they have to exhibit a disc with a large figure in red upon it of the year for current insurance. That should be visible. Is is that these people travel with forged certificates, or is it that the police do not give attention to this? Surely with all the resources available to the State it should be possible to undertake a campaign to get these pirates, these dangerous anti-social pirates, off the roads of South Africa. I do hope that we shall not take a defeatist attitude towards this problem. It is utterly wrong that people can use vehicles upon the roads of South Africa and escape the responsibility which all their fellow-motorists have to accept and make their contribution towards the protection of the public. There will be other opportunities to discuss details, but with these general remarks we want the Minister to know that this Bill too will have our support.

We on this side of the House learnt with pleesure that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) on behalf of his party supported the measure which is now before the House. Nor did we who were members of the Select Committee expect anything else. Perhaps I should remind you, Sir, that the decisions come to by the Select Committee in connection with this extremely important measure were unanimous. That is indicative of the serious attention the Select Committee gave this matter.

The hon. member made one submission, namely, that the public should be protected in the first place. We had two opportunities of considering this measure and throughout that was the main objective of the Select Committee. But where that was the main objective I immediately wish to emphasize that we tried to maintain the balance between protecting the public on the one hand and protecting private enterprise on the other hand, and not to disturb the balance by placing too heavy a burden on private enterprise as one could very easily have been inclined to do. The existing Motor Vehicle Insurance Act gives the Minister the right to establish a State corporation without having to have any legislation to do so. The Select Committee, however, felt that where we were dealing with a social measure, where it was the State who prescribed, a sincere attempt should nevertheless be made to give private initiative, particularly the insurance companies, an opportunity of trying to strike a balance between the interests of the two parties, thereby ensuring that we brought about the greatest possible measure of public safety. I am pleased that the hon. member appreciates that point, because, as I have said, this is a matter to which the Select Committee gave its attention throughout. It was equally shocking to us to learn about the high percentage of unlicensed and uninsured motor vehicles on our roads. That is a matter which also received the undivided attention of the Du Plessis Commission. I do want to repeat all the facts but in that regard we are dealing with a dreadful evil. I do not want to anticipate the Minister’s reply in that regard. I am sure he will deal with that aspect.

I think few measures have come before this House which have been as thoroughly gone into beforehand as this measure. That again emphasizes the importance of the measure before us. The hon. the Minister has dealt fully with the principles involved and as incorporated by the Select Committee in the Bill before the House. He went into it in great detail and I shall not repeat what he said. But I do, however, want to refer to a few other aspects. In the first place I once again wish to point out the importance of the fact that this is a measure which has been very thoroughly thrashed out beforehand. We had the Du Plessis Commission which undoubtedly did splendid work. As a result of the findings of the Du Plessis Commission a mission was sent to New Zealand to see how their system operated and whether it would be possible to apply a modified version of this system to South Africa. After that the measure was again referred to a Select Committee last year and as hon. members will remember the measure was again referred back to the Select Committee this year and to-day we ultimately have the measure before us. All those factors have contributed to the production of a measure which, in my humble opinion, tries to maintain the balance between protecting the public on the one hand and private initiative on the other hand.

Business suspended at 7 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

When business was suspended I was telling hon. members what amount of preparatory work preceded this measure. I was explaining the various steps and measures that had been taken. I have not seen any criticism of this measure other than that expressed in the Financial Mail of 15 May in which they say the following—

That is exactly what I said previously. The criticism concludes as follows—

The reason why I read out this criticism is because there are indeed differences and big differences between the measures introduced last year and the one before the House at the moment. I think it is important that we study these differences a little closer and focus attention on them.

The main object of the Bill which the Select Committee drafted and introduced last year—the Select Committee felt very strongly about this in view of what happened in the past—was to protect the public in respect of the premiums paid and to control those premiums. I say “protect” and “control” because we have unfortunately experienced in the past that in many cases the premiums collected disappeared after collection. The money was consequently not used for the purpose for which it was collected to the extreme detriment of the public. Everybody knows what happened a year or more ago in connection with the premiums collected by certain companies. We were told of cases where within six months after collection that money had been squandered and the public had to pull the chestnuts out of the fire by paying two premiums during the same insurance period in repsect of the same vehicle, while many will not receive any compensation for the premiums they have already paid. Consequently, because of past experience the Select Committee thought it fit last year in the first place to provide in this measure that those premiums should be paid into a fund, a pool, over which the State would have a measure of control. We got this idea from the mission who had been to New Zealand where they have such a pool system.

Secondly, the Committee also felt and provided that premiums should be collected by local authorities so as to ensure that the money would indeed be used for the purpose for which it had been collected. In other words, what the Select Committee felt very strongly about, was that from the moment the motorist pays his premium there must be absolute control and protection. When the Committee was in session last year it heard evidence, inter alia, from the organized insurance industry and I am very sorry to say that the insurance industry unfortunately did not submit any suggestions which would really have solved the problem the Committee was investigating, namely, to ensure that the premiums paid were safe and the funds protected with a view to lowering the premiums. They did not submit any concrete proposals to solve that problem. After the Bill had been tabled Parliament went into recess and during the recess one had an opportunity of reconsidering calmly the various aspects and implication of that measure. Those interested realized that unless active steps were taken immediately the insurance companies would in future to a large extent be deprived of the administration of this scheme. As I have said, where we particularly wanted to maintain the, balance between private enterprise and the safety of the public we then had the opportunity of reconsidering that aspect of the measure which had been referred back to the Select Committee. Other factors also cropped up. Some of the members of the Committee discussed the matter amongst themselves and it was felt that as the principles were formulated in last year’s measure doubt would arise in the mind of the public and that we should have an opportunity of stating those principles more clearly so as to remove any doubt. Because it was realized what the implications might be the assurance industry, vis-à-vis their chairman, gave evidence before the Select Committee which sat this year and drafted the Bill and in that evidence they made the following remark which was of the utmost importance to us—

Those were precisely the objects we aimed at. Because of this attitude it was possible for the Select Committee to consider other ways and means of achieving the same object, namely, to protect the premiums and to ensure that claims were met and that it would not be necessary for the public to pay two premiums during the same year in respect of the same vehicle. That was why the Committee decided to vest the Minister with power to refuse to allow an insurance company to undertake third-party insurance unless such a company was in a position to give a guarantee and surety in respect of the payment of claims and the refunding of premiums in case it went insolvent.

In view of what I have just said, namely, that we found common ground with the insurance industry, we can now be accused of having vested the Minister with certain powers which actually belong to the Registrar of Insurance Companies. The hon. the Minister referred to this aspect in his speech and I just want to emphasize that the powers conferred upon the Minister in no way interfere with the duties of the Registrar of Insurance Companies for the following reason: Before an insurance company can approach the Minister of Transport for permission to do third-party insurance business, it must, in the first place, be authorized by the Registrar to conduct motor insurance business as defined in the relevant Insurance Act. When we discussed this matter with the Registrar of Insurance Companies, he said the following in his evidence—

I do not want to take up the time of the House in dealing with his evidence in further detail but I just want to point out what the Registrar intends to insert in his new legislation because of the decisions of this Select Committee; in other words, the point I want to emphasize very strongly is that by having vested the Minister with those powers we have not in any way taken away any of the powers of the Registrar of Insurance Companies. As is evident from what I have just read out he gave us the assurance that he would insist that companies must comply with certain requirements and only after they had complied with them would they be allowed to approach the Minister for permission to undertake third-party insurance. This is therefore not a measure which in any way detracts from the powers of the Registrar but places somebody else alongside him. The Minister of Transport is not empowered to interfere with the duties of the Registrar of Insurance Companies but he is empowered to demand from such insurance companies such guarantees and sureties as relate to their liability under the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act. I want to make this point very clear because it can easily be misunderstood and I am very anxious to avoid that.

It is very gratifying to be able to state that 74 of the 76 companies which are already doing third-party insurance have offered to guarantee any claim which may be made against any one of the 74 members because of the insolvency of such a member. Furthermore, such guarantee also covers the refund of any additional or second premium in the event of the insolvency of that member.

In emphasizing these few aspects of this important measure I wish to say that it is my personal opinion that, as far as social legislation is concerned, we are to-day doing pioneering work probably unparalleled in the Western world and I believe that if the insurance industry, the medical profession and the legal profession co-operate in an honest and unselfish way with one another the order we are creating here will be generally accepted. I am convinced of that.

I want to conclude by saying that this is a subject on which a great deal can be said. It is a subject which has received a great deal of attention since the Du Plessis Commission. I want to thank those responsible for the measure before us for the good job of work they have done. The hon. the Minister has gone into the broad principles to-day and I do not want to do so again. Our first object was to ensure the safety of the premiums and we have evolved means which we hope will eventually mean a lower premium. When you discuss this matter with friends they immediately pose this question: Will the measure you are now introducing lead to an immediate lowering of the premiums? The reply is that it is impossible to say that that will be the immediate effect but what we can say is that we are creating the means which may in due course lead to lower premiums. Far be it for me to say that we have solved all the complicated problems connected with third-party insurance in this measure. The field is too wide and the problems too many to say that but what we can indeed say with certainty is that we have created the machinery and laid the foundation which will enable us to find the answers to those problems through experience and the collection of data. It is important that hon. members take note of the fact that Clauses 2 (6) and (7) have been inserted in the measure to give hon. members of this House an opportunity of discussing the workings of the Act. It is provided that the Advisory Committee must submit an annual report to this House. We know the hon. the Minister must lay down the premiums but apart from that the fact that the Advisory Committee has to submit a report to this House will give this House an opportunity of discussing this measure in detail, something which has never been possible in the past. This is an entirely new principle which has been introduced.

I want to conclude. If this measure before the House does not succeed I cannot see what else we can do but to resort to that step which we do not wish to take, namely, to establish a State corporation. I believe that the pattern we are creating here and the basis we are laying down will strengthen the mutual trust which can arise; mutual trust will be built up particularly on the part of the insurance world where there has been little trust in the past. Where there may have been a measure of suspicion in the past it is my fervent hope that with the establishment of the Advisory Committee and the Premium Committee this Bill will lead to the creation of greater confidence amongst the interested parties. I just want to express one idea in conclusion. No matter how good this measure is in essence it does not yet solve the real problem. The real problem lies in the number of reckless accidents which dominate our lives. This is a real threat to our continued existence. I do not want to read the findings of the Du Plessis Commission to the House. We have already discussed that aspect during this Session. If ever there has been a matter in regard to which we should have a national convention where we can pool all our resources to combat death on our roads, it is this matter of unfortunate road accidents and the consequent death and mutilation, apart from the man-hours and manpower that are wasted at a time when we cannot afford to lose them.

I want to conclude by saying that we have done our best to submit a measure to this House which, in respect of third-party insurance, has to meet the problem, but which also creates the machinery whereby further problems will gradually be solved and whereby premiums will not only be safeguarded but be lowered, we hope. But that does not solve the problem. The solution lies in combating the deaths on our roads, in combating those accidents which hit us so mercilessly. If ever there was a problem in respect of which a National Convention should be held, a convention which everybody in the country ought to attend to find a solution, it is this problem of death on our roads.

The only fault I can find with the speech of the hon. member for Mayfair (Dr. Luttig) is perhaps that of modesty. The hon. member referred to and accepted the judgment of the Financial Times in which they referred to the guiding hand of the Minister in regard to this Bill. After sitting for two years on a Select Committee and hearing an awful lot of evidence, and dealing with matters that have been described on both sides of the House as being delicate and difficult, I think the hon. member for Mayfair is being very modest when he accepts that the guiding hand of the Minister is responsible for this Bill. I think the hon. member, as the Chairman of that Select Committee, was the guiding hand for the unanimous decision arrived at by this Select Committee. [Hear, hear!] It is not very often that one can talk in this House on a matter in regard to which there has been unanimous agreement, especially when it is fraught with so much difficulty.

I want to say to the Minister that I am very pleased that he has accepted the Bill which the Select Committee has presented to the House, because the Minister has assumed, in terms of the Bill now before the House, a large measure of responsibility for the future administration of this Act and for the administration certainly of those aspects of this Bill which the Select Committee thought it would be wise to introduce to avoid what the hon. member for Yeoville referred to as the very sad happenings of the past. When one is dealing with companies that went insolvent in the past and with commercial enterprises conducted by human beings, I do not think it is within the power of the wit of man to devise a formula whereby he will be able to ensure that no companies will go under and that no undertakings will be established that are not for the benefit of the public. We are dealing here essentially with a matter which is in the public interest. In essence, this is really a social measure. We have looked at the various formulae which have been suggested but there is no formula or law which the wit of man cannot get around. So the responsibility of the Minister is to ensure from time to time, according to the circumstances which arise, that no insurance company which underwrites third-party insurance will find itself in a position that the public who have taken out this insurance will have to reinsure, and secondly that the persons who are injured as the result of the negligent driving of the insurers of that company will suffer and not be able to claim.

The Minister, in accepting this Bill, has taken on a very grave responsibility, and I wish the Minister luck in administering it. I want to say to him that the only way in which the public can be assured that companies will not go under is for the Minister or for somebody to keep a constant eye on the state of insurance companies from time to time. It is true, as the Minister said, that the Registrar of Financial Institutions also has a great interest in what happens, but he is a public servant. He has no responsibilities other than those which he assumes in his capacity as a public servant. The Minister here has accepted greater responsibilities because if anything goes wrong the Minister will be blamed for it. Such is the way of public opinion. I think it is because the Minister has that responsibility, because so much more depends on his decisions, politically, socially and economically, that he has a greater responsibility to himself, to the country and to the Government, and I think that the Minister will discharge that function far more efficiently than any public servant possibly could in the result. The hon. Minister will be provided with a committee to advise him on insurance matters generally, and he will also be provided with an expert committee on premiums. The hon. member for Yeoville dealt very eloquently with this matter that we will be able now perhaps to get a scientific approach to insurance. The responsibility will be the Minister’s, but the advice he will get will come from those experts in the commercial world and in the insurance world.

Now the Minister spoke about the lawyers. He was very careful to say that he was not going to be involved in a war with the lawyers. I am very pleased about that, but I do want to say that the Minister is quite justified in pointing to certain incidents which have occurred in relation to this particular legislation. The provision that no summons may be issued until 60 days have elapsed from the time that a notice is given to that insurance company that a claim will be lodged is something which, I think, everybody will welcome, and certainly the public. In 60 days it will be possible for that insurance company to assess the claim and to assess the damage and to settle the case. It was originally provided, as we know from the evidence, that an insurance company should be entitled in terms of this Bill to have a compulsory medical examination. That has not been abandoned. I wish to emphasize that. It is now made possible by means of the rules which will be published in respect of the various Supreme Courts and magistrates’ courts. I think that is perhaps one of the most important aspects of saving costs, that the insurance company can insist that the injured victim is examined by doctors and that reports as to his condition should be submitted to them, so that they have all the information at their disposal, and 60 days is a fair period in which to assess the claim and to make an offer. I have no doubt whatever that a large percentage of the costs involved in these third-party claims, which are high, will be avoided by this provision that 60 days must elapse between the notice given and the summons.

I hope that if the Minister will use his influence in relation to road safety, which the hon. member for Mayfair spoke of, the whole cost structure of third-party insurance can be reduced considerably, especially if it is put on a scientific basis. One of those factors—and I must say that this is my own personal view—which will cut down the incidence of death on our roads is the provision of safety belts. The Minister knows that there are at least two Commonwealth countries which have found, at Government level, that 80 per cent of the people killed while passengers in cars on the roads of those countries would not have been killed if those persons had been wearing safety belts. So the Minister has all the opportunities and all the responsibility and I am sure he will have what he needs most of all, and that is all the help from all the people in South Africa to assist him, firstly, to reduce the premiums, secondly, to reduce the costs, and thirdly, to reduce the incidence of injuries on our roads.

There are aspects of this Bill—the hon. member for Yeoville referred to one—which deal with the hard luck cases. The Minister pointed out that there was an agreement between all the insurance companies which undertook insurance under this Act and himself relating to hit-and-run cases and persons injured as the result of being run into by persons driving motor-cars not insured under the Act. This is a most worthy provision in this Bill, that this agreement which the hon. the Minister indicated was about to lapse should now be part of our law. I think it is in keeping with the spirit of this legislation because it is social legislation. There are many hard luck cases which occur, and one of the aspects to which I wish to draw the Minister’s attention—we will deal with it in more detail at a later stage—is the provision in the Bill that if you are injured as a passenger in a motor car and you are being carried for reward, that injury will not entitle you to claim if that carriage is illegal. That sounds a fair enough provision on the face of it, but originally you could only claim, if you were a passenger in a motor-car, from the driver, or from the insurer of the driver if you were being carried by that driver for reward. I do not know what was intended by the Legislature at that time, but the courts interpreted this provision to mean that, regardless of whether the Road Motor Carrier Transportation Act allowed you to be transported in a certain manner—for example, if you contributed to the cost of your transport; if, for example, you said to the driver of the car, “I shall pay half the cost of the petrol or oil”—it constituted carriage for reward. So you find that rugby teams which travel from Cape Town to Stellenbosch, for example, may travel in four motor-cars owned by four members of the team. The members of the team will obviously say, as they always do: “Of course this is quids in. We shall all pay for the petrol and oil.” That would, at least in some of the provinces, be regarded as carriage for reward. The passengers would be entitled to claim if the driver was negligent and maimed or injured them. If they were killed, their dependants would be able to claim under this Act. No longer is this to be the case because we have now said in this Bill that carriage for reward does not include any carriage which is illegal in terms of the Road Motor Carrier Transportation Act, or in terms of any law. I want to emphasize that there are hard luck cases. If this Bill were to be passed in this form there would be many hard luck cases. Let us take taxis for example. A taxi is the Classic example. The object of including this amendment is to avoid the claims which will arise in respect of pirate taxis. The hon. member for Yeoville said that none of us wanted pirate taxis to be included in this Bill. What is a pirate taxi when you come to consider it? Are not the cars used to convey these rugby players pirate taxis? One can go even further. All I am saying is that there are hard luck cases here. In Natal there is a place called Verulam, which is approximately ten or 11 miles from Durban as the crow flies. All the taxis in Durban and all the taxis in Verulam are registered to operate within a radius of 11 miles from a certain point in each of these two towns. If I get into a taxi in Durban and say, “Take me to Verulam”, and the taxi driver, who is a registered, licensed taxi driver, but is not licensed to take me more than 11 miles out of Durban, has an accident just more than 11 miles from Durban, I have no claim.

You could claim against him.

Yes, but what sort of claim I have against the sort of taxi driver who is prepared to sacrifice his licence for the sake of earning another 50c is of course problematical, as the hon. the Minister appreciates. I am not criticizing the hon. the Minister. This is a matter which was discussed in the Select Committee. I hope that we may be able, during the Committee Stage of this Bill, to find some room for these hard luck cases. The M.I.A., as the hon. the Minister pointed out, provides in its agreement and now in this Bill for those hard luck cases. Some of these people are really hard luck cases and, but for being misled, they would have had a claim. They now will have no claim whatsoever. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give his consideration to this matter.

The hon. member for Yeoville also referred to the extraordinary situation which the evidence given before the Select Committee revealed, namely that 10 per cent of the motor vehicles on our roads in the Republic are not only unlicensed, but uninsured in terms of this Act. It is quite incredible that 10 per cent of our vehicles are uninsured as well as unlicensed, but we are concerned here with their being uninsured. The revenue represented by that 10 per cent is large. That is of course 10 per cent of the hard luck cases that we are going to provide for. Nevertheless, this apparently is the fact.

[Inaudible.]

Yes. I am indebted to my hon. Leader. Ten per cent of the drivers constitute all those hard luck cases for which the hon. the Minister has provided a special fund. The evidence clearly showed that this only came about because, for some reason or other, whether it was manpower shortage, or bad eyesight, or whatever it was, they could not detect which cars did or did not have discs on their windshields. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that when the regulations are published in terms of this Bill, he should provide in those regulations that these discs, instead of being white with red letters on them like the licence discs, be a vivid and different colour from year to year. In other words, it will then be visible at a glance from a hundred yards that a motor car is not registered in terms of this Act this year, because the colour of the discs this year is blue and the colour last year was red. If you therefore see a red disc or only one white disc, you will know that the driver is not licensed. I do not want to say very much more about this Bill. There is very little more I can say about it. I want to say how difficult it would be in any event to start an argument in this House about the various aspects of this Bill, about the various clauses about which there are of course a hundred points of view. We have heard a hundred points of view from our members. We have heard a hundred points of view on the Committee. I want to say to the hon. the Minister in all sincerity that I appreciate the responsibility that he has undertaken under this Bill and that I hope he can make it work. I think the most we can hope for is what the hon. member for Yeoville has said, that this will form the basis for some experience so that, in the fullness of time, we may well find the formula for this very difficult social problem and this very difficult financial problem.

Mr. Speaker, in discussing and reviewing this Act, I think it is necessary that we should first of all inform this House that the Act should be seen in this perspective, namely that third party insurance is not comprehensive insurance. Comprehensive insurance is an entirely different matter. Third party insurance was introduced in South Africa to cover those unfortunate people who were involved in accidents, but never received any compensation in respect of it, because the owners could not afford it. It was introduced originally to provide compensation for the less privileged and the unfortunates. We should not confuse this Act with comprehensive insurance. The hon. member for Durban (North) has referred to the manner in which the chairman acted and linked us together in order to make unanimous decisions possible in that way. We, as a Select Committee, can also tell this House that we enjoyed the wholehearted co-operation and assistance of the Department as such. The members of that Department aided and assisted us, with the greatest diligence and readiness to serve. We are grateful for the assistance they gave. The Select Committee defined seven principles which they desired to combine in this Act. The one principle is to provide protection for the premium payers as far as practically possible—protection firstly against the possibility of their being required to pay that premium more than once or twice. That is the first aspect. The second aspect was to protect those premium payers so that, in the event of insolvency, they would not be held liable for claims that may be instituted, notwithstanding the fact that they had paid their premiums. That was the first principle we tried to comply with. The second principle with which we tried to comply, was to protect the premium payers against the expensive consequences of a possible monopolistic third party insurance scheme, and against a continuous increase in premiums as a result of the elimination of healthy competition. I think this Committee complied with this requirement very well, too. The third principle with which we tried to comply, was to let the insurance companies enjoy the benefit of the healthy economic competitive efficiency they are going to exercise in the work they have to do, so that the company which does this work efficiently, will also enjoy the benefit of that efficiency, and will not be tied to the block of inefficient companies. The fourth principle was to attempt to eliminate the unduly high costs with regard to litigation and the unnecessary usurious profit certain members of the legal and other professions made out of third party insurance. I think the hon. member for Durban (North) also dealt with it partly and showed how we succeeded to a large extent in that respect, too. The fifth principle was to eliminate as far as possible the claims arising from accidents in which pirate taxis are involved, whereby the premiums are being pushed up to an excessive extent. I think we have succeeded in that also, and we have eliminated that shortcoming. The sixth principle with which the Committee tried to comply was to make the application of the Act easier and more realistic. The seventh principle is to give the public, the pedestrian, the widow and orphans of the father of a family who may have been killed in an accident, the maximum benefit and the maximum compensation. The hon. member here next to me asked why there has been this change of mind in respect of a pool system which we favoured last year, but which we no longer have here. I shall try to show the hon. member that we have a better system than the original idea of a pool system. This has arisen because the companies succeeded in satisfying the Select Committee that they have a mutual guarantee among themselves; and because we also succeeded in giving the Minister the necessary means under the regulations, the power to see that the premium income does not simply disappear, this idea of a pool was no longer necessary. To this, of course, there should also be added the other practical possibilities of the application thereof.

Dealing with the first principle, namely, protection for the premium payers against having to pay premiums more than once per annum, I should like to mention a few examples. I shall mention only two examples. I do not wish to take up the time of the House. When we consider that the Johannesburg company became insolvent when there were 100,000 premium payers, and that these 100,000 people again had to pay a full half-year’s premium of R8.00 each, then in respect of that one company alone, the premium payers were robbed of R1,000,000. That is one example of what has happened in the past. The loss as regards the claims that cannot be met, cannot be determined. It may be many millions of rand. I should like to mention a second instance. This is one of the most recent cases, namely, the case of the Yeoman Company. This company also became insolvent. It was one of the small companies. This company had 12,656 Group 1 (e), namely, private motor premium payers, at a tariff of R17.00. Fortunately this insolvency took place only a month before renewals were due. However, had it happened six or eight months before the renewal date, those 12,656 people would have had to pay their premiums again for the whole six or eight months. The same company had 909 premium payers under Group 2 (a)—lorry owners—with a tariff of R24.50. This insurance is valid as from 1 December 1963; in other words, the 909 lorry owners each had to pay R12.25 again. That amounted to R10,911. When one thinks of it, lorry owners are frequently some of the poorest people. They may be earning money by daily transporting milk, for instance, at a low tariff. Then they still had to suffer this loss. They cannot afford this. It should be remembered that this was one of the smallest companies. It should be remembered that when a third-party company becomes insolvent, the claim is recoverable from the public and the owner direct in terms of the Third Party Insurance Act (Section 13). In other words, all these people who pay these premiums, still have to pay these claims in the event of insolvency. Mr. Speaker, I wish to state this clearly. The House of Assembly cannot pass an Act to prevent insolvency. However, having regard to the powers we are now conferring upon the Minister, we can eliminate a recurrence of this loss to the greatest possible extent. In referring to these cases of insolvency, I should like to point out that it is not a great percentage of third party insurance, but third party insurance in S.A. already amounts to R16,000,000 is handled under this scheme. Therefore it is a small percentage, but it frequently involves those people who cannot afford to pay it. The second principle has been mentioned by me already, namely to eliminate the monopoly of high premiums. It was very clear to us that after a Premium Committee and an Advisory Committee have analysed all the statistics and the tabulated information, a recommendation should be made to the Minister so that he may determine a minimum premium. No insurance company may have a premium tariff that is less than that minimum, but those companies which cannot undertake that work at that premium tariff, may apply for a higher tariff. There may be such companies. We may have companies which may say: “We have so much fire insurance, and so much life insurance and other insurance, and the people insured with us already prefer to have their third party insurance with us too, but we are not going to provide it at this low tariff. I wish to charge a higher tariff because my setup differs from that of a company dealing only with third party insurance.” This Act opens the door so that this may well happen. In other words, there will not necessarily be only one premium. There will be a minimum premium, but premiums could also be higher than that minimum premium, provided the Minister approves and publishes it. The possibility also exists that the Premium Committee will see to it that that minimum premium which is instituted is a premium which duly complies with the findings and the calculations made by the actuaries, who will make it a sound premium. In this regard the hon. the Minister and the regulations provide for this—will see to it that the premiums collected in one year are shown in a separate premium account, and that they will not be dealt with together with a whole lot of other things. The claims against these premiums will then be capable of tabulation. They will not be hidden under a whole series of other accounts. It is not necessary to elaborate upon these minimum premiums any further. I have said the companies which, on the basis of these properly controlled statistical data, are the most efficient will necessarily reap the benefit. As I see it, that will be the norm on the basis of which the minimum premiums will be determined. The companies not having that degree of efficiency are the companies who will have to charge more than that minimum premium. The minimum premium will be a safe premium which will prevent insolvency. For that reason provision is made in this Act for an Advisory Committee and a Premium Committee to advise the Minister, and those Committees will be able to check the books and obtain the data of the company so that in that way they will be able to furnish the Minister with the requisite advice. The statistical data the Advisory Committee and the Premium Committee will have, will also be available to the insurance companies. It will be a valuable service to them. According to that information they will in future be able to determine how they may improve their own efficiency. This may ultimately result in cheaper third party insurance schemes. However, this is not a promise we are holding out. We merely trust that it may lead to that. We hope this will come about.

The hon. member for Durban (North) has already referred to the fourth submission I have made, namely to try to eliminate the high costs in connection with litigation. I think he has adequately explained how sixty days have to elapse in connection with a claim that is lodged, and that the claims should be properly determined before litigation can start. I can explain further how we introduce the unemployment insurance so that claims may not be instituted after two years. In other words, we are providing in the first place for a sixty day protection to dispose of all the minor claims and to settle them, so that there will not always be people who think: “Here is an opportunity for me to make money”. The Select Committee even heard evidence that there are actually cases of people who have tried to make a livelihood out of third party insurance claims. For instance, they get hold of a nurse and say to her: “When the ambulance arrives with a patient who has been involved in an accident, you must put my number on the man’s foot-sole so that they may know that he is my patient, or that he is the person whom I as an attorney have to protect.” This person then acts on behalf of the man involved in the accident who may be a stranger to him, as the attorney who has to institute an action on his behalf. The person involved in the accident would perhaps never even have used an attorney. He and the company would have settled the matter easily. These people are there to canvass the patients and clients. In this Act we are trying to eliminate that.

I should like to deal with the fifth principle for a while. Here we are trying to protect the M.I.A. fund—and if it is no longer in existence, the fund the Minister will create. We propose to effect this by trying to eliminate the pirate taxis, as they are generally known. It should be remembered—I think the hon. member for Durban (North) has said so too—that the court has held that people who used this illegal transport in the past, could in fact institute a claim. What is the actual position? Do you know that the premium for a bus is R360 per annum? The premium for a taxi is R58 per annum, but the premium for an ordinary motor car is only R17 per annum. There are hundreds of cases of ordinary motor cars which carry only an ordinary premium, and many which do not carry any premium at all, yet act as pirate taxis. In the mornings these cars are filled up with passengers. Frequently it incidentally is the poorest type of car—motor cars which are not even roadworthy. They are frequently the old dilapidated motors. They frequently come from the Native residential areas. Instead of the employees travelling on the properly controlled buses or suburban trains, these pirate taxis are filled. When such a motor vehicle is involved in an accident, they say they are paying passengers. This will now be eliminated. It is a great pity that we have to take measures against these people—people who actually began to drain the fund. There are certain cases referred to by the hon. member for Durban (North) as hard luck cases—the unfortunate border-line cases. It is a pity there are such cases, but the Select Committee was faced with the problem that a line had to be drawn somewhere. That line had to be drawn in such a way that the pirate taxis would be eliminated finally, particularly when one considers that they are competing illegally with the buses which have to pay a premium of R360, and with the taxis paying a premium of R58. They merely pay a premium of R17, and frequently nothing at all.

What is the ratio between those vehicles draining the fund in an unlawful manner, and the lawful vehicles?

That is an interesting question. The Select Committee could not consider any ratios because there has never been an Advisory Committee, the requisite statistics have never been kept, and every insurance company simply carried on its own insurance work and nobody could submit to this Select Committee any figures worth mentioning. That is why I am very pleased that the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Durban (North) referred to the opportunity offered here for experimenting with regard to third-party insurance on a scientific basis. For that reason the Select Committee regarded it as being so essential to have an Advisory Committee to see to it that that Advisory Committee will collect the requisite tabulated statistics, and will compile them in such a manner that it will be something worth working on in the future. The hon. member need only watch the reports of court cases, and he will see how many prosecutions are instituted in respect of pirate taxis. Then he will see also how many claims are instituted, for which M.I.A. funds are used in respect of hit and run accidents. We have tried to close all the loopholes we could possibly close in order to provide that protection.

Now I come to the sixth point. It is the practical application of this Act, and how to facilitate the application thereof. For this purpose the Act provides for an inspectorate. This inspectorate will be entrusted with various duties. In the first place it will have the task of seeing to it that the 10 per cent uninsured and unlicensed motors are eliminated to a large extent. I rather like the idea of the hon. member for Durban (North), namely that provision should be made in the regulations for the token on the windshield to be different from year to year so that one can at once see at a distance of 200 to 300 paces whether the token on the car is of the proper colour. The Act has been framed to provide protection for the man who pays his insurance premium honestly, so that he may pay the minimum and so that he should not have to put up with the other parasites which exhaust the funds. This is one of the functions of the inspectorate. The inspectorate, the Advisory Committee and the Premium Committee are the three factors that will facilitate the application of this Act in all its aspects, and who will assist the Minister in this connection. I am not going to refer to the fund the Minister may institute. I think the hon. the Minister has done so already.

I should like to deal with the seventh aspect, which to me is an important aspect. I said at the outset that third party insurance has not been instituted in order to protect a motor vehicle. It has not been introduced to protect the driver or the owner of a motor vehicle. Third party insurance was introduced in order to give the unfortunate pedestrian, the widow and the orphans of that father who was a breadwinner and who has been killed, the maximum protection or the maximum compensation or the maximum care or the maximum assistance. Just think of a poor family of five or six children who are living from hand to mouth. The whole family is dependent on the daily wage earned by the father. Suddenly he is killed and the driver of the car which has killed him cannot afford to pay one penny compensation. He may still owe the full purchase price of the car. Unless he is insured, that family is left destitute; there is nobody to look after them. This Act is a social Act which provides for that case. This Act sees to it that we do not simply load those people on to the shoulders of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. We are now creating a proper scheme to which the more affluent people, the more fortunate people, the motor vehicle owners, contribute in order to make the future of those unfortunate people at least bearable. To me that is one of the important aspects. In order to do so effectively, Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to close all the gaps and to drag in the 10 per cent also to whom reference has been made, who have never taken out licences. It is necessary also to see to it that the insurance companies doing this work do it on a proper basis, remain solvent, and receive remuneration for their work without having to exploit the premium payers. Thirdly, the Act has to see to it that those funds should not just disappear, as they have done in the past, and when claims are lodged, there is no money to pay out to these people.

I am pleased to be able to say that the Select Committee also thought fit to eliminate certain agricultural implements which formerly were compelled by law to carry third-party insurance. This Act provides that agricultural implements not used for the carriage of passengers, need not carry compulsory third-party insurance. This has become necessary. Many of the farms in this country are traversed by two or three or more roads, and it is necessary for the farmers to transport their implements over the road, sometimes for quite a distance, in order to do their work. We now provide that those people need not take out third-party insurance on those implements.

Mr. Speaker. I think there is one aspect we have to consider and that is that we are saddling the hon. the Minister with very much greater responsibility than he had in the past in connection with third-party insurance. We are placing upon his shoulders the responsibility, on the advice of his premium committee, to determine the premium. He is responsible for that. To a large extent we burden him with the responsibility to take protective measures, after the Registrar of Financial Institutions has registered a company as one which may continue, to see to it that that company complies with certain requirements before they may transact third-party insurance business. Having placed that responsibility upon the shoulders of the hon. the Minister, we are now giving him an Act in terms of which he will in future be able to conduct his experiment scientifically for the first time. I think this is the proper time too to make an appeal to the public to give their wholehearted co-operation in order to make a success of this experiment. My appeal is that the public should try to be more road conscious and to have fewer accidents. We must train the person not to turn to the right first before he turns to the left, in order to make a wide turn. Surely he is no longer driving a wagon which requires a wide turn. When we look at all these beautiful roads in Cape Town, the feeder roads, the fly-over roads, etc. then we realize that the Provincial Administration and the National Transport Commission already are aware of the correct manner of providing road junctions in order to achieve the greatest degree of safety. [Time limit.]

I do not think it can be denied that the question of third-party compulsory insurance has been very much in the public eye in recent years and quite rightly so. Sir. The problem with which the Select Committee had to contend, was to find a basis that would be fair, firstly, to the vehicle owner, secondly, to the injured party in an accident and his dependants and, thirdly, to the insurance companies who are compelled to do this business. I emphasize the word “compelled” because we must realize that this is a compulsory social measure, and as such all insurance companies are obliged to carry out this business, if they are prepared to comply with the requirements of the Minister of Transport. That then was the problem of the Select Committee, but the responsibility of the Select Committee was to secure the premium income paid in by motorists and, secondly, to obtain for the motorist the lowest possible premium. In other words, its responsibility was to obtain the lowest cost for the greatest protection to the motorist.

When we refer to protection, we are acutely aware of the thousands of motorists who were left without cover and had to reinsure, at their own expense, when companies went into liquidation. It is not only the question of having to reinsure that is the great problem when companies go into liquidation; it is the tragedy of the unpaid claims which are left in the wake of a company going into liquidation. In that regard. I believe it would be interesting for this House to know that in the case of one single company which went into liquidation and which was handling approximately 15 per cent of the premium income of the Republic (that is roughly R3,000,000 per annum) the unpaid claims against this company, over a period of three years, amounted to over R7,000,000. That was the responsibility as well as the obligation with which the Select Committee was confronted. It was an urgent and important problem, because in addition to the financial security of the motorist, the toll of life and limb, apart from the waste of valuable machinery and time which accidents on our roads are causing, there is the inevitable result of increased premiums.

I think it would interest the House to know that, from evidence given to the Select Committee, 3,006 people were killed on our roads in 1961 whilst 39,231 were injured. Since then those figures have unfortunately been stepped up considerably. The collapse of six of the registered companies doing third party business during the last three years involved a loss to the public of approximately R12,000,000. It will be interesting for the House and the country to know that, when we are dealing with accident figures, approximately 50 per cent of the vehicles on our roads are driven by non-Whites. I should like to make it clear that I am not suggesting that 50 per cent of the vehicles are owned by non-Whites. As far as commercial vehicles are concerned, most of them are in the hands of Bantu. As time goes on these people are going to possess and control still more motor vehicles, and I am satisfied the problem is going to become more serious.

Reference was made by the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) to the position in New Zealand, and that this Select Committee was asked to make a comparison with compulsory third party in New Zealand. I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister the fact that we found it impossible to try to compare the situation in New Zealand with that in South Africa. The Republic of South Africa is approximately eight times the size of New Zealand. We have a vast countryside and miles and miles of road, whereas New Zealand has nothing of this magnitude. The whole of New Zealand is approximately the size of the Transvaal. New Zealand has a population of 2,500,000 and 800,000 vehicles. We have a population of 16.000,000 with 1,250,000 vehicles. So it was not possible for us on the Select Committee to take the New Zealand situation as a comparable basis.

Reference has been made by the hon. the Minister to the alternative that faced the Select Committee, namely, the possibility that a State-controlled public utility company should take over this particular sphere of business. I should like to tell the House that there was no evidence given to the Select Committee by anybody whatsoever suggesting that this would be a suitable alternative to what we were considering. If I remember correctly, I think we only had one memorandum from a private individual suggesting this particular alternative. What was however of interest was the consideration that could have been given to an alternative in the form of a tax on petrol in order to make up for insurance premiums. That suggestion too was not submitted by any responsible organization or body, and therefore it was not necessary for us as a Select Committee to give consideration to it.

Reference has been made to “hit-and-run” cases and other instances of people being injured by uninsured cars. It would be interesting to disclose that in 1962, 411 claims were reported to a voluntary body which has taken over the responsibility—on a voluntary basis I wish to emphasize—for payment to people injured by uninsured cars or payment to people injured as a result of “hit-and-run” cases. In respect of these 411 claims this organization paid out approximately R350,000. The outstanding claims, at the time this information was given to us, came to approximately R615,000. The total paid out since the inception of this purely voluntary body of insurance companies who came together, as a social measure, to protect the innocent person who was injured under these circumstances, was R1,333,333. This House owes a debt of gratitude to these public-spirited men who were prepared to accept the responsibility which did not legally fall upon their shoulders.

When one refers to insurance premiums, and the spiralling costs, one is impressed by the evidence submitted to the Select Committee, that approximately 87 per cent of all premium income received by an insurance company was paid out in claims. This means that only 13 per cent is left to the insurance company to cover all its overhead expenses and so on. The courts in South Africa have set a very high standard for payment of claims. I am informed that it is amongst the highest in the world, and something of which this country can justly be proud. Something, however, we cannot be proud of is the fact that we have one of the highest accident rates in the world. We were the highest until recently, but the United States of America has now taken that unenviable record away from us. That is something which, in my opinion, unless stopped at an early stage, is going to be responsible for a still higher premium, as the years go by. It has been the experience of all other countries in the world, where this type of compulsory motor vehicle insurance is in existence, that premiums are increasing year by year. In that regard the Minister has a very onerous responsibility to try to combat the continuing increase in premiums.

Mention has been made in this debate of the fact that approximately 10 per cent of all the vehicles on the road are neither insured nor licensed. What is as worrying, if not more worrying, is the fact that five out of nine motor vehicles are not insured under comprehensive insurance. That is a voluntary insurance; there is nothing to compel the motorist to take out that type of insurance. It is a worrying feature that, as third party insurance premiums increase, we find a decrease in the number of motorists who are insured under comprehensive insurance.

The inauguration of an Insurance Advisory Council, as recommended in this Bill, will be a very useful body indeed. It is going to serve a very practical and necessary function in the insurance world. It will be the first time that the Minister and his Department will be able to have direct access to third party insurance statistics. It will also give the Minister the opportunity of ordering the inspection of books of insurance companies and of calling for guarantees of solvency of any particular company doing third party insurance. I would like to recommend to the hon. the Minister a feature which was not recommended by the Select Committee. That is the necessity, in my opinion, of insisting that all cars on the road should have road-worthy certificates when they are more or less five or seven years old. They follow this system in the United Kingdom. It is a feature which the Select Committee did not feel obliged to incorporate in this legislation, but it is one which I strongly recommend to the Minister as something which is necessary and justifiable.

Another aspect that I should like to commend to the hon. the Minister, and one about which I felt particularly strong in the Select Committee, is that no licence should be issued by the licensing authorities, unless the motorist produces proof of payment of his third party insurance premium. I am not suggesting that simultaneous payment should be compulsory in respect of insurance and licence—I do not think that would be wise because of the additional financial strain that would place on the motorist. I do however think that this Bill could possibly be improved by making it a condition of the issue of a licence that the third party insurance premium has been paid. I do not believe it will greatly inconvenience the public. In effect, it will just compel them to keep their third party insurance receipts for at least two months before they pay their licences. In that way we shall be killing two birds with one stone. We shall at least make sure that a car is insured before it can be licensed. I know it will involve a change in the dates of payment of licence and insurances, but that is not an insurmountable problem.

Reference has been made to the high costs involved in settlement of claims. But it is not only the question of the high costs what we have to consider, but the long delays in settling claims. This is a most worrying and irritating aspect to the motoring public, and their dependants, in the case of the death of the motorist. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that consideration be given to the establishment of “special courts” to hear all third party insurance cases.

I cannot do that

It is a suggestion the hon. the Minister may recommend to his colleague, the Minister of Justice. I think if he did make that recommendation, the hon. the Minister of Justice would give attention to it. We know of cases—and evidence in this regard was submitted to the Select Committee—where a period as long as three years had elapsed, before a third party insurance claim was paid out. As a matter of fact, in one case payment was made to the widow after she had also died! The money had consequently to be paid into two estates!

The Select Committee, in its wisdom or otherwise, turned down a recommendation that no inducements should be allowed to any insurance company to attract third party insurance business. I feel strongly on this matter. My colleague from Parktown (Mr. Emdin) and I, voted in the minority in this regard. We feel that unless the Minister is prepared to give consideration to the exclusion of any form of inducement being offered by third party insurance companies, you run the risk of having a repetition of many of the unfavourable features which came into third party business in recent years. I should like the hon. the Minister to give this particular matter most serious consideration. It may sound a small matter but, just as a loophole was found whereby lower than normal third party insurance premiums were able to be charged, different tactics can be resorted to in the form of inducements in order to attract business. In the process, increases in the premium cost and administration of companies may result.

In discussing third party insurance with the man in the street, one is struck by the fact that he knows so little of what his rights and privileges are under third party insurance. You cannot blame him, because he is not informed what he is entitled to or what contract he has taken on with the insurance company concerned. When you enter into an insurance contract with a life insurance company or with a fire insurance company, you are given a copy of your contract. You are able to study all your rights, privileges and your obligations usually printed on the back of the contract That however is not the position in the case of third party insurance. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that, on the back of third party insurance receipts, the most important rights and privileges accorded to the motorist should be recorded in a concise and pithy way. I do not think it is something which is impossible of fulfilment. It will make the public much more aware of the rights to which they are entitled, especially as the State is criticized for making this a compulsory type of insurance.

I wish to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Wakkerstroom when he made an appeal that this House should combat touting by doctors and solicitors in the case of third party insurance victims. That is a practice of a very serious nature indeed. I know it has occupied the attention of the Minister’s Department. It is necessary that we in this House should give a warning to those persons, who are carrying on these malpractices, that they must cease and that they will be penalized if they carry on. The Minister should insist that the necessary steps are taken in order that this unsatisfactory feature is eliminated completely. In that regard I wish to refer to a judgment of Justice Theron on the 3rd of May, 1963, when he ended his judgment as follows—

I think we can leave it to the hon. the Minister—in view of the wide powers the Select Committee has given to him—to take the necessary action to overcome this problem.

I have dealt in brief outline with what the Select Committee felt were the more important features and the most necessary aspects for protecting the public. Although I am prepared to say that I do not think we have found the perfect answer to all the problems, I think we have produced a Bill which will show the direction for future generations to handle this particular problem. I do hope that this House will apply itself most devoutely, in the Committee Stage, to suggest any alternatives and improvements to this particular Bill.

I do not propose to keep the House long, but I should like to associate myself with the tributes paid to the Chairman of the Select Committee in connection with this Bill. He frequently guided us through turbulent waters, with the result that a very pleasant spirit prevailed in our meetings at all times. Right from the outset the Committee was fully alive to the seriousness of the circumstances that have arisen as a result of the fact that five or six companies who had transacted third party insurance became insolvent. Thousands of people suddenly found themselves no longer covered by insurance and they had to re-insure. This matter was of primary importance to the Committee from the beginning. In consequence of that, we always gave priority to the consideration of the best way to protect the public and to prevent something like this recurring in future. Prolonged discussions took place and various methods were investigated thoroughly. Various solutions were considered and ultimately it became clear to us that unless an out and out State scheme were to be established, it was imperative that provision be made to see to it that all companies who enter the field of third party insurance, should furnish adequate security. In order to achieve this, power is given to the Minister in this Bill to make regulations whereby he may compel a company to register; regulations whereby he may compel a company to furnish the requisite guarantee for the payment of claims to the satisfaction of the Minister. In order to prevent a company from using premium moneys for other purposes—in the past we had the position that companies were found to have used third party premium income to pay fire insurance claims—the Minister may also make regulations to prevent these malpractices. He may even go so far as to control the administration and investments of these funds, as well as the interest collected. Furthermore the Minister may call for the production of the books of any company in order to ascertain whether the company is managing its affairs properly. With these and similar measures we hope the public will in future be secured to the fullest extent, and that the recurrence of exploitation will be prevented.

Having made provision for this guarantee, the Select Committee felt that the matter could safely be left in the hands of private enterprise. We pursue the policy of giving private enterprise an opportunity to do business in this country, and we believe that the insurance companies and their various agents will appreciate this attitude and will see to it that the public are given the best services at the lowest tariffs. Another aspect which received due attention was the question whether the cost could be reduced to such an extent that it would be possible to reduce the insurance premiums. Many proposals for achieving this object were considered; amongst other things, consideration was given to the methods in vogue in New Zealand. Consideration was given to the suggestion that the collection of premiums should be left not to agents, or to the companies, but to the Post Office and magistrates’ courts and municipal offices, in an attempt to reduce expenditure in this way. However, it was found that such methods would not produce the desired results, and might only open the door to abuse. The idea was also canvassed to have simultaneous payment of licence and insurance moneys on the same date, and it was felt that this might lead to a saving of time, work, paper and printing costs and that in this way the expenses could be reduced. However, there the danger was realized that if licence moneys and the insurance premiums were to be payable on the same date, it would mean an excessive sum of money, a sum that a very large section of the public might not be able to afford, or at least would prove to be an embarrassment to a large section of the public, and in that way it might then happen that a very much larger number of uninsured cars would be on the roads. In my personal view it is fairly unlikely, although not impossible, that there will be a reduction in premiums. This seems to be the considered opinion of all those who have gone into the matter that unless the number of accidents on the roads is reduced, the costs will continue to rise. I just want to quote some figures in connection with accidents on the roads—

If we consider these figures for a moment, I think it is clear that the possibility of a reduction in costs is very remote. I should like to point out also, in passing, what the value of advisory committee and the premium committee can be. I submit that the two committees will be able to play an exceptionally valuable and important role in this respect. Having regard to the special experience and the collection of statistics which we never had before (statistics were never kept), I believe that in course of time a true picture, based on scientific data, will be formed and these committees will be able to give the hon. the Minister scientific and valuable advice.

Whereas in the past the premiums were fixed by the various companies, and it was the duty of the hon. the Minister only to announce the premiums, it is provided now that the Minister will have the final say; that having received the advice of these committees, he must fix the premiums. The hon. the Minister may perhaps find it a little more difficult than in the past, but I believe that the fact that the Minister will now control the matter, will give rise to very great public satisfaction, and I am convinced that there will be a new confidence in this third party insurance Act, and that from all quarters it may be expected that there will be greater co-operation in this connection.

Referring to the arguments advanced in connection with this piece of legislation, one cannot help but be complimentary that the case has been covered as well as it has been. Undoubtedly the legislation will do a great deal to bring about that which the public is expecting, which is to give them protection in the case of accidents. I do not think there is any question at all that the Bill will do what the Minister intends it to do. I was, however, interested to hear the chairman of the Select Committee make mention of the fact that although he was not certain that this Bill would be completely successful, because no legislation ever is, he wanted to make a few remarks about whether or not third party insurance should be a function of the Government, as a social measure. I was very interested in that, because, although, in this country we all advocate private enterprise, one cannot help but wonder whether in dealing with a matter of this kind it should not be a function of the State. Knowing the attitude of insurance companies in regard to third party insurance, is it not possible that the insurance companies themselves might not come back and suggest that this piece of legislation should be dealt with as a social measure? The problem is a social problem. The concern of most people is in the fact, that, although there is a greater number of vehicles on the roads, and the number is increasing every day, the premiums for this particular class of insurance are steadily rising. I can say without any fear of contradiction, Mr. Speaker, that the experience of insurance companies, over many years, has shown that they are not very keen on this class of insurance. I have been surprised that they have been able—I take it in a spirit of goodwill—in order to try and do something, to get together and try to produce something which would be of benefit to the nation as a whole. I believe that the hon. the Minister who is already busy with the unification, one might say, or the bringing about of uniformity in the traffic laws in the provinces, and who has sponsored this piece of legislation, will concern himself with the cause and causes as to why this legislation is necessary, not so much for the protection of the public, but as to what is happening to them. We hear that the hit- and-run merchant, has been getting away with it, to the detriment and sad loss of the victims. I wonder if a little education of the public might not be introduced, I rather liked the point made by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) who suggested a document for third party insurance. Because I have dealt with this particular aspect in the sale of motorvehicles, I might be able to make a suggestion which I think will be of some use: When a new vehicle is sold, it usually carries a book showing the service and the guarantee that go with the vehicle. To-day reputable firms in this country—and there is a great number of them—also give a written guarantee in connection with used vehicles which are sold. A number of, shall I say, sales promotion ideas are advanced at the time of the sale, owners are given log-books, coupons and all sorts of instructions. In the case of new vehicles there is a transparent flimsy on the windscreen telling the owner how to treat the engine. I believe that it should be a standard practice at the time of delivery, for the individual, who is insuring under third party, to get something in writing, and it should be brief. The ordinary insurance that goes with a motor-vehicle, that is the general insurance, has got a very nice policy, giving in big print the benefits and in small print the disabilities. I think it is a matter of educating the public into realizing what should be done under third party insurance in the event of accidents and loss of life. I throw out this suggestion to the hon. the Minister in the hope that he will give very serious consideration to it. The small token, which is gummed onto the windscreen, is all the individual gets. When I think of the lower income group, the poorer people who find themselves involved in accidents, I realize that in most cases they do not know what to do. Then we get the conditions which were explained by other speakers this evening. There is another very serious problem which we, in this country, are failing to tackle and that is the road-worthiness of cars. Anyone who handles vehicles knows, that as far as the road-worthy certificate is concerned, there are numbers of vehicles on the roads which are in very bad need of repair to put them in a road-worthy condition. In other parts of the world they have examinations. This angle has been propagated before, but because of the difficulty in the rural areas, which I do not think is valid any longer, it has not been pressed. I would say that the correct way to deal with road-worthy certificates is not to try and fix on one day in the year, but rather on the anniversary of the date when the licence was originally issued, on its birthday so to speak, once a year, at least. Every vehicle should be inspected at a suitable place, as is done in other parts of the world, and examined for road-worthiness, in order to ensure that it is in a fit state to be on the road. It is a simple thing to do and if it is done in a proper way it can be cheap, or low-priced. It need not be irksome. It is, however, one thing that really needs attention because there are vehicles that go on year after year. When some cars become involved in an accident, one says “Well look at this vehicle and see what it looks like!”. Furthermore there is a great deal of fallacious theory propagated in the name of safety belts. Safety belts might stop an occupant from going through the windscreen, but his neck is broken just as effectively because the belt holds the passenger fast and his head goes on. That is just the difference. It is a fact. When one investigates motor accidents one finds numbers of people with broken necks and many with bashed in faces. You will find that when a motor-vehicle comes to a sudden stop at high speed, no safety belt or anything else will prevent occupants from being killed. The psychological effect is quite evident in aircraft where everybody puts a safety belt around his middle and thinks: Well, now everything is fine. In actual fact when an aircraft comes unstuck, the seat, the belt, the passenger, the lot, goes up front and very quickly too.

These matters are matters which should be dealt with at the appropriate time. Because we are legislating here this evening, I think that we ought to get down to the real causes of the necessity for this legislation. One has only to look at the long straight roads which we are building, the high speed at which cars are travelling. The roads are so narrow that when vehicles pass each other at 70, 80, and even 90 miles an hour, one can feel the draught when they pass. One has only to look at the accident rates and see the sites where these accidents take place to discover what can happen on perfectly straight roads. There was a picture in the paper the other day which was an eye-opener, and one wonders how these things happen. I would say it is a matter of educating the public. The cost of licenses and insurances for motor-vehicles to-day, which are no longer luxuries but are now necessities, particularly for people who are moved away from the centre of the towns, long distances, to go to and from work, becomes a very serious and an onerous business.

One other point I would like to ventilate is that in the built-up urban areas one sees large numbers of accidents taking place. Third party risks are involved. The reason is that one finds a great deal of weaving, and passing from one lane to another without let or hindrance. It is my considered opinion that the time has come when we should look into this matter and fix minimum speeds on certain lanes. The driver who dawdles along the highway, and there are many of them around Cape Town where you have some beautiful roads indeed, is as big a menace as the individual who drives recklessly and at great speed. I saw some statistics compiled in the United States, where the figures were broken down. I do not propose to quote percentage figures, because I do not think anybody can do that. The astonishing thing is that the causes of accidents, which everybody speaks about so glibly, are not borne out by facts. High speed is not the killer. It is sometimes the very low speed, the dawdler, who creates the conditions under which accidents occur. People in Cape Town must know while driving on the roads and travelling on them every day how many people there are who cannot even drive on a five-lane highway without hitting their neighbour or going over the embankment, turning the car over and causing an accident. Here we have a good piece of legislation and the Minister is giving himself an onerous task to administer it. We would like to wish him luck with it. I think the Select Committee did a good job. The evidence makes interesting reading. I suggest that the time has come when we ought to consider whether or not a campaign for the education of the public should be launched.

I am glad that this Bill has received such general approval. It is a Bill which is the product of members on both sides of the House, Therefore when this Bill is put on the Statute Book it will be an Act of Parliament as a whole in the true sense of the word. I quite agree that the Select Committee has placed great responsibilities on the shoulders of the Minister. In fact, to a large extent they have given the Minister of Transport the work of the Registrar of Financial Institutions. It also means that additional work has been put on to my Department, and it is very important work and a very great responsibility. I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville that this Bill will be somewhat in the nature of an experiment. Quite a number of new principles are contained in it, and very important principles. None of us can to-day say that it will be effective. Nobody can say that it will solve all the problems or, what is even more important, that it will afford general satisfaction. As one hon. member correctly stated, in so far as the public in general are concerned, they are concerned with only one thing, the premiums, and the higher the premiums are, the more dissatisfied they are. If the public expect insurance premiums to be considerably reduced as the result of the passing of this Bill, I am afraid, and I think the Select Committee will agree with me, that this will not happen. I am convinced that if these provisions are applied they will perhaps reduce the cost of third party insurance, but I do not think that premiums will be reduced appreciably. I think there is only one thing which will reduce premiums, and that is to have fewer accidents on our roads, and unless the number of accidents decreases (and the public should realize this), there is very little chance of premiums being appreciably reduced.

The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) really spoke about road safety. That is a matter which has repeatedly been discussed here and one in regard to which we all feel very concerned. Many serious attempts are being made to reduce the slaughter on our roads.

I do not really want to make amendments to this Bill. As has been said, it is the product of two years’ work. The Select Committee sat for two years; they heard all the evidence and considered everything possible and investigated everything, and I do not think it behoves any other hon. member who was not in the position to deal with this matter over a period of two years and to hear the evidence now to move amendments. We must just wait and see how the Act works and if there are defects there will be an opportunity next Session to make the necessary amendments.

Certain suggestions were made here which can be dealt with administratively, and which I think have quite a lot of substance. One was, for example, made by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. Mitchell), viz. that the insurance disc should have a different colour every year, so that one can immediately see whether it is the disc for the current year. I think that is a sound suggestion and it can be considered. The other suggestion he made was not a sound one. That was when he referred to the hard luck cases. I think that the provision in the Bill is a sound one, in other words, that any passengers in a motor car which is not entitled to convey passengers in terms of the Motor Transportation Act will now be excluded from the coverage of the insurance. What the hon. member really proposed was “that we must condone illegality”. I do not think that was his real intention. That was the position in the past, and I am very glad that it has now been changed in this Bill. I do not think that was a good suggestion which the hon. member made.

The hon. member for Yeoville expressed his concern about the number of motor cars which are not insured and asked what was the reason for that. There is only one reason, and that is the application of the law. When they talk about a shortage of manpower, the position is simply that the police themselves are not able to take action. As hon. members know, they set up a road block once in a while and investigate motor cars, perhaps once a year. Usually it is only when an accident has taken place that it is discovered that the car was not insured. It is not only that 10 per cent of the cars are not insured, but 10 per cent are not licensed either. The Select Committee has made provision in that regard, namely that certain powers are given to road inspectors, i.e. the road inspectors appointed in terms of the Motor Transportation Act, and they will now also be entrusted with the task of seeing that cars are insured. Perhaps that will help to reduce the large number of uninsured cars.

The hon. member for Springs asked whether provision could not be made for all cars to have roadworthy certificates before they were licensed. As he correctly stated, this matter was discussed by the Select Committee, and many sound reasons were advanced as to why that could not be done. Nor do I think that it is practicable at this stage to insert such a provision in the Act, that every car should display its roadworthy certificate. But then there is another very good reason, namely that it has been generally proved that the number of accidents which take place as the result of mechanical defects is minimal. That is not the main reason for the numerous accidents. It is not that the vehicles are not roadworthy but, as I have said on a former occasion, 90 per cent of the accidents are due to human fallibility, which has nothing to do with mechanical defects. Therefore a roadworthy certificate will not do much to reduce the number of accidents. It may help to reduce the accidents slightly, but it will have no appreciable effect. Then the hon. member also suggested that no licence should be issued until the applicant can produce a certificate showing that he has taken out his third party insurance. That is also a matter which was discussed by the Select Committee, but was not accepted by them for many good reasons.

I repeat that I do not think we should now start tampering with this Bill. I could also propose quite a number of amendments, but I thought that we now have here a joint product in regard to which unanimity existed, and let us accept it as an experiment and see how it works. If defects come to light in the months that lie ahead, we can always amend it later. Let us first give the Act a fair chance, in the form it was proposed by the Select Committee.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.