laid upon the Table the Third and Fourth Reports of the Select Committee on the Constitution, 1983, reporting that the Committee had been unable to complete its inquiry into the Orderly Movement and Settlement of Black Persons Bill [B 113—82].

Report and proceedings to be printed.

Mr Chairman the hon member for Hillbrow yesterday moved certain amendments which stood in my name on the Order Paper; so I need not move them again. In the process he amended the second amendment which stood in my name, by including the words “a descendant of such a descendant” instead of inserting paragraphs (b) and (c). I now wish to move the amendments to the clause printed in the name of the hon member prof Olivier on page 34 of the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 4. On page 69, after line 32, to insert:
   1. (b) a descendant of a person contemplated in paragraph (a), including a descendant of a person who is or was a former South African citizen who is or became a citizen of a state, the territory or part of the territory of which formerly formed part of the Republic, provided such descendant falls in the category of persons mentioned in section 10(1)(a) or (b) of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945 (Act No 25 of 1945),
2. 5. On page 69, in line 37, after “(a)” to insert “, or (b) or a descendant of such a descendant—”.

As you will notice, Sir, amendment No 5 printed in the name of the hon member prof Olivier has been amended in the same way as the hon member for Hillbrow has amended my second amendment. This sound all complicated, Sir, but this is indeed a complicated subject. It deals with the right of a person to inherit a 99-year leasehold from someone who has died. We want to broaden the whole aspect in order to make it possible for the descendants of someone who had a 99-year leasehold to inherit in perpetuity. As the Bill now stands it is only first generation descendants who will be able to inherit that leasehold and then only if he was born before the independence of a state which subsequently became independent. We believe that the right to inherit shall not in any way be limited to persons who are able to inherit because they were born before the state concerned became independent. We say that also the descendant of such a descendant should be able to inherit—in perpetuity. This whole matter is very complicated through the inclusion of people born after the acquisition of independence of Bophuthatswana, Venda, Transkei and the Ciskei. Such persons have lost not only their South African citizenship, but also the rights which they held under section 10(1) of the Urban Areas Act. Those rights were guaranteed to all persons alive at the time of the passing of independence. It was guaranteed by section 6 of the independence Acts relating to the territories.

This, briefly, is what we want to do. We cannot accept the fact that anyone who is born after independence should be disqualified from inheriting the right of leasehold from persons who had South African citizenship at the time their homeland attained independence.

Mr Chairman, I should like to feal first with the amendment moved by the hon member for Houghton in her own name. I am sorry, but I am unable to accept the amendment for the simple reason that it is so wide and so vague that it would be extremely irresponsible …

Are you talking about my first amendment?

Yes. It would be irresponsible of me to accept the amendment because it could then be so widely interpreted that one could drive a wagon and oxen through it.

*The phrase “reputed wife” is too wide and could give rise to such abuse that I really do not see my way clear to accepting this amendment. I am supported in my opinion by the law advisers of the department as well as the State law advisers. I am unable to accept the second amendment of the hon member for the same reason. It is merely consequential to the first amendment she moved.

Mr Chairman, if I were to withdraw the first amendment, it would remain a wife married by civil rights or a customary marriage wife. I am quite happy to withdraw my first amendment if that would cause the hon the Deputy Minister to change his mind about accepting the descendant of a person.

Mr Chairman, let us have clarity as to what I have just been discussing. I discussed the amendment moved by the hon member in her own name and I have not yet dealt with the amendment moved by the hon member on behalf of the hon member prof Olivier. If the hon member prefers me to deal with the amendment of the hon member prof Olivier at the same time, I shall gladly do so.

This amendment implies the granting of leasehold to a new group of Blacks, and this consequently constitutes an extension of the clause as agreed to by the select committee. According to the law advisers of the department as well as the State law advisers this is not acceptable. However, I have sympathy with what was said by the hon member.

†I realize her difficulty. We will negotiate with the TBVC countries about this matter in due course. As the hon member has intimated, this is a very complicated matter. It is not something we can thrash out over the floor of the House.

*In any event, it should be pointed out that the legal position of descendants of TBVC citizens, at present dealt with in terms of section 12 of Act No 25 of 1945, is shortly to be considered by the select committee when it discusses the third Bill of the proposed trilogy. Consequently I shall be very pleased if the hon member would leave the matter at that as this is really not a matter which we can fruitfully debate across the floor of this House. We are sympathetic towards her point of view, or rather that of the hon member Prof Olivier, but this is a very involved subject.

Now I should like to deal with the amendment of the hon member for Hillbrow. A dissolution as contemplated by the hon member for Hillbrow and the consequential passing of a leasehold to a woman who has divorced or whose customary union has been dissolved, can be accommodated on ad hoc basis. Such cases will be accommodated on an ad hoc basis. The amendment as moved by the hon member once again amounts to an extension of what was decided by the select committee. My advice from the law advisers is that we cannot accept it for that reason.

Mr Chairman, can I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether by accepting this on an ad hoc basis, will that happen by way of regulation or will that be by means of instructions to the administrators handling the leasehold, in other words, through development boards and local authorities. What legality will the ad hoc basis have?

Mr Chairman, this will be brought to the attention of the various people concerned. This ad hoc accommodation will be at the discretion of the Minister. I do not think you can lay that down in either regulation or in the Act.

When one reaches a settlement in a court of law, will the settlement be binding on the department? Can it in other words, be carried out? That is where the test is. The courts, lawyers and people handling these cases will want to know whether it is competent for the court to make such an order.

If the court makes such an order it does away with the discretion of the Minister and we will then have to abide by the decision of the court.

Mr Chairman, I would like to get clarity on the matter which was raised regarding the descendant. I accept that it is a complicated matter which will be dealt with in other legislation, but I want to be absolutely clear as far as this Bill is concerned.

This Bill refers to a “descendant” in paragraph (a), in other words a person with section 10 rights. As I understand English, “descendant” is not limited to the first generation. You are a descendant to the father, the son and the son of the son, right through. Regarding this legislation I would like to get clarity because …

Section 12 of Act 25 of 1945 limits it. Clause 52(2) says it is not a Black referred to in section 12(1) of the Black (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act. That is the limiting factor.

Yes, of another Act, but this Bill talks of a descendant of a person.

What I want to clarify, is that a descendant continues to be a descendant into the second and third generation, but not in terms of Act 25 of 1945. I want to establish what this clause provides and not what Act 25 of 1945 does. If this latter Act was not there, would “descendant” be limited in terms of this clause? That is the point. I want to know whether this clause, apart from that qualification, means what it says, namely that a descendant continues into the second, third and fourth generation. They are still descendants of the person who enjoyed the rights. That is what a descendant means. If you look it up in the dictionary it says that a descendant is a person descended from someone, not limited only to the first generation, but a descendant to all the generations that follow. This clause does not limit that. Clause 52(2)(c) …

It is limited by clause 52(2)(a).

There it is limited by a different Act, but I want to know if this clause is correct as it stands, ie the limitation comes in Act 25 of 1945 and not in this Act, because if it does then we should amend it. When a father dies, it descends to his son, and surely that son must be able to bequeath it to his son and that son to his son because they are all descendants. If they are not entitled to do that, this is meaningless and the whole question of leasehold and perpetuity falls away.

Mr Chairman, the law adviser informs me that this clause as it stands does not have a limiting effect on the number of descendants. This is in fact provided for by section 12(5) of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act. That section is being considered in the select committee that is dealing with a different subject. Therefore the matter will be rectified there.

Not in this Bill, therefore, but in the other piece of legislation.

Yes, it will be rectified in the other legislation.

That is all I wanted to know.

Mr Chairman, I do not intent moving the amendment that appears in my name.

Obviously my party will not support the amendments moved by the PFP either, because they extend a principle that we do not subscribe to. However, I wish to put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister. I think it is most important that we should be given a clear answer by the hon the Deputy Minister in this regard. When the whole issue of leasehold was first discussed in the old days of the National Party, a very clear distinction was drawn between leasehold and freehold. If I am not mistaken, the hon member for Newton Park stated the matter ably and skilfully from his point of view. I think that at the time he adopted the standpoint that there was a very clear difference between leasehold and freehold. I do not know whether the hon member still stands by that. I should like to know from the hon the Deputy Minister whether he, too, sees a clear difference in principle between the acquisition of leasehold and the acquisition of freehold. There are members of the National Party—inter alia the hon member for Rand-burg, the hon member for Bellville and certainly the hon member for Innesdal—who, if I am not mistaken, adopt the standpoint that there is no difference between leasehold and freehold. There the hon member for Bellville has just said again that there is no difference. The hon the Deputy Minister should tell us whether he agrees with the hon member for Newton Park who drew a clear distinction between the two, or whether he agrees with the hon member for Bellville, who says that there is no difference.

If it is the standpoint of the hon Deputy Minister that there is no difference, then I should like to know why the baby is not called by its name and why it is not stated that what is being granted here is in fact freehold. I want to know whether we are now starting with the term “leasehold” in order to satisfy certain people and give an incorrect impression, only to argue later that leasehold and freehold are more or less the same thing. As far as I am concerned, I was still a member of the National Party when leasehold was introduced. At the time I aired my objections about it because I was not very happy about it. However, in the light of the distinction drawn at the time by hon members like the hon member for Newton Park, I said at that stage: Very well, let it go through. However, I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about the fact that as far as the CP is concerned, we are not prepared to grant leasehold, let alone freehold. For that reason we shall not support this clause on leasehold.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Rissik has asked me a question the reply to which is to be found in the Bill under discussion. If we had adopted the standpoint that there was no difference between leasehold and freehold, why does he think we use the word “leasehold”? Does he think we use it merely to be clever? The fact that we use the word “leasehold” in a Bill is surely a very clear indication that as far as we are concerned there is a difference between freehold and leasehold. The other day I said to the hon member that we in this party do not go into huddles and discuss matters with one another in corners. We speak openly to one another. That is why we govern in such a dynamic way; because hon members also have the right to air their opinions. However, that is not to say that this is the policy of the Government. We use the word “leasehold” here, because we do not mean freehold. That is my answer to the hon member.

Mr Chairman, I am very grateful for the clear reply the hon the Deputy Minister has given. However, I want to say to the hon the Deputy Minister that as far as I am concerned these matters were not discussed in comers in the old NP. They were openly discussed in the study groups. The hon the Deputy Minister was very quick to take offence yesterday when we spoke about legislation concerning Blacks. [Interjections.] I now make the statement categorically here in open debate, and not in comers, that there is a difference on a matter of principle within the NP between the left wing, which sees in this freehold rights, and the right wing, which …

Order! The hon member must discuss the clause.

I just wish to make the statement that if there are conservative people left in the NP who think as we do about the principle of this matter, they are going to break with the NP on this point. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, my amendment is a variant of the amendment moved by the hon member for Houghton dealing with the question of descendants going on ad infinitum. In view of the statement made by the hon the Deputy Minister that it is the intention to look at this and that aspects of this will be dealt with under the Orderly Movement and Settlement of Black Persons Bill, there is no purpose in my moving the amendment at this stage. Therefore I will not do so.

Amendments 1 to 3 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment 4 negatived and amendment 5 dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 53:

Mr Chairman, this clause has to do with the registration of the leasehold. I should like to get a few details from the hon the Deputy Minister in regard to it. I think it is intended that the cost of registration of the leasehold should be kept to the bare minimum. I particularly welcome the fact that registration will now take place in the main deeds registry. As stated by the hon member for Newton Park, we have a fine system of registration of deeds in South Africa. I think it is right and proper that the registration takes place under one roof in one deeds registry.

In regard to the certificate in a prescribed form referred to in subsection (2), I should like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether this will be a simplified form of agreement of lease. Normally, a lease covers 30 or 40 pages in order to record the question of registration and I appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister to ensure that this new prescribed form will be more simple and also less expensive. Furthermore, I should like to know whether, this form can be prepared by an attorney or a public notary, or whether it has to be prepared by a conveyancer as such.

We welcome the fact that no stamp duties are payable, as laid down in subsection (6), because the tariff laid down for stamp duty in a 99-year lease is going to run into hundreds of rand. However, there is also, on occasion, a registration fee to be paid and that fee takes the form of a stamp. I should like to know from the hon the Deputy Minister whether that is also covered by subsection (6). I sincerely hope that the hon the Deputy Minister will provide answers to these questions and that ultimately there can be a speedy, easy, simple and inexpensive method of registration.

Mr Chairman, as I indicated in my Second Reading speech in reply to what the hon member for Newton Park had to say about this matter, we are endeavouring to keep the costs of leasehold registration as low as possible. It is for this reason that we mostly employ our own officials to do the work. Should it become necessary, however, and should the workload become too heavy for our departmental officials, we will enter into discussions with the attorneys in an attempt to persuade them to reduce their fees when they handle matters of this nature. That is our intention, because we are endeavouring to reach the stage where almost everybody who can afford a house will also be able to afford the fees for leasehold registration. There is no point in trying to encourage people to go in for the 99-year leasehold and then make the fees and tariffs so high that they cannot afford the attorneys’ and transfer costs, etc.

As far as the form that will have to be completed is concerned, my officials inform me that this form has been simplified considerably, that it is not cumbersome and will not be difficult to complete. In regard to the hon member’s question concerning the registration of deeds, that of course is a matter that has to be dealt with by the Department of Community Development, while stamp duty is a matter to be dealt with by the Registrar of Deeds. It is therefore not a matter on which I can voice an opinion.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister replied in full to the questions put by the hon member for Hillbrow, but I just want to remind the hon number that, as is the case in respect of the Deeds Registries Act, the form of the certificates is usually indicated in the regulations. In clause 55(2)(k) regulations in connection with sectional titles are also being prescribed here, and in clause 57 the matter is further clarified, as follows:

†As the hon member knows, the deeds registries regulation board consists of members of the Public Service and also of the professions. I think, therefore, that when the time comes the professions will be duly consulted.

*There is, however, one important matter, namely that we want to keep registration costs as low as possible. You will note that in terms of clause 56 the use of a notary is not considered necessary. We shall, therefore, be able to implement this in due course, after consultation with the law societies. The regulations will be drawn up in consultation with them, but I nevertheless want to suggest, with regard to consultation with them, that close attention should be given to the fees which have to be charged in this regard, so that they can also be reduced.

Pursuant to what the hon the Deputy Minister said, I want to point out that this entire matter will be examined in the regulations. In this process the professions will be duly represented, and I feel the hon member can rest assured that we all intend to keep the costs as low as possible and also to keep the procedure as simple as possible.

Mr Chairman, I have just been informed that the Department of Community Development has a Bill in mind that is intended to overcome the very problems that have just been referred to.

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 54:

Mr Chairman, I want to point out briefly that this clause makes provision for the transfer of a leasehold. The final words of clause 54(1) read:

Normally speaking, if it is a deed of transfer, that deed of transfer is transferred together with all the conditions contained therein. In the case of a leasehold, however, it is conceivable that the leasehold agreement will contain certain conditions, such as a preemptive right in favour of the local authority. It may also embody other conditions which may no longer be applicable to the transfer. As the clause is worded now it means all the conditions embodied in the leasehold will have to be transferred. I believe the hon the Deputy Minister should have room within which to manoeuvre. It may therefore be necessary to delete certain of those conditions.

Therefore I move as an amendment:

1. 1. On page 75, in line 5, after “conditions” to insert “that may be applicable”.

This will give the Minister room within which to manoeuvre in deleting or adding any conditions which may or may not be applicable at a given stage.

Mr Chairman, every time a leasehold is transferred, a new certificate is issued. If conditions existed with regard to the old leasehold which no longer apply to the new leasehold, these are simply not included in the new certificate. Consequently I do not think there is any need at all for the amendment moved by the hon member for Hillbrow. In fact, I think it is superfluous. The old leasehold lapses in any case when the leasehold is transferred to a new leaseholder.

Mr Chairman, I have merely been trying to give the hon the Deputy Minister room within which to manoeuvre. Nevertheless, I believe he is going to run into difficulties. That is, however, his own responsibility.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 55:

Mr Chairman, I want to suggest to the hon the Deputy Minister an amendment of a technical nature to this clause. I think it is merely a question here of an incorrect translation. The Afrikaans text refers to a “regspersoon”. However, we are referring now to the definition contained in the Sectional Titles Act, in which reference is made to a “body corporate” and not to a “juristic person”. Therefore, in order to improve the Bill in this respect, I wish to move the following amendments:

1. 2. In the English text, on page 75, in line 28, to omit “juristic person” and to substitute “body corporate”.
2. 3. In the English text, on page 75, in line 32, to omit “juristic person” and to substitute “body corporate”.
3. 4. In the English text, on page 75, in lines 32 and 33, to omit “juristic person” and to substitute “body corporate”.

That will bring this legislation into line with the provisions of the Sectional Titles Act.

The second point I want to mention is something that may perhaps cause difficulty. A property may be situated on two separate erven and before registration of sectional title can take place, one has to apply for a certificate of consolidated title. The difficulty that I foresee is if in fact the leasehold property is also situated on two different stands. How would one go about registering such a lease? I think one may experience difficulties in this regard in relation to the provisions of section 55(2)(a) of the Sectional Titles Act which makes provision for a consolidation of that nature.

Mr Chairman, to my own surprise I am quite prepared to accept the amendments moved by the hon member for Hillbrow.

Are you feeling all right?

The hon member may well ask whether I am feeling all right. I have the suspicion that there must be something wrong somewhere.

What did the doctor diagnose?

I shall diagnose myself shortly. Just give me time.

As far as the second point raised by the hon member is concerned, I just want to inform him that the matter will be dealt with in the regulations as far as the Sectional Titles Act is concerned.

*Mr Chairman, just to show that I am not heartless as some people think I am prepared to accept another amendment and that is the one printed in my own name on the Order Paper. [Interjections.] I therefore move:

1. 1. On page 75, after line 64, to insert:
   1. (1) the Minister may make such regulations as he may deem expedient to give proper effect to such application.

This amendment is necessary in order to allow the implementation of the hitherto unknown sectional leasehold system to operate smoothly and meet possible unforeseen problems.

Mr Chairman, I am pleased that the hon the Deputy Minister has moved that amendment which follows from certain comments that I made during the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill namely that there may be problems in regard to practical implementation of the sectional titles provisions of this Bill.

I should like to repeat what I said during the debate on the Second Reading. I said that as soon as it was possible to convert those regulations into legislation it should be done. It would be a bad thing if a system of property ownership hinged on regulations that could be changed on an executive basis. Therefore, once the matter has settled down, we hope that the hon the Deputy Minister will come to the House to incorporate the regulations in legislation.

There is a second point I wish to raise, and in this regard I do not wish to sound too wise on this issue. I want to express the hope that in framing the regulations the department will have a serious look at all the socioeconomic problems surrounding sectional title in densely populated areas. I am not opposed to it because I think it is a good system. However, a commission of which other hon members and myself are members, the Commission of Inquiry into Township Establishment, travelled overseas, inter alia, to examine this very point—the question of the application either of block shares or sectional title in respect of lower income group housing. Quite clearly, overseas experience has shown that there are problems. It showed, for instance, right throughout the USA that high-rise buildings do not lend themselves to collective ownership and that once one goes beyond four storeys in height one starts getting an indefensible space in the building where anti-social behaviour takes place. It has been found just not feasible to have collective ownership in high-rise buildings as far as low income group people are concerned. This is a practical problem which I think should be taken into account.

A further point is the practical problem of administering such a building because, inter alia, there has to be a body corporate. While there may be a tendency now to redraft the regulations relating to the body corporate to simplify then, one must also be careful that one does not simplify them to such an extent that the regulations will allow the very abuses which the existing regulations in terms of the Sectional Titles Act are trying to eliminate. One is going to have to tread a very careful path between the simplification of the existing sectional titles regulations in order to accommodate the practical problems and not to simplifying them to such an extent that they lend themselves to certain abuses in densely populated areas.

The third point is that I think it will be necessary for one of the State’s departments to establish one or more, utility companies who can provide the management services for bodies corporate. It is a highly technical matter. It works quite well when there are two or three friends who own a building, but put 50 or 60 different independent owners into a building, and practical problems arise as far as the administration is concerned. The Department of Community Development will be well advised to consider setting up utility companies which as agencies to provide services and to assist people who form bodies corporate with the management skills which they may not have. Otherwise we are going to impose a very formal and complicated legal and accounting system upon a community which may not be in a position to administer them because of lack of experience.

The fourth point I want to make, is that I hope the hon the Minister in looking to this question of succession of inheritance, will realize the very important impact that this will have if there is not a means of succession of inheritance when it comes to sectional titles. While an individual unit can stand without a person who is the successor in title, it will become an extreme difficulty if there is a body corporate where one of its members, because the law is such, cannot transfer to his next of kin or to his progeny. One will then find the situation that within a body corporate there will be one or more units which will not have a legal owner.

All of these problems are problems which will have to be looked at from the legal point of view, from the point of view of management and also because of the sensitivity of the socio-economic environment which will be created when many people are living cheek by jowl. It happens to be my opinion that at this stage the sectional title development for lower income group people would be better applied to single storey units in cluster houses than to multi-storey units. I mention these aspects merely because of the experience which a few of us had on a certain commission which I believe has partially reported to the Government and because these are points which the commission found and are taken into account by the department in framing the regulations.

Mr Chairman, when the hon member for Sea Point got up to make his speech, I for one awkward moment thought that he was going to lead me into a further temptation to accept another amendment. Fortunately he did not do so and therefore I find myself in the position that I need not yield to any temptation.

I can give him the assurance that we shall as far as possible not rely on regulations to implement this sectional title scheme but it will be agreed—I admit it freely—that this matter is so complicated and technical that I as a layman do not understand one single iota of the whole business as far as sectional title is concerned. I have to rely upon my law advisers and they are here. They have taken note of what the hon member has said as regards also the problems which may arise in the inheritance of sectional title units in terms of another clause of the Bill. I know that the law advisers will apply their minds to these particular problems.

I think it can be taken as a sine qua that we shall either through this department or through the Department of Community Development initiate training schemes for members of bodies corporate for these sectional title buildings because we are aware that these people have not had the experience. Judging by the, experience the Whites had when sectional titles came into being, the only wise thing to do would be to institute these training schemes in order to educate these people on how to regulate their affairs. This will certainly be borne in mind when sectional titles come into being.

As I have said, I am unable to comment on the technical aspects which the hon member raised. He knows much more about it than I do. However, I can assure him that the law advisers will certainly look at the points he raised.

Mr Chairman, I would like to make one or two comments on the implications, the wider implications, of clause 55. Extending sectional title also to our Black people in the urban areas is for me most welcome. I and others have been protagonists for some time of sectional title being extended also to leasehold properties whereas in terms of the Sectional Titles Act one can only take out sectional title on freehold properties. I and others have seen no difficulty or harm in extending that also to leasehold properties. I hope the hon the Deputy Minister will now be able to convince the Minister of Community Development and others that it is possible, as is proved by this clause for instance, that one can have sectional title also on leasehold properties, and I hope this will be the forerunner to amending the Sectional Titles Act. The other implication I should like to point out is that there is no restriction, as I see it, on share-block companies being formed, and if we want to afford protection in terms of the Sectional Titles Act, people could duck that protection by forming share-block companies in order to circumvent that protection which has been provided for. That is what has happened under the Sectional Titles Act. People have formed share-block companies in order to circumvent the protection enshrined in that Act. One can even extend it to time-sharing as well where having acquired a property on a 99-year leasehold basis persons may now go in for time-sharing as well. These are the wider implications of what we are doing here, and from the point of view of free enterprise we welcome it.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 56 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 57 agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Schedule:

Mr Chairman, we were in some difficulties over the schedule because there are certain Acts which are being repealed in the schedule, in particular the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act of 1945. We all know that that is the major Act controlling the mobility of Blacks in urban areas. It is going to be the subject for discussion by the select committee when the third of the trilogy of Bills is referred to it. The hon member Prof Olivier has put an amendment of the schedule on the Order Paper relating to the extent of the repeal or amendment of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act of 1945. According to the schedule there are a number of sections of this Act which are not being repealed and which are among the exceptions which we obviously would want repealed. The exceptions include section 1 which contains the definitions and is not really that important. Section 9 is not all that important and refers to those Blacks who live outside the prescribed urban townships. Section 9bis actually describes the townships. Section 11 has to do with the introduction of Blacks into prescribed areas. We would object to that, because it is part of influx control. Section 13 sets out certain categories of employment which are exempt to Blacks. Section 14 provides for the ejection of so-called illegal people. Section 31 is a very important section and contains the curfew regulations. The Riekert Commission recommended that these regulations should be abolished. Section 41A deals with the exemptions which may be granted by the Minister.

The point I am trying to make is that we would repeal most of those as well. The hon member Prof Olivier’s amendment proposes to remove some of these sections, but not all of them. I think that in view of the fact that all of these sections are probably going to be repealed when the Orderly Movement and Settlement of Black Persons Bill comes before the select committee, because when one looks at the Bill which is being submitted to the select committee, one realizes that all these sections mentioned in the schedule which are exempted from repeal will be repealed—we are not going to move the amendment of the hon member Prof Olivier on the Order Paper. However, I want to make it absolutely clear that the fact that we are not objecting to the retention of these sections, does not mean that we are in agreement with them. As hon members know, it is part of our policy to have mobility of labour and of Blacks generally and all these sections are restrictions on mobility. Normally we would vote for the repeal of all these sections, but because it is tied up with the third Bill which we have not yet discussed, we will leave the matter there. We just want to note the fact that our objection still remains.

Schedule agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Mr Chairman, because I have the co-operation of the Opposition, I want to take the Third Reading today as well. Accordingly I have decided to accept the amendment of the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central.

Order! The hon member has not yet moved his amendment.

He is not present.

Mr Chairman, I should like to move the amendment printed on the Order Paper in the name of the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central, as follows:

1. 1. On page 3, in line 10, after “payable” to insert “to the Administration”.

As hon members know, the purpose is to make absolutely certain that any moneys which are collected from the New Fund will only go to the Administration and no other person. I am very pleased the hon the Minister will accept this amendment.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the hon member for Springs, I move the following amendments:

1. 2. On page 3, in line 6, to omit “or dies,”.
2. 3. On page 3, from line 8, to omit “or his estate or to some other person in respect of his death,”.

Mr Chairman, I want this clause to be deleted in its entirety. If one listens attentively to the various speakers in this debate, one notes that there is general unanimity in this House that this is an unfortunate clause. My first objection relates to the case of a person dying. My second relates to loss or debt of any nature that is payable. To what loss is reference made here? For example, if a train driver has an accident and has knocked down and killed people, is he responsible for the loss of those lives? Reference is made in this legislation to “a loss”.

Moreover there are many hidden problems in this clause. One would have expected that if one wanted a person to pay his debt, a cession should be taken from a person when the debt is entered into so that the debt is determined and the debtor knows what the amount is. The hon the Minister said that if a person died, it was an act of God. As I said yesterday, there is nothing one can do about that. In the case of death—the hon the Minister is now only taking the pension into account in the case of death—other factors such as losses may also be present. As the Bill stands at present, I am inclined to say that if a life is also lost in that train accident, this clause creates the possibility of instituting a claim against the driver. I do not believe that one should proceed with any provision that lacks clarity in legislation of this nature.

The Minister has now moved a few hurried changes. My proposal is that this clause be deleted in its entirety and that what is owed by people should be repaid in a different way. Let us take the example of the amount owing on a house. Is the Minister now remitting the amount owing on the house of a man who has died? I should like to know. From the outset one could have sold the house and repaid the debt—that is something that has not yet been paid off. Now I should like to know whether, in terms of the Minister’s proposal, the Minister writes off a man’s housing loan if he dies, and does not recover it.

The hon the Minister went on to propose that everything that a person who dies is charged with or responsible for in this regard, should revert to the fund. Is it always the case that the railway man only buys his house through the pension fund? Can the hon the Minister reply to me on that score?

Carry on.

I just want the hon the Minister to think. I do not want to speak too quickly so that he can write it down and reply to it. [Interjections.] For this reason it is impossible for me to support clause 1. I ask that we delete the clause as it stands. The amendments to this clause moved by the hon the Minister do not make due provision for all cases. Some people are now being exempted, while others are not. In some instances families are exempted and in others they are not. I ask the hon the Minister please to give a clear reply in this regard.

Mr Chairman, I should like to express my thanks for fact that the hon the Minister accepted my suggestion with regard to claims instituted against a person’s pension on his death. The hon member for Langlaagte is again off the tracks. No-one’s debt is being remitted. All that is happening is that there will be no right of recovery against the pension of a person who dies. That is not to say that the debt will be written off if he owes money to the Administration. If he has a bond with the Administration, then in the nature of the matter he will still owe that money to the sats.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether, if the loan of the deceased was financed by means of the pension fund, this will mean that the loan is remitted?

Of course not. A bond has been registered against the property and it is quite logical that that bond should be recovered. Nowhere is it written that the bond is registered against the pension fund. He has a bond that is funded through the pension fund.

It is solely a matter of debt incurred by a person and of the asset from which it can be recovered. Because we say that it is a sensitive matter to recover money from a pension fund and that this is not a normal procedure, the Minister has now agreed not to recover from the pension of the deceased, debts incurred in respect of a bursary loan. That, basically, is what is at issue. We have said that this does not constitute breach of contract. Another person who has a bursary loan and leaves the employ of the Administration, has entered into a contract with the Administration which he has deliberately broken. By dying a person has not broken the contract because except in the case of suicide, he is clearly not responsible for his own death. Therefore we say that we must see to it that a person’s bursary must not be recovered from his estate as far as his pension benefits are concerned. That is what is at issue. Other debts are not relevant here. A mortgage bond on a house, for example, is not at issue here. Nor is it a question of the remittance of debts. It is merely a question of the way in which they are recovered.

Mr Chairman, we in the NRP also want to appeal to the hon the Minister to withdraw this clause. Before I give my reasons I should like to tell the hon member who has just sat down that the clause does not talk about a contract into which the employee has entered with the Administration. It is very clear. It talks about “the amount of any loss or debt payable by such member …” It does not talk about any contract.

The other point I want to raise is to get clarity on the pension funds we are talking about. If I am correct an employee who leaves the service of the Administration will have built up, over the period of his employment, credit in the pension fund. The money in that fund is the 25%, as the hon the Minister said yesterday, that the employee himself has contributed, and 75% which the Administration has contributed to the fund. If an employee leaves of his own accord or is fired, the only amount he is entitled to—the hon the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—is the money which the employee himself has contributed to the fund plus interest. If the Administration does not give him interest then they rob him. However, I assume they do give him interest. Therefore, the money which the employee has in the fund belongs to him. I say that the Administration has no right at all to ask the legislature to place a permanent garnishee on any railway employee’s own money. Therefore I believe this clause should be withdrawn. I do not believe it is in the interests of good legislation. I believe it goes against many of the principles which we in this House believe in when we are legislating for South Africa as a whole. I do not believe we must make fish of one and fowl of the other. I do not believe we should give a State department or State corporation some preferential treatment over the rest of South Africa. This clause is discriminating against the rest of South Africa because it gives the Administration some power which I do not believe it should have. It goes against so many of the principles in which we as legislators believe in.

As I said yesterday, it is not in the interest of the Administration itself either because it is placing legal decisions in the hands of laymen. A legal dispute could arise with regard to a debt or a loss. I do not believe employees of the SATS should be burdened with such responsibility. This should be left to a court of law.

Thirdly, I do not believe it is in the best interests of the employees of the SATS. Despite the fact that the staff associations may have agreed to this—in this regard I appeal to the chairman of the Select Committee on SATS—one of their members could be discriminated against or be prejudiced by this proposed legislation. All of us who are public representatives—certainly those who serve on the select committee—have at one time or another received letters from employees saying that they have been discriminated against and that there has been bias against them by their fellow employees on certain problems that have arisen, whether they have been fired, fined etc.

May I ask a question?

Certainly.

Mr Chairman, if the hon member were to be employed by a private firm and he owed money to the firm and he were then to resign or die, would he, in the case of resignation, or in the case of his death, his estate, not be responsible for paying the debt?

This is why I said right at the beginning that I am not talking about a contract that is legally entered into between the employee and the employer concerning the employee’s pension funds. I am not talking about that at all. I am talking about this clause which refers to any debt which he may owe the Administration. [Interjections.] It makes no difference. You have to take your place in the queue as any other creditors do when the persons who owes money dies, or at any other time. I do not believe, therefore, that this is in the interest of the Administration because it places a legal decision in the hands of laymen. Thirdly, it is not in the interest of the employee because he could be discriminated against. Fourthly, it is not in the interest of the public of South Africa because there may be an employee who, because of some accident of which he was the cause, could now have a tremendous claim against him. He has been fired by the Administration and the Administration is now trying to claim money from him. That employee may also owe other people money; so why should the SATS have preferential treatment or prior rights to claim that money? They should get in the queue like any other creditor of that employee. That is what happens in the private sector.

As I said yesterday, I believe that this is a rather paternalistic attitude of the SATS, and I think they should get rid of that attitude. The hon the Minister should rather withdraw this clause completely because, quite frankly, we do not like it at all. We think it is wrong, and I am quite sure that the private sector is not happy at all that the SATS should have such advantage over the rest of South Africa when it comes to matters of this sort. We will therefore be opposing this clause.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Langlaagte referred to the bond on a man’s house, but that debt is covered by a policy. He asked several questions, inter alia what was meant by “loss” in this connection. The hon member must bear in mind that the SATS has a quarter of a million people in its employ, and fewer than 1% of that number will be dishonest. In passing, not one of them will be a Nationalist! It is nothing unusual in any business enterprise for an amount which has been lent to a man, if he has cheated his boss, to be recovered from his pension money. Ask any businessman whether he would pay out that man’s full amount in pension if that man owed him R20 000. No, he would first deduct the employee’s debt before paying his gratuity or pension money. Any decent businessman would do that.

It is not a case of paternalism. The SABS is a business enterprise. Let us assume for the sake of argument that the hon member for Amanzimtoti is the manager of a business enterprise. One of his employees borrows R100 000 from him; he retires and receives a gratuity of R200 000. Would the hon member not ask him to repay the R100 000? Surely he would first deduct that amount before paying out the gratuity. In this regard the trade unions insist that we make provision for the fewer than 1% of the people that are going to cheat us and that we must see to it that we get our money back. I see nothing wrong with that. Why is the amendment being effected? The hon member for Springs gave the example of a young man who has worked for the railways for three years and has already built up a pension. He then has to perform military service and loses his life on the border. My reaction to that was that that was a different matter and that is why we are changing it now. After all, we adopt a humane approach. However, when an employee cheats one out and out, I cannot see why we should not apply these conditions.

I have accommodated the Opposition and accepted the amendment of the hon member for Bezuidenhout. Both the hon member for Springs and the hon member for Langlaagte referred to the question of death, but we must be careful not to go too far. We are not going to prejudice anyone; we just want to cover ourselves in those cases where the employee is dishonest.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister speaks about 1% of people who are supposedly dishonest. Every employer who takes the trouble to recover 1% of the money which may be owed to him and attempts to do so in terms of legislation of this nature ought to think again. When can someone really say that he owes Rx? It is only when he has signed a cession stipulating the amount he in fact owes.

Is a service contract a cession?

No, wait a moment. Of course it is not a cession. I am now speaking about a cession relating to the pension monies of an employee. I am referring to a person who, for example, negotiates a loan somewhere. The majority of employees of the SATS are not people with an extensive knowledge of the law. When an employee is fined by the Administration for whatever reason, it often happens months after he has been suspended from his job. Now he may also have to forfeit some of his pension monies. In the meantime the investigation into his alleged offence may have taken three to four months, and eventually he is found guilty. The amount involved is of course unknown. I believe that the way in which a matter of this nature is dealt with is entirely different to the approach adopted when a person has borrowed money.

When an employee intimates that he wants to borrow a sum of money against his pension, he has to sign a cession. In that cession it is stipulated how large the amount is, what the interest rate is, and over what term the loan is repayable. A loan, as the Administration wants to deal with it here, is not a loan as far as I am concerned. In fact it is a kind of condition; perhaps a kind of condition of service for which an employee is penalized.

Therefore I request the hon the Minister to withdraw this clause and restore the status quo. I predict that he is going to encounter problems if he does not do so. Earlier on the hon the Minister tried to explain the difference between a loan and …

Oh really, you have already said that.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Welkom might as well keep quiet. I really do not need his comments on this. [Interjections.] Earlier on I wanted to know from the hon the Minister what would happen when an employee of the Administration obtained a housing loan against his pension fund and subsequently died. I believe that a problem is being created here. The hon the Minister would do well to investigate the implications of what he said. Accordingly I appeal to him to withdraw this clause. If the provision in the existing Act is similar to what is stated in this clause, then I cannot understand why it should be so.

In passing, I want to put it to the hon member for Springs that I am very pleased that the hon the Minister still has the humanity to assist him. I just want to point out that we do business in a certain way. I have fought about this matter before, and the hon member knows it. Be that as it may, the employees of the SATS are going to enjoy the benefit of the concession. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should like again to lodge an appeal with the hon the Minister. This clause is contrary to the normal principles of a pension fund. In many pension funds it is clearly stated that the moneys therein cannot be used for securing loans or that they cannot be hypothecated in any way. A pension fund is established to look after individuals in their old age. Therefore, as I said yesterday, it should be sacrosanct, and I do not believe we should fool around with it.

The hon the Minister says that these things can be done in the private sector. I disagree with him. Let us take the building industry, for example. The hon member for Umbilo is in the building industry. He has to contribute to a pension fund set up by the Industrial Council, as do all other employers and their employees in the building industry. The hon member for Umbilo cannot claim the pension moneys which one of his employees may have built up in that pension fund. They are sacrosanct. I wonder whether the hon the Minister himself in his private capacity has a pension fund for his own employees.

Yes, of course.

Yes, of course. So have I. I also have a type of pension fund to provide for the future of my employees and their wives and their children. I think it would be wrong of me as an employer to meddle with the provision made for their old age. Therefore, despite what the hon the Minister has said, I appeal to him. He may well have obtained the agreement of the staff associations but, as I have said, I believe that this type of thinking is basically wrong and I appeal to him to withdraw this clause.

Mr Chairman, it is not a question of an old age pension. It is question of a man who works for us for ten years and gets a loan. He may be 35 or 40 years of age and he steals some money from us and then leaves our employ and we can prove that he stole the money. Any businessman or employer of staff will say in respect of such a person: Before I pay out your pension fund contributions I am going to deduct what you owe me.

*It does not happen in the case of employees with many years’ service. It is a way of dealing with the 1% of employees who are always up to no good. That is why the staff associations have agreed to the insertion of this provision, and however much I would like to accommodate the hon member today, I cannot grant his request.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister has just told us that if an employee steals some money the hon the Minister should have the right to deduct that money from the pension contributions of that employee.

He cán be prosecuted for stealing.

That is quite correct. What happens if an employee steals money from me? Should I also have the right to deduct that money from his pension contributions?

Ask any good businessman and he will give you the same reply.

That is the ugly side of business, Sir, which I do not believe that we should propagate. If a person steals, he should be taken to court and efforts made to recover the money along legal channels.

As I have already said, this is placing judicial matters in the hands of laymen which I do not believe to be in the interests of South Africa. There is no way in which we can agree with the hon the Minister in regard to this matter.

Amendments 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Conservative Party and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause 2:

Mr Chairman, I move the amendment to this clause standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 1. On page 5, in line 6, after the first “Minister” to insert:

As it stands at present, section 11(1) provides, inter alia, that the Fund and the New Fund shall be valued every five years. The hon the Minister now wishes to omit the period of time altogether and to provide that the valuation take place if and when deemed necessary at the discretion of the Minister. We simply want to re-introduce the provision that the period of valuation should not be in excess of five years. The actuarial valuation can be made every year if necessary but a valuation must be made at least once every five years in order to make absolutely certain that those funds are able to meet their commitments.

Mr Chairman, we received this amendment only this morning and, after discussions with the General Manager and the law advisers and in consequence of the appeals by the hon members for Port Elizabeth Central and Bezuidenhout, I should like to move the following amendment:

1. 2. On page 5, in line 6, after the second “Minister” to insert:

†Therefore, this valuation will be undertaken at least once every five years. I think that that serves to meet the representations of those hon members in this regard.

Mr Chairman, in the light of the amendment just moved by the hon the Minister, I wish, with leave of the Committee, to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 1, with leave, withdrawn.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr Chairman, virtually all this clause does is to define “annuity”. We have no problem with that. I feel it is very necessary, particularly as this clause is actually concerned with Black, Coloured and Indian workers, for the legislation to be quite clear when it comes to the end of the year. The definition of “annuity” has to be quite clear so that the people know exactly what is involved.

I want to draw attention to something very important. We all know in what year the Railways was established but it was only in 1965 that White widows began to receive a pension. During all those years from the time the Railways began up to 1965 they did not receive a pension. It was actually in 1977 that White widows received real benefits for the first time.

This clause provides for pensions for the widows of Black, Indian and Coloured workers, and I do not think any fair-minded person would say that this should not be the case. However, I just want to point out that no provision is made for money here. It provides that this will happen as soon as they have money. Nevertheless I want to point out that in the case of White widows it took years before they came into consideration for a pension; as a matter of fact, it took from the time the Railways were started until 1965, in fact, they have only been receiving pensions since the amendment was made in 1977. Now one could almost say that there has been a rapid move to make provision for other widows in the legislation. I am just asking that we take cognizance of this in this House.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5:

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

1. 1. On page 5, in line 20, after “Minister” to insert:

Mr Chairman, I move as an amendment:

1. 2. On page 5, in line 20, after the second “Minister” to insert:

This amendment is the same as the one which I moved on a previous clause. I move it to accomodate the hon member’s problem.

Mr Chairman, with the leave of the Committee I wish to withdraw my amendment in favour of the one moved by the hon the Minister.

Amendment. 1, with leave, withdrawn.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr Chairman, I move the amendments printed in the name of the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 1. On page 5, in line 34, after “that” to insert “(a)”.
2. 2. On page 5, after line 37, to add:
   1. (b) such immovable property shall be subject to any town planning scheme within any local authority and such land use and guide plans as determined under the Physical Planning Act, 1967 (Act No 88 of 1967); and
   2. (c) rates in respect of such property shall be assessed by the local authority concerned and shall be paid to such local authority.

In South Africa it has often happened in the past that where land is owned by the State within municipal areas, the State has built buildings on such land quite contrary to the town planning scheme of the particular municipality. An example in Johannesburg is the Police Barracks in Norwood where the local authority was completely unaware of what the State was going to build there. The State built a building there which was completely out of context with the town planning scheme for that particular area.

We on this side of the Committee think it is a very good idea indeed that immovable property owned by the SATS should be made available for commercial development and exploitation, but then it should come under the control of the local authority as far as town planning is concerned.

In the second instance it should conform to the Physical Planning Act, 1967. It is perfectly true that the SATS participate in discussions which lead to providing a guideplan for a particular area, long before it is made public. Nevertheless, I believe it is absolutely necessary that they should do so and abide by the guide plans as well.

In the case of SATS I would like to know from the hon the Minister whether he is considering the question not only of immovable property in the normal sense, but also what is known as the “air space” above the railway lines and stations. For example, if one goes to a town like Chicago one will find that a large number of buildings have been built in the course of time over the railway lines leading into Chicago. Air space is very valuable and in cities like Johannesburg, Pretoria or other places where the railways go through the centre of the cities, it might be to the benefit of the SATS to be able to use the air space above the railway lines. There should be no problem if the railway lines run underneath it. The same thing happens in New York. I would like to ask the hon the Minister whether he would not consider using the “air space” by renting it out. This could be a very valuable asset as far as SATS is concerned.

On the other hand, SATS will have an obligation by the creation of this particular asset, namely to ensure that the rates on the property are paid to the proper local authorities. The local authorities need money and there is no reason why, if SATS are going to put up businesses on its property, rates should not be paid on that. The rates can be collected in terms of the lease from the lessee of a particular property.

I regret that I am unable to accept paragraph (c) of the second amendment as it involves increased expenditure and accordingly requires the State President’s recommendation. If the hon member will delete paragraph (c) from the second amendment, I will allow the amendment.

Mr Chairman, I submit that paragraph (c) will not result in increased expenditure for the State. It refers to rates payable to local authorities. In the event of private enterprise being involved, this paragraph relates to the rates which will be payable by them.

Mr Chairman, it is not the State which will pay the rates and taxes, but the lessee. It will be the duty of SATS to ensure that in the lease agreement with the lessee there will be a clause which states that the lessee will be responsible for all rates that will have to be paid to the local authority concerned. It involves no increase of moneys payable by the State whatsoever. The rates have to be collected from the lessee and from nobody else. I believe that just as other people who have businesses over the road from SATS premises have to pay rates, there is no reason why the person who leases property on SATS premises should not pay the rates as well.

I accept the explanation of the hon member for Bezuidenhout and will allow the amendment.

Mr Chairman, I move as an amendment:

Clause 6(a) is very reasonable and we fully agree that it is the work of the SATS that is being referred to here. Distress calls and salvage fall within the ambit of the SATS.

Clause 6(b) puts an entirely different complexion on and gives an entirely different purpose to this Bill. By letting “immovable property for the purpose of commercial development and exploitation by private enterprise, despite the fact that such property is owned by the authority concerned for railway purposes” brings one into conflict with the town planning scheme of a city in which the station is situated. The hon the Minister must give us an explanation. Is this building going to be constructed by a private entrepreneur?

Yes, perhaps.

In any event it will entail enormous expenditure for which no provision has as yet been made in this legislation, as far as I can see. Secondly, if a private owner now owns this portion, there will have to be a rezoning of this land and the land will no longer be railway property. One will therefore have various owners on railway property and these buildings will be islands situated inside Railway territory.

The new legislation dealing with local authorities envisages that a local authority may also be a person. In other words, the General Manager of SATS may be appointed as a local authority. All powers are therefore taken out of the hands of the local authority that exercises control around that station or around Railway areas. I consider this to be unsound.

I come now to the reason why the SATS was established, and to what the SATS directive was. The directive was to improve and expand air, rail and sea traffic, and its first object must be to provide people with convenient transportation at the lowest possible transportation costs, but at the same time to ensure that people are transported without inconvenience on and from stations.

I referred to the situation on the Johannesburg station, from which 270 000 non-Whites have to be conveyed two hours in the afternoons. They must get out of the city. This clause provides that these persons will be able to make their purchases there. They will block the entrances to that station, White and non-White.

In the second place a different element will be brought onto Railway premises. The Railway Police usually maintain order among passengers, and a person who is not a passenger must purchase a ticket if he wants to go down to the trains and onto the platform. He must therefore pay to be on the premises. The businessmen who will now operate on Railway premises, will throw their doors open to everyone. It will be a mecca for pickpockets and other elements of that kind, because the trains are very close. They can merely run away and board a train.

That can also happen now.

It is probably true that it can happen now, but the sales there will cause a concentration of people and will make it legal for a person to be on Railway premises without a ticket. [Interjections.] We must not hurl abuse at one another. The hon members must listen to what I am saying. The White people who travel home by train in the evenings will find that the entrances are congested.

The President Hotel in the vicinity of Johannesburg station closed down. Why?

†It was because people from overseas were being mugged. They could not walk in the area. On a Saturday morning there were 40 Blacks there for every one White person.

The Black people must be given proper transport. They must be given proper facilities in their own areas. I am not against that at all.

However, such facilities must not be provided on a railway station, thereby aggravating the very, very serious problem that exists today, for instance in Johannesburg.

*We are not opposed to the SATS making money from the buildings it owns by letting them. However, they should be let on condition that what they are to be used for falls within the same industry. It seems to me, however, that the hon the Minister’s idea with this clause is not merely to let the premises, but also to change the premises’ title, because he will have to grant a leasehold in respect of the buildings concerned. Or does it mean that the Minister is going to finance all these buildings on the basis of debt? The Railways already finds itself in a deplorable situation when it comes to costs and debt.

I want to ask the hon the Minister this question: Why are tickets not being examined today on the Black urban trains? The reason is that there is too much congestion on the stations and on those trains. It has been said that up to 20% of those people do not buy tickets at all. An attempt is made to examine the tickets at the barrier, but there is so much pushing and shoving that it is frequently not possible, and the life of the man on duty is in danger. One is often told this. Now my question is this: Why is the process of conveying people to their homes being delayed, and why does the hon the Minister in this way now wish to aggravate a situation which is already deplorable? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to begin with the hon member for Langlaagte. This matter is not concerned with Johannesburg station. It is concerned with the place beyond End Street, the place beyond Doornfontein and the place beyond Worcester. The SATS has a tremendous amount of land throughout the country—not only on stations.

So we are not the only ones who are going to have problems.

That is in fact my problem. I should like to go and tell the people of Langlaagte: “You work for the SATS and we would like to make a profit. We are sitting with a great deal of land here on which no interest is earned and which can never be used. Your MP, however, forbids me to sell or to let that land, or to erect a building in order to obtain additional revenue”.

Let us share a platform.

I did not interrupt the hon member. He must just find the basic decency somewhere to give me a chance to finish speaking.

This hon member says it is our task to transport people and not do business. At present we own land on which dams were built in the days when we still used steam locomotives. The Railways owns dams on farms throughout the country. Willowmore is one example.

Because we no longer have steam-operated trains, should we now say that we are locking the gate? The hon member for Langlaagte says it is not our function to let farms. Sir, surely one is not right in one’s head if one argues like that. [Interjections.]

I cannot understand why the hon member should kick up a fuss here about Johannesburg station, to which people will not have access, while there is so much land, away from the stations, situated through the country.

Bellville is a good example. Just take a look at the municipal map of Bellville and you will see how much railway land is situated within that municipal area. It is scattered throughout the whole of Bellville. It does not necessarily adjoin the railway line. The hon member, however, refuses to allow us to use that land to the benefit of the quarter million SATS employees. The hon member’s amendment has already been accommodated.

†I come now to the amendments of the hon member for Bezuidenhout. The insertion of “(a)” is acceptable. The second amendment is acceptable up to the words “local authority”. It is considered that by complying with a local planning scheme it automatically takes care of guide plans determined under the Physical Planning Act. The words “and such land use and guide plans as determined under the Physical Planning Act” are therefore not considered necessary. I wish, therefore, to move the following amendment:

That will accommodate the position. The second part of the hon member’s second amendment is also acceptable.

The hon member for Bezuidenhout asked me about air space above railway lines. If he can bring me any buyer we can talk business this afternoon. If the hon member can sell the air space, we can talk business. We are no longer using steam locomotives and we can therefore utilize air space by building cover buildings across railway lines. This can be done because there is no longer any smoke. That is a very good suggestion.

What commission do I get?

Anything for a dollar. If the hon member can bring me a buyer we can discuss the whole thing.

Mr Chairman, the very reason for the inclusion of the words “and such land use and guide plans as determined under the Physical Planning Act” is to provide for planning in places which do not fall under a local authority. All country sidings fall under the Physical Planning Act and that is the only sort of zoning that they have. It is therefore necessary to comply with the requirements under the Physical Planning Act. In the case of places such as Johannesburg, Pretoria, Cape Town or Bellville it is true that the guide plans of the Physical Planning Act have already been complied with by the local authorities concerned, but once one leaves a local authority area there is no other guide plan to follow but those of the Physical Planning Act.

Mr Chairman, one has the provincial authorities and the divisional councils. One cannot erect buildings anywhere without consultation with these bodies.

Divisional councils only apply in the Cape Province. They do not apply in the Transvaal and Free State. I am prepared to accept the hon the Minister’s amendment but I do so under protest because I think that the words which have been omitted should be included.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister gave us an explanation involving the hundreds of dams and farms which are railway property. I want to ask the hon the Minister: How does the SATS acquire land?

It is purchased.

For what purpose did the SATS then purchase the land? As farms? No, Sir. The hon the Minister told us that for many years the SATS has owned pieces of land which it did not need. There would be no objection if the SATS wishes to sell this land. The actions of the hon the Minister, however, which are going to cause competition between the service the SATS has to render and its income from another industry, are what causes the problem. No one can oppose the selling off of land which is no longer required. It was said that railway officials are going to reap the benefit of this. I want to ask the hon the Minister in what respect they are going to do so. I should like to know, because I cannot see how they are going to receive a benefit which does not normally accrue to them.

I want to ask the hon the Minister whether the task of the SATS, to provide good air, rail and road transportation services, no longer applies. Is the SATS now on its way to becoming an ordinary business undertaking in an attempt simply to pay its debts? The hon the Minister said he would come to my constituency and tell the voters there that I was opposed to the improvement of the conditions of service of the railway officials. I am used to this kind of nonsense, but no one has so far been able to turn those voters against me with a lie.

Every morning 7 000 Blacks per hour alight from trains on Langlaagte station, and this is already creating problems. Consequently I do not want a business undertaking to be established on that station which has nothing to do with the service the SATS has to render. For that reason I have to oppose the clause.

I am convinced that under the new dispensation and with the new proposals on local authorities which are going to come before this House and in terms of which an individual becomes a local authority, a great problem is going to arise because in terms of the new legislation nothing prevents the General Manager from becoming a local authority so that he may apply this clause, and for that reason I am opposed to it. We cannot intrude on one another’s domains to such an extent that it is going to cause more and graver problems.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Langlaagte tried to create the impression that the SATS now wishes to take extraordinary steps simply to pay its debt. I must remind the hon member, however, that the SATS is a business undertaking of the State. That cannot be argued away. If the SATS suffers losses, the Management is entitled to take every possible step to improve its position.

As far as clause 6(b) is concerned, I must remind the hon member that this legislation was also amended last year, and I should just like to quote subsection (22), which was amended in 1983. It reads:

The hon member supported that amendment last year.

Of course!

Of course! Last year he supported it to his benefit, and all that is now being done in this clause is to place it beyond any doubt, statutorily, that buildings and property of the SATS may be let to private undertakings for this purpose. It is nothing more than was already provided last year, which the hon member then supported. This is precisely the same provision as the one which was placed on the Statute Book last year. Now …

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon member?

No, I do not want to reply to any questions now; I am presenting my argument.

The hon member now wants the envisaged paragraph (26) to be deleted in its entirety. What the hon member does not realize, however, is that that will make no difference whatsoever, because the same provision is still contained in the principal Act.

In the past the SATS had the same right to buy, to sell or to hire, to its own benefit. It is now being provided in clause 6 that a commercial undertaking on a station, or wherever it may be, may install facilities for the selling of commodities to the public. This is still to the benefit of the SATS. The hon member for Langlaagte is trying to be very clever now, but he is not clever at all. All he wants to do is to tell the people of Johannesburg that what the Government is doing is to allow the Langlaagte railway station to be inundated by Black people.

The hon member must realize that every railway station in our large centres today—whether it is Johannesburg, Cape Town or anywhere else—is in any case inundated by people of colour during peak hours in the morning and in the evening. So what difference is this provision going to make to the presence on railway stations of people going to work in the morning, or going home every afternoon?

The hon member for Langlaagte is now trying to create his own impressions, while all we are doing is to create additional facilities for the travelling public, and, simultaneously, cause an additional benefit to accrue to the SATS.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for De Kuilen argued that section 9(22) of the principal Act made provision for precisely what was being envisaged in the clause under discussion. Why is clause 6 then being inserted in this Bill? Are they trifling with this House? Why, if it is already contained in legislation, is the same provision now being inserted in this clause again? What kind of facetiousness is this? [Interjections.]

The difference, of course, lies in the fact that section 9(22) of the principal Act relates to business undertakings of the SATS itself, while the clause under discussion relates to private undertakings and possible exploitation by them. [Interjections.]

When a private road transportation contractor, for example, rents premises on a station or other railway property, I have no problem with that. However, I am opposed to a Pick ’n Pay, a Barney Goldberg and other similar enterprises being accommodated on the railway stations of Johannesburg, Soweto, Springs and elsewhere, at places where there is a concentration of people of colour. The hon the Minister must not take this amiss of me. He himself said that he would allow Solly Kramer liquor stores on railway stations because they are cheaper than other liquor stores.

Oh please! Do not put words into my mouth. It is too terrible the way you can twist a person’s words! Surely you know I did not say that.

Mr Chairman, can the hon the Minister tell me what I said about peanut butter? [Interjections.]

Yes, you said people were being poisoned by it.

The hon the Minister is now telling a lie.

Go and read your own Hansard. [Interjections.]

Once again I want to tell the hon the Minister …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member for Langlaagte say to the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs that he is telling a lie?

No, the hon member for Langlaagte must withdraw that accusation.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

The fact of the matter is that I believe that the clause under discussion makes provision for the inundation of railway stations by people of colour, while we are already experiencing problems at those places with the excessive congestion of people. No one in his right mind, for example, will go to the dam at Willowmore, to which the hon the Minister referred. I still do not know why he has not let it to the farmers. Surely they can load their stock on to the train there. They can also feed their stock before loading them on to the train. That is a railway matter, but apparently the matter we are now discussing is not a railway matter. The hon the Minister wants exploitation by private enterprise to take place on stations. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member for De Kuilen, because he covered the whole matter. How can a person argue with another person who stands up here and says that Solly Kramer should receive a licence to sell liquor on the Johannesburg station because he is cheap? That is the story that hon member wants to blazon abroad.

The hon member should also read his Hansard in connection with what he said about aflatoxins. That was the case of the contaminated peanut butter. [Interjections.]

The hon member said he did not want anything like this at Langlaagte. I say that they will not necessarily be established on stations. The hon member cannot point out any vacant land at the Johannesburg station which is not being utilized. We are talking about the whole of the Republic now, and everywhere there is unutilized land. The farms which exist we have been letting to farmers for years. There are SATS buildings which we are letting. It is a business undertaking and we are letting those buildings to private enterprise. I want to assure the hon member that as long as he is an MP we will not allow any undertaking to do business on the Langlaagte station. However, he will only be an MP until 1986, and after that we will negotiate with the new MP.

Mr Chairman, I want to move away now from the question of the fixed property of the SATS and discuss the question of their sea-going property. I also wish to move an amendment in this regard. I regret that I have delayed mentioning this fact until now but the matter has just come up. Therefore, I wish to move the following amendment:

1. 4. On page 5, in line 27, after “jurisdiction” to insert:

In motivating the reasons for the amendments contained in clause 6 in his explanatory memorandum on this Bill, the hon the Minister has this to say:

With that in mind, we in the NRP support the principle that the tugs belonging to the SATS should be allowed to proceed out of their areas of jurisdiction in order to undertake towage or salvage work. However, having said that, we also have two reservations.

The first reservation we have is in regard to the question of the tariff rate. We do know that the sealanes around our South African coastline today are among the busiest in the world and that many ships that traverse our coastline each day are giant tankers carrying large quantities of oil. In the event of a major breakdown or problem in respect of these tankers it is absolutely essential that any tugs being used should be of a standard to enable them to cope with the job. As a result of this need, we know that there are private companies which supply these deepsea-going tugs to assist in cases where a large tanker runs into trouble. We know that Safmarine is one such company, and there are others as well. We know that these privately owned tugs are stationed around our coast, and we are a bit concerned that the SATS may use its harbour tugs which are also sea-going tugs at a tariff rate much lower than that which is required by, let us say, these commercial tugs which have to stand by around our coast for long periods possibly, before a job comes up. We are afraid that if the SATS charge a tariff rate which is far below what these other companies have to charge of the necessity of these tugs to be on a waiting basis, these tugs may leave the South African ports to go elsewhere to look for business. In such an event we may be in trouble. If we accept the bona fides of the hon the Minister as it is revealed in the White Paper that this is a moral obligation which the SATS has not to refuse a request to come and help, then we believe that when he accedes to the request, it will have to be at a rate commensurate with the job and not a cut rate which he charges in order to get the job. We do not want the SATS to under cut those commercial firms which are standing by throughout the year. That is why I moved the amendment that the tariff rate charged should conform with those normally charged for harbour services by the SATS. I am sure that the hon the Minister will consider this a fair request.

There is another concern which we have. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he is happy that the tugs which his Administration might use comply with the standards which would normally be required by deepsea-going tugs in order to handle some of these jobs which could come up, considering the size of these enormous tankers and also considering these very rough seas which we have off the South African coast from time to time. What I am trying to say to the hon the Minister is that we should like to make sure that the equipment used, the tugs and the manning of these tugs are of such a standard that they will not place into jeopardy the salvage operations because it will be a disaster if a SATS tug is requested to come out and a particular tug goes out but finds that it has bitten off a bit more than it can chew, and as a result we have a tanker aground on our shore and we have a massive pollution spill.

Those are the two points I want to put to the hon the Minister. Firstly, will he concede the point that the tariff rate should not be less than that which is normally charged for harbour duty and secondly, is he happy that the tugs are up to the job and will be able to handle any emergency which could arise?

Mr Chairman, in as far as the tugs are concerned I think I am happy that they are up to standard. I can go into this matter and give the hon member further information. I note that he received the same telex which I received this morning from these people, viz Land & Marine, Cape Town. This is the reason why he moved the amendment. I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon the Minister for accepting the amendment, but I should like to ask him in all sincerity please to check the standard of his tugs. I ask this because I have two documents here from one of the commercial towage firms which express concern that the SATS undertook certain towage jobs with equipment which in the view of the professional deep sea towage and salvage tug operators was under standard. For example, I have here the case of a tug which went out on a salvage job. The people who wrote me a letter about this said on good authority that the tow-wire available for use on this tug was 200 metres in length and 36 mm in diameter and that no spare tow-wire was carried. In addition, no work boat was carried so it had no means of placing personnel on board the disabled ship in the event of an emergency. The tug crew also carried victuals for 48 hours only. They said that they believed that the towing of vessels off the South African seaboard should be left in the hands of professional operators whose equipment is suitable and whose personnel is fully experienced in towing of this nature in any type of weather. I will not go into detail on the other document I have here, but the point I want to make is that if the SATS is now going to do this type of work and because the SATS is so proud of its record…

The record speaks for itself.

The hon member for De Kuilen who is the chairman of the select committee says that the record speaks for itself. If he likes, I can read the other document which states that in the view of the professional tug operators the tug in question was not really suitable for the job on a number of occasions and had bad weather struck it could have had serious consequences. I will send the two documents over to the hon the Minister.

I want to ask the hon the Minister please to see to it that the standard of the equipment meets the requirements of the jobs which they may have to face some time in the future.

Mr Chairman, I just want to tell the hon the Minister that in my opinion he was a little too impatient with the hon member for Langlaagte.

A few words to the wise suffice. My colleague has a specific problem in regard to this clause. The SATS owns property at various places in South Africa. One can understand that large pieces of land were purchased when the SATS was being established. Since then many changes have taken place. At certain places where the SATS owns large pieces of land, not much development has taken place, while at other places large-scale development has taken place.

One would like to have an inventory of where all the SATS land is situated. One can then make a far better assessment of how that land could be better utilized, not only to the benefit of the SATS and its employees, but also to the benefit of the entire country.

The hon member for Langlaagte’s problem is that there are certain places in the country … [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I should like to ask you to tell the cheering squad of the hon the Minister to keep quiet for a while so that I can talk to him. It is not a complicated matter which I am raising here. The hon the Minister has now acquired status in this House, the status of Leader of the House, and we should like to respect that status of his. We want to take very good care of him.

A tip-top Leader.

Yes, he is a tip-top leader. We can deal with leaders if we want to, but we do not want to do that to the hon the Minister. We like him.

The problem which the hon member for Langlaagte has with the clause is that there are certain large concentrations of people who make use of the services of the SATS. At certain places there are sometimes large concentrations of people, arriving or departing by train.

All my colleague is asking for is that we should be very careful that we do not establish such business undertakings at such places that it makes the conveyance and the mobility of people difficult.

Secondly, additional problems should not be created by large concentrations of people at such places. That is why my hon colleague used Johannesburg station as an example. In the nature of things there will be many places where one is going to have that problem, but all we want the hon the Minister to bear in mind is that one should not establish businesses on railway stations which are going to create additional problems for persons wishing to make use of rail transportation.

The other factor is that one should not make things difficult for private enterprise, for people who wish to establish businesses in that vicinity.

Mr Chairman, I understood the problem all along. If the hon member for Langlaagte talks to me in a well-reasoned way, then I know what his point is. The hon member for Langlaagte has one fault, however. He manages to irritate me every time by twisting my words. He is the kind of man who runs to court. I have never been in court in my life, nor have I ever been a witness in one. He is now alleging that I said that Solly Kramer was going to be granted a liquor licence on Johannesburg station.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon the Minister to say that the hon member for Langlaagte twists his words? It is frequently very difficult to know when the hon the Minister is joking and when he is being serious. Consequently he must not take certain connotations too seriously.

Sir, there you have another insinuation. Nevertheless, I withdraw my words. I am not a difficult person, and if the hon member talks to me the way he did just now, I shall understand. The hon member cannot tell me about any land at Johannesburg station; there is none.

What about the old Newtown railway plots?

There is no land, and we shall not construct a building that will cause congestion among passengers either. We came forward with a practical proposal here, but we have nevertheless been forced to conduct a debate lasting a few hours in order to pass a motion aimed at generating more revenue for the SATS to the benefit of its workers. If a person reasons with me in a thorough way, fine, but a person must not make insinuations. I think we have now discussed this matter long enough.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment 2A agreed to.

Amendment 2, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment 3 negatived (Conservative Party dissenting).

Amendment 4 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 11:

Mr Chairman, we have no problem with the clause as it stands, we just wish to point out, however, that a law of this Parliament under the present dispensation will also be a law under the new dispensation of the tricameral Parliament. We cannot ask for legislation for the future. If we are going to use this legislation in the other dispensation, though, we are prejudicing the worker because he will not be able to exercise a choice. If he knows what the new dispensation is and what his conditions of service in terms of it are going to be, he may simply refuse to join the police for example. Where he may perhaps be working under a coloured Minister or a coloured stationmaster under the new dispensation, he might say that he does not want to accept that. If this clause remains exactly as it stands, however, that person will be guilty and may be sentenced to six months imprisonment plus a fine. I ask that this be taken into consideration.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13:

Mr Chairman, clause 13 is one of the clauses one should look at. One should ask oneself: Is it reasonable that the General Manager may remit an amount of R10 000? I accept that there are many thousands of cases where the General Manager will have to perform such a task without referring them to Parliament.

There is a second point, however. Provision is also being made in this Bill for the Minister to be able to approve of any amount, also amounts in excess of R10 000, which are reported to him, without such amounts ever having been approved by Parliament. Surely that is not fair.

In the discussion of clause 6 we spoke about the 1% of the people who could perhaps owe R5 000. It almost made us mad. Here an amount of up to R300 000 or R400 000 may be remitted in one case by a Minister, perhaps with good intentions, but it could be to the detriment of the entire Parliament, and we have no say in the matter. [Interjections.] The hon member for Mossel Bay says I am talking about different things. Of course I am doing so. How else does one draw a comparison?

I ask: How can you compare the two things?

Of course one can compare them. The Minister accepts responsibility for the employee, and he also accepts responsibility for the Administration. This is one of the major problems. I ask for the necessary deletion in the legislation.

The hon member is now talking about an Act which has existed and has been approved for many years. We are dealing here with “R5 000”. That is all we are concerned with. What was previously R4 999 now becomes R5 000.

The hon the Minister need not think I do not know what an amending Bill is. I am asking for the provision to be deleted. When a clause is being discussed, one is entitled to amend it. A single word at the end of a clause can give a completely different meaning to that clause. It will not help you to try to be clever now. [Interjections.] I know that this is an amending Bill. However, it is not wrong to point out what is wrong in this legislation. It is not ridiculous that one …

Order! The only amendment that is being proposed in this subsection is the omission of the words “or less” and the insertion before the figure “R5 000” of “less than”. That is the only amendment that is being proposed here. The hon member’s remarks must therefore be confined specifically to this amendment.

Sir, I accept your ruling. If it was written into the clause that it was not necessary to report any expenditure to Parliament, I would have been able to discuss it, but I shall discuss it again at the Third Reading.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Mr Speaker, I move:

We are dealing here with a Bill that is relatively short and uncomplicated, but due to the necessity to meet international requirements and due to practical considerations, it should be implemented without delay.

Although the South African Railways Police have been performing police duties at State airports for many years, members of that Force do not have the authority to detain aircraft at State airports in appropriate cases. Because members of the South African Police and the SA Defence Force already have this authority, I think it is obvious that members of the South African Railways Police, who are really the ones who do the work and who are always on the scene, should likewise have the authority to detain aircraft in appropriate circumstances.

Although the necessary authorization already exists to compel interested parties to have obstructions that pose a danger to aircraft marked if such obstructions exceed a prescribed height, it has been proved in practice that it is not so much the height of the obstruction which poses a threat to aircraft, but rather the position and nature of the obstruction. Cables which are spanned for long distances over rivers and valleys without supports constitute the greatest danger. Consequently, provision is made in the Bill that orders will be issued in regard to the marking of obstructions by virtue of their position and nature and not solely by virtue of their height.

According to legal advice obtained, the principal Act does not at present grant the authority to issue regulations concerning field documents for air carriers and aerodromes. However, in appendix 6 of the Chicago Convention the International Civil Aviation Organization made the issuing of field documents by air carriers to their operational personnel an international standard. Consequently, provision is being made in the Bill for the Republic to be able to comply with these standards.

†This bring me to the most important matter in the Amendment Bill, namely the provisions set out in clause 3. On the basis of guidance provided by the United Nations in respect of intermodal standardisation of regulations in the transport of dangerous goods, and by the International Atomic Energy Agency in the transport of radio-active materials, the International Civil Aviation Organization has now for the first time developed standards for the safe transport of dangerous goods by air. These government level standards replace the airline level Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods Regulations, issued by the International Air Transport Association, which now becomes a field document for the use of operational personnel.

Because of the extent and complexity of the documents, and in view of the fact that they are to be updated annually, it is totally impracticable to incorporate the standards into the South African regulations. The best approach is to follow the British example, by issuing a declaration giving legal effect to the documents.

Mr Speaker, we on this side of the House support the Bill. It is mainly an administrative measure giving the Railway Police the same powers that the SA Police and the SA Defence Force already have as far as apprehending any aircraft is concerned. As they are really the people in charge of airports it is correct that they should have these powers.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, it seems as if this is a correct regulation because all the power to light and mark obstacles and the manner in which it should be done in flight approaches to airports, is now laid out correctly.

As far as the regulations with regard to operative directives are concerned, we agree that they should be followed. We only have one problem that we should like to put to the hon the Minister, and it is that he wants to declare these directives without publishing them in the Government Gazette. He merely want, to say that this particular directive shall apply. What we are worried about, particularly in regard to clause 3, is that if they are repugnant to any of the regulations which the SATS may have laid down prior to this publication, how does one then determine which will have prior treatment? Will it be the regulation that the SATS may have laid down previously, or the new one that is merely published? This is a problem that we foresee, and we want to avoid conflict between these international standards and the regulations previously laid down by the SATS.

Mr Speaker, I should like to express my gratitude to the official Opposition who, through the hon member for Bezuidenhout indicated, that they support this Bill. I do not think that the problem the hon member raised is really a problem. In any case, the hon the Minister will undoubtedly furnish a reply in that regard.

Since we are discussing this Bill, one is tempted to mention the fiftieth anniversary of the SA Airways which we have just celebrated. As I say, I am tempted to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the hon the Minister, and the SAA in particular, on that achievement. I believe that the first 50 years of service by the SAA is only the beginning on which a fine future is going to be built. In fact, the whole of South Africa is proud of those achievements. I believe that this is only the beginning of fine things for the future. I should like to say more about this matter on another occasion.

During his Second Reading Speech the hon the Minister set out very clearly what the present Bill entails. At best, I think we could describe this amending measure as purposeful. In essence this is a purposeful Bill with its main aim being, in the first instance, to comply with international requirements and secondly, to give attention to a number of practical considerations. As the hon the Minister rightly said, in the present measure attention is firstly being given to the position of the Railways Police.

They are the people who do the work at our airports. The Railways Police are rendering valuable and essential services at our State airports on a daily basis. There is a discrepancy here, however, viz that members of the Railways Police do not have the authority to detain aircraft at State airports when necessary. In contrast, we also have the anomaly—one could almost call it that—that members of the SA Police Force and even members of the SA Defence Force already have that authority. It is therefore only logical and desirable that the Railways Police should, in fact, perform that task. They are able to do so, since they are always on the scene. They should therefore have that authority.

Another matter which the present Bill deals with, is the question of obstructions, which the hon the Minister referred to as well. Provision is made in the present measure that the danger posed by obstructions not only to be determined by their height. One is inclined to think that only high obstructions constitute a danger. That is not the case. It has been proved in practice that irrespective of the height of an obstruction, its position and nature can sometimes be much more dangerous than its height. It is a well-known fact that cables are spanned across rivers, for example. Cables are even spanned across valleys, particularly narrow valleys. Those cables are invisible and therefore constitute a real danger to aviation even though they are not necessarily high. Consequently, this Bill makes provision for obstructions to be marked in view of their position and nature, and not merely in accordance with their height.

We should like our aircraft and our pilots to be kept safe when they are in the air. We should like to protect them, since their safety is extremely important to us and to the country. A pilot flying in his aircraft means a great deal, but a pilot in the cemetery is worthless.

Another important amendment contained in the present Bill concerns the conveyance of dangerous goods and radio-active material. The International Civil Aviation Organization has for the first time set down standards for the safe conveyance of dangerous goods by air.

Another goal this amending Bill wishes to achieve as far as the International Civil Aviation Organization is concerned is to give legal effect to certain documents issued in terms of section 37 of the convention. According to legal advice obtained, the principal Act does not at present grant the authority to issue regulations concerning field documents for air carriers and aerodromes. In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minster pointed out that the Chicago Convention had laid down international standards in respect of the issuing of field documents by air carriers to their operational personnel, and that is the main aim.

In conclusion, I just want to say that we welcome this Bill and we on this side of the House support it wholeheartedly.

Mr Speaker, we on this side of the House support this Bill. It deals mainly with making aviation safe. The fact that one is able to support it surely means that its purpose is to create an improved situation as far as the travelling public is concerned. As the hon member for Kempton Park said, their safety takes top priority.

Mr Speaker, I think the hon the Minister thought he was going to get away lightly this afternoon. We know he is in a hurry and we know that he would like to take all stages of this legislation and so we are prepared to give him those stages this afternoon. However, I am sure he would want to hear what the NRP has to say about this Bill.

I want to thank the hon member for Kempton Park for reminding us that SA Airways is this year celebrating its 50th anniversary. I do believe that it has a tremendous record of safety. In this regard I also want to say that I do think it should only be the SA Airways that is to be congratulated on its safety record. I think that congratulations are also in order in respect of the safety record that has been maintained at our airports over the years. This particular Bill includes measures that will increase security at our airports in view of the authorization now being given by the Bill to the Railway Police. Provision is also being made, as I have said, to make our airports safer as well as our aircraft by making provision for the inclusion of the regulations passed by an air safety agency of the United Nations.

I should just like to devote a few moments to recording the thanks of my party and I am sure the appreciation of all hon members here for the work done by the security staff at our airports. I know that a large number of members of the public become impatient when they have to undergo the various security checks. However, I should like to tell the hon the Minister that I was seeing somebody off at the airport recently—an elderly woman—and she told me that she did not mind how long it took to get through the security checks because she wanted to be sure that when she boarded the aircraft she was going to get home safely. I think that this is the message we should give to the public namely that when their safety is at stake, they should realize that the security checks that we have at our airports and elsewhere are there in the interest of the travelling public, and that they should not become impatient and get upset with the officials who are only doing their jobs.

Having said that, we have pleasure in supporting this measure which the hon the Minister has introduced.

Mr Speaker, at the commencement of his speech the hon the Minister said that this was a short and uncomplicated Bill. When the hon member for Langlaagte rose to speak, I thought he was really going to complicate this legislation, but the hon member did not do so. I thank him for supporting this Bill. As everyone rightly said, it concerns greater safety and the organization of certain matters with regard to civil aviation. No one can dispute the matter concerning the SA Police; it is something that has to happen.

As far as obstructions are concerned, I think that this is a very sound measure. Particularly since aviation in general, and civil aviation and the number of lighter aircraft in particular, is increasing tremendously, and a great deal of search and rescue is taking place nowadays, the marking of these obstructions as mentioned by the hon the Minister is essential. I support this legislation on behalf of this side of the House.

Mr Speaker, I, too, support the Second Reading of the Bill. I do not think there is a great deal that can be added at this stage, except to request that the hon the Minister have more investigations carried out, with a view to eliminating plane accidents in particular. The latest report of the Department of Transport, which we received yesterday, indicates that from 1 April 1982 to 31 March 1983 approximately 80% of the 149 plane accidents that took place and in which 49 people were killed were ascribed to the pilot. There were many more such cases in previous years; in as many as 90% of the accidents the causes were ascribed to the pilot. Since this legislation is mainly concerned with safety, we request that the department continue to eliminate anything—not only obstructions—responsible for plane accidents and to make aircraft considerably safer than they are at present.

Another advantage contained in the Bill and which consequently has our support is that technical instructions from the ICAO will also apply to all international airlines, as well as the SAA as carrier, in respect of the conveyance of nuclear material and other dangerous materials. I am also grateful that provision is being made to licence the agents who will be working with this in particular, viz the freight agents, so that in the future we shall know precisely who is responsible under which circumstances when something goes wrong, particularly in the conveyance of nuclear material to and from South Africa. I support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Bezuidenhout asked whether we would declare directives without publishing them, but I should like to give him the assurance that such a document, if it contains measures which are in conflict with standing regulations, will not be given legal effect. This is an agreement which has been reached.

*I thank the hon member for Bezuidenhout for supporting this Bill. The same applies to the hon member for Kempton Park. In particular, I appreciate his reference to the festivities in commemoration of the establishment of the SAA 50 years ago. The hon member for Amanzimtoti also referred to this. In the first instance, the SAA does not belong to the SATS; it is an airline which belongs to all the people. Each of us has a share in it. I take pleasure in the kind words spoken.

I also wish to thank the hon member for Langlaagte for addressing me in such a friendly way and for supporting the Bill. This encourages me for the future.

†The hon member for Amanzimtoti thanked our security forces at the airports and he made special reference to a certain lady. She makes a habit of waiting until everything is safe before she embarks on a plane. She makes sure that everything is safe. I appreciate the hon member’s remark.

*Once we were sitting on board an aircraft when everyone had to alight and identify his own baggage, since a suitcase had been loaded without the passenger having gone on board. All those people displayed the necessary understanding. One cannot permit an aircraft to take off if a passenger’s baggage is on board and he himself has not boarded the aircraft. This incident delayed us for approximately 90 minutes, but we had no choice.

I also wish to thank the hon member for Kroonstad most sincerely for his contribution. The same applies to the hon member Dr Welgemoed. Right now I ask that the Bill be not committed. [Interjections.]

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The proposed amendments are merely of a technical nature, inter alia, to make provision for the alteration of designations and the inclusion of Black local authorities, as indicated in clauses 1, 2, 3 and 5.

A legal problem has arisen concerning the present wording of section 53(1). In terms of the provision the authority of entrance and inspection is being granted to a number of persons. Officials of the department are being granted special authority to enter premises and carry out inspections to determine whether the provisions of the Act have been complied with. The Act includes the regulations. This authorization does not include the other persons mentioned in this section and this shortcoming is rectified in clause 4.

Mr Speaker, I want to tell the hon the Minister at once that the official Opposition supports this Bill.

†I consider the Health Act of 1977 to be the guardian of the health of our people. It gives a wide range of powers to the hon the Minister, his department and, among others, also to local authorities. It is my opinion that the local authorities and especially their health departments and officials are the infantrymen of our health care services. We therefore welcome the inclusion of Black local authorities under the definition of “local authorities”.

It has always been the belief of this party and of health authorities that the more the local population and the local authorities can be involved in their own health affairs, the better the health care. This is especially true in respect of preventive and promotive measures in respect of health care in this country. Where the Black local authorities are now being included and accepted as local authorities which will render health care services, we must support it fully. I only hope that with the Black local authorities joining the primary health care team and sharing the responsibilities in this regard, adequate facilities will be provided and enough money will be made available for them to carry out these functions in the best interests of their people.

We have no real problems regarding the other clauses of the Bill. There was one other problem which I have cleared up with the hon the Minister’s department. It concerns the fact that an interpreter and his assistant will be allowed to enter an area and to take part in inspections. Why should these people have the same authority in terms of the Act? The officials of the department will be present and we find it rather strange that the interpreter should have the same powers as officials. However, we gladly support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I should like to thank the hon member for Parktown for the positive way in which he and his party support the measure.

In my humble opinion the basic issue here is that as far as the Black local authorities are concerned, they are acquiring not only the responsibility, but also the privileges applicable to the White local authorities. The situation is now being put on an equal basis with the situation that applies at present with regard to the Coloureds. In other words, we are dealing here with a measure which rationalizes all the local authorities of the various population groups. It ensures that as far as health is concerned it will be possible to provide better services in general, and that it will also be possible for the department not only to improve but also to extend its services at this level. We on this side of the House therefore take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Speaker, we on this side also support this Bill. Our standpoint—and I think we have consensus on this—is that we in South Africa not only want each individual to be as healthy as possible and to live to an advanced age, but also feel—and this is very important—that in a country like South Africa, where one has a variety of groups and where every population group is probably not equally health-minded, and in view of the modem science that underlies this, we should make the principles of the Act and the amending Act known and involve as many people as possible in this regard.

I also wish to make a political remark. The hon member need not react to it if he does not wish to. While we support this Bill, we realize that by way of this Bill we are moving towards the new dispensation. In terms of clause 1, in which reference is made in the definition to “Director-General” and to “Minister”, these posts may be occupied by an Indian or a Coloured. We want to say that the fact that we are supporting the Bill at this point must not be used against us in the new dispensation.

Mr Speaker, I take pleasure in supporting this Bill. The hon member for Rissik will pardon me for not reacting to the point he made with regard to the new dispensation. I think there will be ample opportunity to discuss this matter in future debates.

When one looks at this Bill one has of necessity to consider the constitution as well. Act 32 of 1961 provides very clearly that local authorities bear the responsibility for public health within their areas of jurisdiction. It is true that the coming into effect of Act 102 of 1982, the Black Local Authorities Act meant that a heavy responsibility devolved upon the Black communities as well. The fact that 29 Black local authorities have already been established in terms of the Act I have just mentioned, is a milestone. The fact is that a heavy responsibility will now devolve upon the Black local authorities. For many years the Black community only had a say through the advisory committees. That was at the time when White local authorities still bore all responsibility for health services. We have guided the Black people gradually. In 1971 the Administration Boards were established and at that time they took the responsibility upon themselves. They were followed by the Community Councils and later by the Black local authorities.

I take pleasure in supporting this measure, but I should like to state very clearly this afternoon that for my part I want to make a very earnest and urgent appeal to White local authorities to give Black local authorities the necessary guidance. We appreciate the fact that there are already several Black health inspectors, but I am convinced that the Black local authorities will not be able to accept full responsibility immediately for the provision of health services. Therefore I wish to make an earnest appeal to White local authorities to continue, as in the past, to furnish assistance to Black local authorities that accept that full responsibility.

I should like to take this further. As far as the provision of health services is concerned one must also bear in mind that a terrain for co-operation between White and Black local authorities is being established here. I just wish to give a few examples. For example I have air pollution in mind. The Black local authorities are now also accepting responsibility for the combating of air pollution. This is a matter which extends over the area of jurisdiction of White local authorities as well. I can also refer to water pollution. It is these matters that will certainly have to be given very earnest attention in future and I am of the opinion that whether we like it or not, there will have to be the necessary liaison, when the Co-ordinating Council for Local Authorities is established, with the Black local authorities as well to ensure that an effective health service is provided throughout the community. It is a matter of the health of the community as a whole and not only that of the White or Black communities. I take pleasure in supporting the measure before this House.

Mr Speaker, we too will be supporting this measure, I should like at the outset to associate myself whole-heartedly with the remarks passed by the hon member for Witbank. I think he has raised a very important point here this afternoon. He has emphasized the need for the White local authorities to render the logistical assistance that will be required by the Black local authorities, if one wants to put this whole thing in military terminology along the lines suggested by the hon member for Parktown who also, correctly, called the local authorities the infantry of health care. I think he has coined a phrase here this afternoon that is worth remembering for a long time to come. We believe that every encouragement should be given to the Black local authorities, both logistically and, of course, financially. It is inevitable that they are going to need more and more financial support. It is to be hoped that the hon the Minister and his department will see their way clear to ensuring that the health care which they envisage being afforded will be carried out effectively and efficiently.

We have no other problems with the Bill whatsoever. The remaining clauses merely serve to regularize matters and I believe that the Bill in its entirety should be supported through all its stages in the House this afternoon.

Mr Speaker, if the hon member for Umhlanga has no objections to this measure, who am I to object to it?

Sir, after one whole year I am once again rising to speak in this House.

Hear, hear!

The doctors said that I was ill and so I went to bed. Now, after a year, I am well again and I can speak about illnesses for hours, just like an old woman. Before going on to support the Bill, permit me to thank everyone for their get-well messages and their wishes for a speedy recovery. I also received a telegram of sympathy from someone. It was a little too soon, however. I am still here. [Interjections.] I am still up and about.

I am now an authority on nurses and hospitals. In fact, I did not want to return immediately. I felt that my head was not yet quite as it should be, but then some of the chaps said that there were other hon members whose heads left something to be desired, too, and that one more would not make much difference! [Interjections.]

I have made an in-depth and intensive study of this amending Bill. It seems to me that it is merely a matter of rectifying provisions to improve the Act. If everyone is supporting this legislation, I shall do so as well. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, in view of what the hon member for Worcester said, I shall also express my gratitude if everyone supports it.

I want to thank the hon member for Park-town, the hon member for Brits, the hon member for Rissik, the hon member for Wit-bank, the hon member for Umhlanga and the hon member for Worcester for their support of this legislation. As has rightly been stated, this is really consequential legislation. Alterations are necessary because independent Black local authorities are being introduced. Hon members realize that it is imperative to include those people under the Health Act. Hence the necessary changes. The other amendments are lesser alterations to designations.

As the hon member for Witbank and the hon member for Umhlanga, amongs others, said, it will probably be difficult for Black local authorities to render these services and there is the possibility of co-operation with White local authorities. The hon member for Umhlanga put it as follows: "… to at least help these people with the logistics of health care”. I think this is particuarly important. The Chinese have a wonderful proverb which one would do well to bear in mind. I want to relate that saying to this aspect. They say it is better to light a small candle than to curse the darkness. This is a small beginning but I think it is an essential one. I therefore appreciate the fact that we have the support of the whole House.

The hon member for Parktown put one question, viz why the interpreter assisting an inspector at an inspection should have the same powers as the inspector. He does not have the same powers. I refer here to the last line on page 5 of the Bill, which reads:

In other words, he can only act in the presence of and on the instruction of the inspector. From a legal point of view he must be granted the same powers otherwise action could be taken against him. This is to protect that person.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 4:

Mr Chairman, in regard to an interpreter the proposed new section 53(4) states:

If such an interpreter acts under the direction of the officer, the interpreter does not have to be present with him. The officer can simply say to him: I want you to go to this or that village or town and I want you to do this, that and the other. In such an instance the interpreter is acting under the officer’s direction but is not actually in his presence.

The officer may take an interpreter along.

That is quite correct. He can take an interpreter with him, but the clause states further that such an interpreter “shall have the same powers as such officer”. I do not think that this was intended, but the way in which the clause is worded actually enables an inspector to give a direction to an interpreter who then carries out that function while having the same powers as the inspector. That is what it means, and I think anyone reading this clause will interpret it in this way. I do not think that the hon the Minister intended it to be interpreted in that way. Obviously, there is no objection to the interpreter being in the presence of the inspector. If we want to rectify this matter, we can amend the clause by saying: “… in so far as he acts under the direction of such officer and in his presence”. I accordingly move the following amendment:

1. 1. On page 5, in line 61, after “acts” to insert “in his presence and”

We cannot allow an interpreter to act on his own because this can be dangerous. I actually know of a case concerning a certain local authority that was responsible, as most local authorities are, for granting motor vehicle licences and testing people for their learners’ licences. It turned out that the interpreter, if it was made worth his while, would provide the correct answers to all the questions. If he was not looked after, however, he would interpret exactly what the learner driver said and so often it would be the wrong answers. This, I think, is rather dangerous.

Mr Chairman, I consulted the legal advisers on the meaning of these words and can given their verbatim reply: Provisions regarding inspection are to be found in many Acts, so there is nothing new in this provision regarding the interpreter and an assistant. Only an officer of the department and a magistrate, police officer and someone who has been appointed as an inspector can enter premises—that is also what is provided for in this Act—and carry out inspections. So no one else can enter such premises. The fact that the interpreter and an assistant also have the powers of an inspector does not therefore mean that they can also enter the premises and thus accompany the inspector on his inspections. The interpreter and assistant only have the powers of an inspector in so far as they act under the directions of the person carrying out the inspections, and that is what is contained in the clause. They have no powers, except in so far as they are carrying out the instructions of the inspector.

Mr Chairman, I have some problems with the amendment moved by the hon member for Hillbrow. This would mean that when they enter a house, the assistant would not be able to carry out investigations in a room of that house without the inspector also being present in the same room. That is the problem I foresee. For that reason I do not think I can accept this amendment.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister? I want to know from him whether he would have any objection to the insertion of the words “if he acts in his presence and under his direction”?

Mr Chairman, I am objecting to the words “in his presence”. That would mean that he would not even be able to execute his duties should the inspector stand behind a door. The hon member for Hillbrow wants us to make it impossible for the man to do his job. In that case he might as well let the man stay at home.

Yes, but the interpreter should not act when the inspector is not present. He should always be in the presence of the inspector otherwise the interpreter could be doing the work of the inspector.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No 56:

Mr Speaker, I should briefly like to refer to the effect this legislation will now be having as a result of the amendment to section 48 of the principal Act. What this amounts to it that in terms of the amended section 48 Black local authorities must now also accept responsibility for the removal and burial of dead bodies.

In an earlier debate I pointed out how the cost of this service had increased over the years. Today this service costs a tremendous amount. The measure under discussion makes provision for possible donations to schools of anatomy. The distance that the mortal remains of deceased persons sometimes have to be transported to the nearest school of anatomy does, however, create problems.

Secondly, provision is also being made for the cremation of mortal remains. I think it is necessary for serious attention to be paid to this matter in the future. I think that the Health Act ought to be amended to make provision for the much cheaper cremation of mortal remains not needed for schools of anatomy. This would bring about a saving for all the authorities which have to bear the responsibility of such costs.

Mr Speaker, the hon member has broached a matter of which he has a special knowledge, and I have great appreciation for that fact. I do not think it has a direct bearing on the Bill now before the House, but in the implementation of the provisions of the Health Act these matters will continually have to be borne in mind. If we are given hints to improve the position, I think we should take note of them, and I thank the hon member for that.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The proposed amendments to the Mental Health Act, 1973, are mainly of a technical nature. In terms of the proviso to section 56(1), a judge in chambers or the Master of the Supreme Court may appoint a curator for a mentally ill person whose property does not exceed R5 000 or whose income does not exceed R1 000 per annum. These amounts are increased to R50 000 and R10 000 respectively in view of the changed circumstances.

Mr Speaker, on behalf of the official Opposition I wish to support this Bill.

I want to refer in the first instance to the amendments being effected to section 56(1) by clause 2 and to tell the hon the Minister that we can see the reason for these amendments. I am sure that the legal profession are also in favour of these amendments. Unfortunately, this is all part of the cost of living.

Clause 1 of the Bill deals with amendments to the definitions. I hope, Sir, that you will permit me to refer very briefly in this respect to certain members of the mental team to whom I think a special tribute should be paid. I refer here, inter alia, to psychiatrists, social welfare workers, mental health and psychiatric nurses and clinical psychologists.

As the hon the Minister may know, a group of members of the PFP including myself visit some of our health institutions every year, particularly those in the Eastern Province. We have also had the good fortune to visit some of our mental institutions and we have done so with very keen interest. One has only to visit these institutions to appreciate the incredible work that is being done by the staff of those institutions, quite often under very difficult circumstances and sometimes also in areas where there are no bright lights and all the attractions of our modern society.

When one studies the work that is being done at these institutions it is very interesting to note that with proper psychiatric care very few patients remain in a mental institution for any length of time. They are discharged within a comparatively short period and with proper aftercare very few of them return. Therefore, I think it is appropriate to pay tribute to those people in recognition of the work that is being done. It is also very interesting to see the inmates of these institutions. On the White side we find very few chronic cases, but on the Black side unfortunately there are many chronic cases because of staff and follow up difficulties. I think we should always try to make people aware of this and to encourage people to study the special methods which are required when a group of people have to be taken care of who are part of our population and whom we cannot neglect.

I believe there is still a lot to be done. I am ware of the tremendous amount the department is doing in building new facilities. There are old facilities of which we really should be ashamed, but in the majority of cases these facilities are being improved. I am aware of this since I have visited those places. We on this side of the House wish to thank the department for what they are doing and we want to pay special tribute to unsung heroes who work under the most difficult conditions with really the tragic people of our population. We say thank you to them and we shall always try to help them. We support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, listening as I was to what the hon member for Parktown had to say, my thoughts involuntarily went back to the day I made my maiden speech here in the House. It was also a question then of an amendment to this Act.

I think a tremendous amount of progress has been made in the past few years, and here I want to refer, in particular, to the approach to patients in psychiatric institutions. I also want to refer to something that was just touched upon, and that is the multidisciplinary team, in fact everything that goes on in and around psychiatric institutions.

I particularly want to thank the hon the Minister for having introduced this measure in the House, and particularly because of one facet, contained in this legislation, to which certain of my colleagues will probably also be referring. Apart from the fact that certain definitions are being replaced by new ones, provision is specifically being made for the property of patients in these institutions and the incomes accruing to them as a consequence of the property they own. Provision is being made for a curator to manage their affairs so that it will no longer be necessary to employ the services of an attorney or a lawyer when one has recourse to the Master or a judge-in-chambers.

I think this is a tremendous improvement, because there is one thing one must very definitely remember when discussing these things, and that is that there are not many people in these institutions who do not, during their incarceration there, know what it is really all about. Only a small percentage of those in such institutions cannot be treated and, to a large extent, cured.

We must not forget that those people have family members who are worried about them, but the obverse is also true. There are many of those patients, to whom this measure relates, who are worried about their children or other members of their family outside the institutions. In their many hours of loneliness they sit planning and dreaming, as any normal person outside such institutions plans and dreams, about the weal and woe of their families and children.

I have referred to the stigma which does, to a large extent, attach to these people, but by means of this measure that stigma is being further reduced or removed. That is as it ought to be, and I therefore want to thank the hon the Minister for this measure which may, at first glance, seem to be of small import, but which nevertheless can make a very great contribution to the peace of mind of these people and their next-of-kin. On this side of the House we want to thank the hon the Minister very sincerely, and it is a privilege for me to support this measure.

Mr Speaker, I want to tell the hon the Minister that the CP also wholeheartedly supports this Bill.

In recent times we have all eagerly used the word “civilization”, and particularly in politics, and one very often asks oneself according to what norms one determines how civilized a person or a community is. I think that the way in which a government and a community cares for its sick and aged gives an indication of the degree of civilization of the country or the community. This is all the more true when it comes to the question of mental health. An even greater test of the degree of civilization of a community is the way in which it looks after its many unfortunate persons in the community who are mentally ill. If one were to be faced with the difficult choice of where one would rather be, ie physically ill in a hospital or in an institution for the mentally ill, one would rather choose to be suffering from a physical disability. The lives we lead make particularly severe demands on us, and one can very easily lapse into a mental state necessitating care.

I want to associate myself with what the hon member for Parktown said. He is in a much better position to pass judgment on the staff working at this kind of institution. These people virtually devote their lives to caring for people who are mentally ill. We greatly appreciate what these people are doing, and one is grateful that there are indeed people who, in their daily or nightly task, devote themselves to the care of these people.

As far as clause 2 of the Bill is concerned, we take note of the degree to which inflation is affecting the value of money. One can therefore understand amounts such as there being increased to this extent from 1973 to 1984, ie from R5 000 to R50 000 and from R1 000 to R10 000.

We support the Bill and trust that the hon the Minister, his department and everyone involved in this matter will benefit from this measure.

Mr Speaker, I thank the hon member for Rissik for his support of the Bill.

It is not necessary for me to point out the merits of this Bill, because this has already been done by previous speakers. I would, however, like to take the opportunity to point out a shortcoming in the principal Act which has already caused problems in practice. I want to refer to section 38(b) of the principal Act, which makes provision for certain actions by the Minister when the conditional discharge of a person who is mentally ill is revoked. The Act does not, however, provide for who should revoke it, under what circumstances it can be revoked and within what period it can be revoked. It can obviously not refer to revocation by the Minister, because specific provision is made for it in this section, including the conditions under which it can take place. It can be supposed that a hospital board is being referred to in this connection, but there is not clarity about this, nor about the circumstances under which this can be done. This has already caused problems in the past. It has also caused problems for the hospital board on which I serve. I want to ask the hon the Minister please to give attention to this matter.

Mr Speaker, I merely rise to indicate that the NRP will support the legislation.

Mr Speaker, I think this is a good time to give attention to this subject since it specifically relates to a group of people who are regarded as the unfortunates in a community. I think it is very thoughtful of the department and the hon the Minister to take another look at the legislation. This Bill is an improvement on the Mental Health Act of 1973. It makes provision for the adaption of certain obsolete expressions. In clause 2 a judge-in-chambers or the Master is empowered to appoint a curator for the estate of someone who is mentally disturbed, and also in the case of higher incomes. The value of estates and incomes are now being brought into line with present-day monetary values. Let me point out, as the hon member for Rissik did, that in the case of an estate the amount is being increased from R5 000 to R50 000, and in the case of incomes from R1 000 to R10 000. This is fair and just, and I therefore support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Parktown apologized to me for not being present as he has to catch a plane. I want to thank the hon member in the first instance for his support and more so for his kind words about the people involved in the care of the ill.

As he said, these people are unsung heroes. They bring their offers and render services under circumstances which are not always very healthy or pleasing. They are rendering a great service, a service without which humanity cannot cope. Therefore I want to thank the hon member for thinking of these people.

*Support was also forthcoming from other quarters in the House. The same understanding was forthcoming from the hon members for Brits, Rissik, Umhlanga and Middelburg and from the hon member Mr D P A Schutte.

The hon member for Rissik rightly said that it is said that the level of civilization of a * people is, to a large extent, assessed by the way in which it looks after its less privileged individuals. I hope and trust that we in this country will never be found wanting. Up to now we in South Africa can be proud of what we have done for our less privileged. I do not think we need be ashamed of that or that we need to stand back for any other country in the world.

Today I also want to pay tribute here to those private bodies and those private firms that help us with the care of thousands of mentally handicapped and less privileged individuals. I should like to invite hon members on occasion to go and have a look at what these people are doing and the service they are rendering to the community on behalf of the State, and at a price that astounds one. It is not a price at which the State could look after these people. From those private bodies they get a comprehensive service for which the State pays R4,70 per day. I invite hon members to join me in having a look at what is being done. Private initiative can help us, private initiative wants to help us, and I think private initiative should be placed in a position to help us. As far as health services and medicines are concerned, it is not always merely a question of money, money, money. There are also people who provide outstanding services, and I thank them for it.

I want to thank all hon members for their support. I also want to thank them for their understanding of the services that are furnished.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

In brief, the amendments in the Bill concern the following: The effective functioning of the Heraldry Committee; the conducting of certain examinations and the recognition of courses and subjects of other examining bodies; the application of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1941, to the staff of State-aided technical colleges, schools and centres; the extension of the powers of technical colleges and the protection of the courses and the subjects in which technical colleges provide tuition and training.

The Heraldry Committee of the Heraldry Council established in terms of section 6(3) of the Heraldry Act, 1962, is at present dependent for its functioning on specific applications being referred to it by the State Herald for its decision. Therefore the committee is actually subordinate to the initiative of the State Herald. For this reason, a need exists for the Heraldry Committee to be invested with original powers. In order to do justice to the knowledge of the members of the committee and the status which the committee should enjoy, it is desirable that it should be given the power to determine which applications should be submitted to it by the State Herald and which applications can be dealt with by the State Herald himself.

The three Ministers responsible for educational matters, namely the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Minister of Education and Training and myself, have decided, with a view to greater co-ordination and standardization of examinations and qualifications at the post-school level, that the Department of National Education should be in charge of the examination and certification of students of all population groups for the national tertiary courses (excluding those offered at universities) and the National Technical Certificate courses. A request has since been received from the Republic of Bophuthatswana to the effect that the Department of National Education should handle this examination and this certification for its citizens as well, and this has been granted.

Furthermore, since it is the policy of the Department of National Education to allow candidates to acquire certificates by building up credits for subjects over a period of time, these new arrangements inevitably mean that provision has to be made for the recognition of courses and subjects falling under other examining bodies. In order, therefore, to make possible the examination and certification as well as the recognition of courses and subjects falling under other Government departments, examining bodies or independent states, the proposed statutory amendments are essential.

†Mr Speaker, provision is also made to increase the financial autonomy of technical colleges by empowering their councils to determine the fees payable by students for tuition and by students or staff members for boarding or accommodation. Besides the provision of recognized courses for which technical colleges, in terms of the Technical Colleges Act, 1981, are subsidized, they also provide courses in social and recreational skills for which no subsidy is paid. In other words, these are financially self-supporting courses. Clause 7(a) empowers the college councils to determine the remuneration payable to persons employed to offer such courses.

Clause 10 clearly defines how a technical college shall be represented on the important new Association of Technical Colleges, and empowers this association to determine the annual financial contribution of each college for the functioning of the association.

Furthermore, provision is being made, in a way similar to that already existing in respect of universities and technikons, for the protection of the status and standard of the courses and subjects offered by a technical college; for the use of the name "technical college”; for the transaction of business ostensibly by or on behalf of a technical college; and for the issuing of a diploma or a certificate purporting to be based on the successful completion of a course at a technical college.

Clauses 4, 6 and 8 provide that the officers and employees of technical colleges, subsidized schools and state-aided training centres shall for the purposes of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1941, be deemed to be workmen in the employ of the State. This will eliminate the need for these institutions specifically to register their staff in terms of the Act concerned. At the changeover of schools to technical colleges an undertaking was given to their personnel that conditions of service and privileges would not be affected. Should a technical college now neglect to register its staff as required by the Act or should it register only for limited cover, the department could be embarrassed by claims instituted against it in the light of its previous assurances. The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner and the Department of Health and Welfare have agreed to this new arrangement, and also that it be made effective as from 1 March 1983 in view of the long period that the negotiations have lasted. By this arrangement it is estimated that a saving of R100 000 will result in respect of annual contributions which the institutions concerned at present have to pay to the Workmen’s Compensation Fund, and for which the State has to subsidize the institutions. It is expected that the compensation claims which the fund will have to meet will be less than the contributions forfeited.

Mr Speaker, the PFP is pleased to support the hon the Minister as far as this piece of legislation is concerned.

As regards the clauses dealing with amendments to the Heraldry Act, it is very important when one wants a body to do an effective piece of work that it is equipped with the means to do so. I think this amendment certainly achieves that particular purpose.

As far as the Educational Services Act is concerned and the provision which is built in by way of clause 3 for standardization with regard to examinations, that certainly is a very important requirement. I think it illustrates a problem which has existed for a long time in South Africa where there are so many different departments of education for the different race groups and for the various independent and non-independent states. This brings about problems with regard to the standardization of the various courses and with regard to the examinations which are provided. It is in the interests of the country as a whole that standardization should in fact be effective. It also underlines one of the central problems that the Government will have to deal with in terms of the new constitution and in terms of its planning of education in the future, and that is the insistence of the Government on having separate education departments for different race groups and different areas of South Africa. Therein lies the cause of the dilemma and difficulties which are experienced. The proliferation of different educational systems, of different educational departments and of different educational bureaucracies simply means that standardization is so much more difficult to achieve. If the hon the Minister is prepared to heed the very sound advice of the De Lange Committee and create one single ministry of education, he will find that he will have created the machinery that could effectively assist him bringing about standardization with regard to courses, personnel training, examinations and every other aspect in the whole field of education.

Whether the hon the Minister and the Government want to admit it or not, the most significant handicap to the achievement of sound education for all South Africans is the ideology of apartheid. Let me once again emphasize that until the Government is prepared to apply the drastic surgery that is needed to remove that ideology from the educational system, it will continue to have problems.

I want to draw attention to clause 5 where extensive powers are delegated by the Minister to the Director-General or—very widely—to any person in the employ of the department. This is something that we have commented on in the past, and a great deal of care must be exercised to see to it that that does not cause problems for the department.

Something that we are very pleased about is the increasing recognition that is being given to the significance of technical colleges and technikons in the educational field in South Africa. This legislation extends the status and the powers of technical colleges to enable them to do valuable work. I do not think the hon the Minster in his Second Reading speech referred to clause 11 which deals with people and organizations that support to provide courses that have the same status as technical college courses. I believe that that provision is also very valuable because, as it is known, there are many people who provide education in South Africa and who maintain that that education meets certain standards and requirements. They also maintain that these educational courses will assist people to obtain employment but when these people turn up at the industrialist’s or businessman’s door with a diploma from these colleges, they find that it is in fact of no or very little value. I think it is very important indeed not only that standards be maintained in the educational field but also that the people who obtain education should be protected from operators who wish to exploit them as far as educational courses are concerned.

With those few comments and reservations we are pleased to support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, it was pleasing to hear from the hon member for Bryanston that the official Opposition supports this Bill. I also derived a certain amount of pleasure from seeing that, like me, the hon member for Bryanston was caught unawares by the fact that this Bill has come up for discussion this afternoon. As a senior member, he had to perform an egg dance to talk himself out of that predicament. For example, he referred to clause 5 and expressed his concern about the wide powers of delegation of the Minister, who can now transfer powers to the Director-General and other officials of the department. However, this is a measure which is also contained in the present Act. Only two additional aspects are being introduced in terms of this Bill.

Unfortunately, in his effort to get out of his predicament, the hon member for Bryanston found it necessary to use out-dated politico-ideological rhetoric and in my opinion this was completely inappropriate in this debate. This is a meaningful Bill which should be discussed at a high level.