I move—

Mr. Speaker, as far as I know this is the very first time in the history of this country that a Parliament on South African soil is asked to consider legislation on prize jurisdiction. As hon. members probably know, it is a centuries old general rule of international law that belligerents may in time of war seize and appropriate private sea-vessels and any property thereon belonging to the enemy. The origin of so-called prize courts to decide about the legitimacy of the capture of enemy property can in fact be traced back to the Middle Ages, when lawlessness at sea was the order of the day. Until the introduction of the Consolato del Mare, however, there had been no clearly defined rules in regard to the capture of enemy property. As is known, the Consolato del Mare was a set of maritime rules and customs regulating the capture of ships and any property thereon them and observed by the communities of the Mediterranean region. Important sections of those rules were replaced by the famous Declaration of Paris in 1856, but the general rule authorizing belligerents to capture private enemy property remained intact.

In the course of time, however, the development of aviation necessitated an extension of the general rule regarding the capture of private enemy property, as the air, like the open sea, is an international thoroughfare used by both belligerent and neutral countries. Accordingly the Hague Air Rules were formulated as far back as at the Hague conference of 1923, and even then it was accepted that aircraft, like ships, might be captured. The British, wasting no time, passed legislation as far back as 1939 in terms of which the right of capture was declared applicable also to aircraft and anything thereon.

Summarized briefly, it therefore amounts to this, that the capture of private enemy property consisting of ships, aircraft and any property thereon by belligerents in time of war is authorized by international law. As a rule, however, the property of neutral powers may not be captured in this way. Besides, unlike in the case of captured public property such as warships, the right of ownership in captured private property does not ipso facto pass to the captor upon capture. As a matter of fact, at every capture the question arises whether it was a legitimate capture, that is to say, whether it was made in accordance with international law. For this purpose every belligerent is obliged by international law to establish a court or courts in its own area, which for the sake of convenience we may call prize courts. The captor must bring the property captured by him into the area of jurisdiction of one of his prize courts without delay and must submit the matter to the prize court concerned. The court concerned then decides all questions relating to the legitimacy of any capture and at the same time in fact serves as a safeguard to neutral powers that they will not lose their property through illegimate capture. If such a prize court finds that any particular capture was legitimately made, it declares the captured property forfeited to the captor, upon which the right of ownership in the property passes to the captor. If, on the other hand, the capture is found to have been illegitimately made, the court orders the captured property to be returned to the person from whom it was captured, and the court may in addition make an order as to costs.

As the lawyers among us know, prize courts may be courts of law functioning in a judicial way or administrative tribunals functioning in an administrative way, or they may even be something between courts of law and administrative tribunals. Prize actions are adjudicated upon in terms of international law; prize courts. however, are not international courts, but municipal or national courts. Although they apply international law, they are nevertheless bound by their own national law. In the case of any conflict between international law and national law, the latter prevails.

The Supreme Court of South Africa has always exercised prize jurisdiction in this country. This brings me to the question which has probably occurred to hon. members, namely from what source our courts derived their prize jurisdiction in the past. since I stated at the commencement of my speech that this was the first time a South African Parliament was being asked to consider legislation in this connection. The establishment and jurisdiction of prize courts in South Africa are controlled, in some cases since the previous century, by British legislation which applied in the former colonies of which the Republic is composed. The most important of those Acts are the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890, and the Prize Courts Act, 1894. The British legislation concerned still applies in the Republic to-day and may be invoked if necessary. I doubt whether hon. members expect me to deal with that legislation in detail here. I may mention briefly that the first-mentioned Act grants admiralty jurisdiction as well as prize jurisdiction to colonial admiralty courts, in our case the various divisions of our Supreme Court, but in spite of that the colonial admiralty courts may not exercise the prize jurisdiction granted to them unless they are specially authorized to do so. In practice such authority will be granted by way of a proclamation issued by the State President, and in 1939 and 1940, for example, it was in fact granted to the provincial divisions of the Cape and Natal as well as the local division of Natal by proclamation of the then Governor-General. Several prize actions have in fact been adjudicated upon by our courts in the past. As a matter of interest I may mention that the British legislation has been used on occasion to appoint the former High Court of South West Africa, sitting at Walvis Bay, as a prize court. This could be done at Walvis Bay, as you know, actually forms part of the Cape Province.

But times have changed and South Africa is a sovereign and independent Republic today, and hon. members will agree with me that it is quite unfitting for a sovereign and independent state to conduct its affairs in the international field by means of foreign legislation. Furthermore the British legislation of which we have to avail ourselves to-day in the field of prize law, is difficult of access and besides, from the nature of the case, not available in both official languages.

This brings me to the Bill we are dealing with to-day. I believe that, after the observations I have made, the measure is more readily understandable to all of us and that it is therefore not necessary for me to explain the Bill in detail.

The present position is that our courts have to consult international law in determining what is a “prize” or a “matter of prize”. As you will notice, however, we are trying in clause 1 to clarify the matter by defining “prize”. It is, however, not our intention to depart from international law in so far as it regulates the matter in question. The definition is no more than a summary of the provisions of international law in this regard and will, I hope, simplify matters considerably for the courts, legal practitioners and litigants. As I said earlier in my speech, the prize courts of any country are also bound by the national law of the country concerned. Neither does international law prevent us from declaring by statute ourselves what we consider as prize. However, in view of the fact that one is dealing with international matters here, it is obviously desirable to depart as little as possible from the concepts of international law. Hon. members will concede that in the definition of “prize” we have eminently succeeded in doing justice to the concept of “prize” as found in international law.

The capture of property on. for example, a ship does not necessarily mean that the ship itself has to be captured. It is also conceivable that a neutral ship may be carrying enemy property. In such a case the “Declaration of Paris”, which provides, inter alia, that a neutral flag protects enemy property, except contraband of war, will admittedly apply, but the fact remains that such property may be captured and that the legitimacy of the capture will have to be determined by a prize court.

The prize jurisdiction now being granted to the various divisions of the Supreme Court by Clause 2, corresponds to the prize jurisdiction which they have to-day. The only difference is that in future, as in the case of the major countries of the West, the prize jurisdiction will be permanent and will not have to be granted by proclamation from time to time.

You will also notice that no provision is being made for appeal against the decision of a prize court. We need not be concerned about that, however, as a decision of a prize court will be nothing but a decision of a division of the Supreme Court and will consequently be subject to appeal in terms of the provisions of the Supreme Court Act, 1959, in the same way as any other decision of the said court.

It will be possible to make extensive use of the ordinary rules of the Supreme Court in the adjudication of prize proceedings, but we shall in all probability find it necessary to supplement our rules, judging by the large number of special rules which the British have found it necessary to issue in this connection. As in the case of the ordinary rules of court, it is left to the Chief Justice to issue such special rules.

For the rest I do not think the provisions of the Bill need be elucidated any further.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all of us in this House are very indebted to the hon. the Minister for the painstaking summary he has given us of the background which has resulted in this Bill coming to this House. Naturally, we have no objection whatever. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will direct his attention in this regard also to those matters relating to shipping cases which have to do with disputes—which arise so constantly—relating to civil matters in time of peace, as he has done in the case of this Bill which relates merely to prizes, jure belli.When one looks at this Bill one does perhaps wonder whether our sailors might not be a little displeased to find that some of the provisions which applied under the old Colonial laws are being repealed. Under the War Prize Act of 1864, for example, it was possible, if Her Majesty or her successor were to declare that prize bounty was to be granted to officers and men, depending on bow many men there were on the opposing ship, to get £5 per head for every crew member of the enemy ship when the engagement commenced. It was the function of the prize court to determine how many men there were on that ship and each man got £5 per head. One appreciates that perhaps that is to-day a small figure, but in 1864 it was a large figure. It does show that the times have changed and that the encouragements which were given in those days do not apply to-day.

We have no objection to this Bill. There are some aspects of this Bill which we will, during the Committee Stage, ask the hon. the Minister to direct his attention to, namely: How is a condemned prize determined? Who determines what prize is a condemned prize? And how does the court know it is condemned? We should also like to know what other powers and appropriate orders the hon. the Minister has in mind that this court should in fact have or make, having regard to the history of prizes and the existing legislation. The old order changeth, yielding place to new, but we must fulfil our function in this regard in a new era on the high seas around our coasts. We support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. the Opposition for the way in which they have accepted this measure. I want to return now to what the hon. member for Durban (North) said. I just want to say that what we are in fact doing here is only to take permanent authority, whereas previously we were on each occasion obliged to put the British Statute into operation by proclamation. This is all we are doing by means of this measure. Furthermore, hon. members must remember that it has always been the position that where international law differed from national law on any particular point, the latter took precedence. This will be the position in future as well.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I shall not be surprised if this Bill is received with acclamation in more than one respect. Not only does it contain a great deal which can be of benefit to the administration of justice, it also brings relief in a quarter where it will definitely be welcomed. What I have in mind in the latter connection are particularly those provisions, of which there are quite a number, which are to the benefit of the accused.

There is probably nothing in the Bill which is not clear to us all. Consequently I do not want to deal at length with each clause at this stage, but I do nevertheless want to elucidate a number of important aspects of this Bill for the convenience and information of hon. members. In the first place I think that hon. members are probably interested in the considerations which gave rise to Clause 2. This is the clause which is aimed at making it possible to try offences at a place other than the place where they were committed. In this regard it may be mentioned that it happens fairly frequently that a person commits offences in the area of jurisdiction of more than one Attorney-General, or that he commits an offence in the area of jurisdiction of one Attorney-General, but that most of the witnesses, as for example in the well-known Strachan case, reside in the area of jurisdiction of another Attorney-General. But that is not all. In the congested motor traffic which we find nowadays between one province and another it is by no means a rare occurrence that a person residing in one province is involved in a motor accident whilst travelling in another province and that the passengers in his motor car residing at the same place as he are the sole or most important witnesses to the incident. Should he, months after the event, be charged with culpable manslaughter he, as well as the witnesses, would, for the purposes of the trial, have to return to the place where the collision occurred. This is so because an offence must normally be tried at the place where it was committed. Seen objectively, however, it really makes no difference in what court an offence is tried, because the way in which a trial takes place and the legal principles obtaining at a trial always remain the same irrespective of the place where the offence was committed or where the trial takes place.

The existing legal provisions in the present connection cause unnecessary inconvenience and expense, particularly if it is taken into account that in cases such as the one I gave you as an illustration, an inspection in loco of the scene of the accident is not always a sine qua non, and is in fact seldom carried out in such cases, which are tried in urban centres. In the circumstances therefore we are now creating the machinery whereby the anomalies which are now being encountered may be eliminated to everybody’s advantage. In passing it may also be mentioned that there is nothing sinister in the provision where the Minister may order the transference of a trial. Surely it is obvious that the possibility cannot be excluded that two Attorneys-General may not agree on the necessity for a transference of trial, and that for the sake of efficiency it is better that the decision in regard to a transference should be vested in one official only.

I am referring now to Clauses 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9. Hon. members are undoubtedly aware of the fact that a magistrate cannot release on bail any person who has been charged with murder or high-treason and that an accused in such cases must, of necessity, appeal to the Supreme Court if he wishes to be released on bail. The inconvenience and expense in this regard are obvious. I have an idea the reason for the existing provisions in this regard is probably that the said offences are capital crimes for which the death sentence may be imposed. However, there are various other capital crimes, but the same restriction in regard to bail do not exist in respect of those crimes. So, for example, there is nothing to prevent a magistrate from releasing persons on bail who have been charged with robbery, or house-breaking with aggravating circumstances, or even with sabotage, which are all capital crimes, unless an Attorney-General, of course has prohibited their release.

It is well known that in most cases where individuals have been charged with murder, there is no real danger that they will not appear at their trial should they be released on bail. It is quite unnecessary therefore to compel such persons to apply for bail to the Supreme Court at great cost and inconvenience to themselves. The principles obtaining in a higher court and in a magistrates court in regard to the consideration of an application for bail are precisely the same. In addition it is not the intention, despite the concession we are now envisaging, to deprive an accused of his rights to apply to the Supreme Court for bail. In this regard I should like to draw attention to the provisions of Clause 6. It naturally follows that an accused whose application for bail in a magistrates court has been refused, may appeal the lower court’s decision in a higher court. Taking all things into consideration, it would appear to me that we can safely accept the envisaged change.

Since we are dealing with bail, we may as well say a few things about clause 7. The most important provisions of that clause are contained in the proposed section 105 (4). As hon. members know, bail means the releasing of a person under arrest by the entering into of a recognisance by himself and one or more guarantors. The entering of such a recognisance does not require the immediate payment of a cash amount. Actually the recognisance is only an admission of a financial debt which only becomes payable if the accused should neglect to appear to the specified time and the recognisance be declared estreated as a result. A person entering into such a recognisance on behalf of an accused is a guarantor, but although a guarantor, in so far as criminal cases are concerned, may be described as a person who exposes part of his means to estreatment on behalf of an accused, such exposure of his means is not the only requirement which obtains in respect of that person. The general principle in regard to the acceptance of a guarantor, is that the guarantor should have an interest in ensuring that the accused appears at the stipulated time. An agreement whereby a guarantor is indemnified against loss, or the bail is deposited by him, is according to the judgment illegal and against public policy, whether the indemnification is offered by the accused, or some other person. It also follows therefore that a person who has the authority to approve guarantors, is entitled to inquire whether guarantors are in some way or other being indemnified and, if that is the case, to reject them.

However, a person who, in terms of section 105 (1) pays a cash amount on behalf of another person is according to a recent decision of the local division of the Witwatersrand Supreme Court not a guarantor although he. just as in the case of a guarantor, exposes part of his means to forteiture on behalf of an accused Obviously such a person does not have all the rights, nor is he subject to all the obligations of a guarantor, neither can he be rejected even if he enters into an agreement in terms of which he is indemnified against loss of bail.

What has happened now is that in recent years a practice has originated whereby persons who have established so-called bail bureaux are running a profitable undertaking. the modus operandi of these persons is to deposit, on behalf of the accused and with or without his knowledge, the amount laid down by the courts when bail has been determined in respect of an accused. The accused, who is only too pleased to find that he has been released, is then instructed to pay the amount to the depositor within a relatively short time or else be delivered over to the court and the bail withdrawn. Subsequently heaven and earth are moved to acquire the money by some means or other and pay it to the bureau, because the persons concerned are for the most part ignorant of the fact that there is no statutory provision to the effect that they can be delivered up in this way. When the case in question has been finalized, the person who deposited bail with the magistrate gets his money back and subsequently takes the money paid to him by the accused, or a large part thereof, as compensation for the so-called services which he rendered in regard to the release of the accused. There have been cases where only R30 of a bail amount of R60 paid in by a Bantu was paid back to him. This exploitation of people who have found themselves in unfortunate circumstances can no longer be tolerated and steps are therefore being taken now to put an end to it. By way of information I can just say that we know who the people are who are committing these malpractices.

As far as clause 10 is concerned, I think that it is sufficient to say that it is quite illogical for the presence of an accused at the hearing of a serious matter to be excused, whereas this cannot be done in less serious cases. In addition there seems to be no good reason why regional courts should be able to apply the provisions of section 156 bis whereas ordinary magistrates’ courts are not empowered to do so. In any case there are sufficient statutory provisions which ensure that an accused whose presence at a hearing has been excused will not be prejudiced as a result. In cases where a large number of accused are charged simultaneously, fellow-accused are, however, caused considerable inconvenience if a trial has to be stopped temporarily because one of the accused has become ill.

In regard to clause 15, I just want to draw attention in passing to clause 21. The effect of the amendments which are being envisaged in the latter clause, is to make the acceptance of so-called admissions of guilt without appearance in court possible in those cases where there is reason to suppose that a court will not impose a fine of more than R50. This amount has stood at R30 for more than half a century, and is being increased with a view to the decrease in the value of the monetary unit. Actually the amendment in clauses 15 and 18 are therefore merely consequential amendments arising out of the amendments envisaged in clause 21.

Sir, I believe that clause 20, where we are now allowing a court which is required to impose compulsory penalties such as imprisonment for corrective training or imprisonment with a view to preventing a crime, or to declare a person to be a habitual criminal, the discretion of imposing a lighter penalty in certain circumstances, will be welcomed by all. By way of information I can only mention that the envisaged amendment has the support of the judiciary.

Hon. members who are in the legal profession, are undoubtedly aware of the problems raised by the Appeal Court in the case R. v. Limbada and Another in 1961. The position is that if a trial court refuses permission to appeal to the Appeal Court, the accused can turn to the Chief Justice for alleviation. If, however, his application for permission to appeal is not submitted to the trial court within the prescribed period and he subsequently applies for his negligence to be condoned, but the application for condonation is refused, then he cannot appeal to the Chief Justice, no matter how favourable the possibility that his appeal may succeed appears to be, because the Appeal Court does not have the jurisdiction to consider such an application for condonation. We are now trying to eliminate this anomaly by means of clauses 24 and 25. At the same time we are also going a step further. As the jurists amongst us know, the Appeal Court may receive additional evidence at the hearing of an appeal and may, for this purpose, appoint someone to hear the evidence, or the case may be referred back to the trial court for the evidence to be heard. The conditions which according to the judgments, obtain for the receipt of such evidence are:

1. (a) that the additional evidence submitted will apparently be accepted as true;
2. (b) that the evidence is strictly relevant to the result of the trial; and
3. (c) that there is a reasonably acceptable explanation for failing to submit the evidence at the trial.

The Law Revision Committee is of the opinion that the procedure whereby further evidence may be received is cumbersome and that a trial court considering an application to appeal ought to be empowered to consider at the same time an application for the receipt of additional evidence. If the court finds that the requirements of the latter application have been complied with, it must receive the additional evidence, including such evidence which the court or public attorney then submits whereupon that evidence, for the purposes of an appeal, is deemed to be evidence which was heard or allowed at the trial of the accused. I subscribe to this idea and I am convinced that it will facilitate matters considerably for all concerned, but particularly the accused.

I refer lastly to clause 26. Whenever a person is being tried for committing an immoral act against another person, or for blackmail the publication of any information in regard to the trial in question or what is revealed at the trial, is prohibited, unless the court agrees to its publication. Actually the provisions in question are intended for the protection of the complainant in such a case and it is quite fortuitous that the accused is also protected. As you know, a trial begins when the accused is called upon to plead, and it continues until judgment is given. Apparently the prohibition on publication does not apply during the period from the date on which the deed was committed and the date on which the trial commenced. If information in regard to such a case may be published freely during that period the whole purpose of the provisions in question i.e. that the complainant be protected against undesirable publicity is thwarted. The loophole which exists in this connection is now, as hon. members can see, being done away with.

With that, Mr. Speaker. I have explained the more important aspects of the Bill.

This Bill is designed to improve and facilitate the administration of justice and we will support it. The hon. the Minister has dealt with certain clauses. He has particularly mentioned that it is now being made easier for accused persons to obtain bail and I quite agree with his statement that it should always have been done this way. Sir, we are also pleased to see that the Minister is now giving a discretion to the courts to impose lighter sentences than the penalties prescribed by certain Acts. We on this side have continuously opposed minimum sentences and we welcome that provision. We are hopeful too that this is a sign that this Minister is prepared to accept some more of the principles for which we on this side of the House have always fought.

Order! That is not relevant at the moment.

I submit that it does give the hon. the Minister encouragement. If he wishes to bring a second amending Bill this year we will be prepared to meet him.

Sir. this is obviously a Bill which can better be discussed in the Committee Stage where we can deal with each clause in turn as several different subjects are covered by these clauses. We will support the Second Reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

This Bill contains only two provisions. The first provision provides that Escom may sell again any commission stock purchased by it out of its redemption fund. The reason why this is considered advisable is that by doing this, Escom stock will more easily be made available to those persons who are interested in them. Some people are interested in long-term investments, others are interested in short-term investments, and if Escom were in a position to sell its own stock it would then to a greater extent be able to meet the need for long or short-term stock, according to the demand. It will also help Escom in the sense that it will then be able to meet its redemption obligations more easily in view of the fact that, if this legislation is agreed to, it will be in a position to dispose of stock owned by the redemption fund when it has to pay off loans.

The second provision of the Bill simply makes provision for the coming into operation of the 1964 Act. In 1964 Parliament passed legislation which empowered Escom to supply electricity outside the borders of the Republic of South Africa as well. Mr. Speaker, you will recall that by and large that was intended for the South-West Africa Water and Electricity Supply Scheme. In this 1964 Bill provision was made for the Act to come into operation on a date to be announced by the State President by way of proclamation. In the meantime and particularly since 1966 Escom has entered into certain obligations in terms of the 1964 Act. Unfortunately Escom itself as well as the then Department of Trade and Industries overlooked the fact that the 1964 Act had not yet been put into operation, and for that reason, since it is no longer possible for us to make the Act of retrospective effect by way of proclamation we are now making provision for the 1964 Act to be deemed to have come into operation on 1st January, 1966.

We have no objection to this Bill and we support it. We might have had quite a lot to say on clause 2 but since the hon. the Minister has been quite straightforward with his explanation as to why this clause is necessary we will on this occasion forgive him his sins of omission and we will support the Second Reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

The aim of this Bill to amend the Land Bank Act is. in the first place, to make provision for the introduction of a gratuity scheme for members of the Land Bank Board, a scheme similar to those which already exist for members of other full-time statutory boards.

Another amendment which takes up a large part of the contents of this amending Bill, is the repeal of the remaining provisions of the existing dipping tank laws of 1911 and 1913, and the incorporation in the Land Bank Act of those parts thereof which under present-day circumstances are still of importance. Originally these laws granted the then Department of Agriculture certain powers for granting dipping tank loans, but as long ago as 1921 those functions were taken over by the Land Bank by legislation. Since then the position has been that such dipping tank loans are granted by the Land Bank in terms of the provisions of the existing dipping tank laws. However, as the dipping tank laws themselves serve no other purpose as substantive laws, the necessary enabling provisions for granting the loans concerned are now being incorporated in the Land Bank Act.

One of the types of loans the Land Bank may grant to farmers, is an advance in the form of a cash credit account which enables the farmers to defray any costs incurred in connection with the production, cultivation, gathering, processing or marketing of his crop. The security for this sort of loan consists of a prohibition on the transfer or alienation of that farmer’s land until such time as he has repaid the debt and a pledge held by the Bank in respect of the crops and of articles and substances purchased by the farmer with the aid of such a loan.

At the moment the Act provides that in cases of non-payment of instalments or in other warranted circumstances, the Bank may, without recourse to a court of law, seize and sell the crops which were produced with the aid of such a loan and which are subject to a pledge held by the Bank for the purpose of recovering the loan. Although the Act also grants the Bank a similar right of pledge in respect of articles and substances purchased with the aid of such a loan, such goods can, however, not be sold for the purpose of recovering the debt without a judgment being passed by a court of law. That means that the Bank must inevitably incur the additional costs of such a judgment, which may in certain cases defeat the object of the sale. It is for that reason that this amending Bill contains a provision which empowers the Bank to seize and sell, without recourse to a court of law, articles and substances purchased with the aid of such a loan, under the same circumstances and in the same way as the crops themselves.

In the Land Bank Act there are at the moment two shortcomings that are connected with certain provisions contained in the Agricultural Credit Act of 1966. As hon. members most probably know the Land Bank grants mortgage loans to farmers for the purchase of livestock or farming implements at security of a pledge on the goods purchased. The Bill provides inter alia,that when such a mortgagor’s estate is declared insolvent, the hypothecated property does not vest in the trustee of his estate. By virtue of its statutory powers the Bank itself may either seize or sell such property, or it may hand it over to the trustee to he sold by him. However, it is not only in the case of insolvency that a person’s assets are according to law vested in a trustee. When in certain circumstances a compromise is effected with a farmer’s creditors in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act, his assets vest in an appointed liquidator. Similarly, in cases where a farmer’s creditors have acquired a proposal for a compromise in terms of agricultural credit law and where in the process the farmer prefers to surrender his assets in favour of his creditors, his assets vest in a trustee to be sold by him. If a farmer whose assets vest in a liquidator or trustee in one of these ways, is a mortagagor of the Land Bank, the consequences thereof are, as far as the Bank is concerned, essentially the same as when such a farmer has been declared insolvent. In such cases, too, such a mortgagor’s property which has been pledged to the Bank, ought therefore not to vest in the liquidator or trustee in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act, and in order to protect its interests the Bank ought to be vested with the same powers as it has in the case of a farmer’s insolvency. Provision is therefore being made for this in this amending Bill.

The second shortcoming in the Land Bank Act is also connected with liquidators and trustees who have been appointed in the circumstances I have already mentioned, in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act. The Land Bank Act prescribes to the Bank to whom, in specific circumstances, a surplus which arose out of the sale of land pledged to the Bank, has to be paid over. In this way, for instance, in the event of the death of the debtor, the surplus is paid to the executor of his Estate, and where he is insolvent, to his trustee.

However, in cases where in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act a liquidator or trustee was appointed for the debtor, the Act does not contain the necessary provision for such a surplus to be paid over to that liquidator or trustee. Therefore this gap is also being filled now.

In regard to the provisions of the Land Bank Act which grant the Bank its special powers for seizing and selling land pledged to it in specific circumstances, there are certain shortcomings which are now being set right. In the first place, at present references are still being made in the Act to the Administration of Estates Act of 1913 and the Farmers’ Assistance Act of 1935. However, both of them have already been replaced by the new Administration of Estates Act of 1965 and the Agricultural Credit Act of 1966. Although the references to these Acts will for yet another while have to remain in the Land Bank Act, it is also necessary in this Act to refer to the two new Acts. This is being done.

Then, as regards the procedure to be followed by the Bank so as to seize and sell immovable property that has been pledged to it, the Act provides, in the first place, that the Bank may enter upon and take possession of such property without recourse to a court of law. In the light of legal advice taken by the Bank, there is doubt as to whether an attachment executed by the Bank in the ordinary way, by notice to the debtor and the registrar of deeds, is valid if it does not involve some physical act or other in compliance with the present requirement laid down in the Act, namely that the land should in fact be entered upon as well. To remove this doubt and to clarify the exact effect of such an attachment, an appropriate amendment is now being effected in the Act.

After the attachment has been executed, and before the sale can take place, it is required in the Act at present that at least 14 days before the sale is to be held, the Bank is to publish in the Gazette and in a newspaper in circulation in the district where the property is situated, a notice stating the date, the hour, the place and the conditions of the sale. In the past it was customary only to publish the basic conditions of sale in that notice, but according to a recent judgment of the Supreme Court, this particular requirement laid down in the Act is interpreted to mean that the Bank is obliged to state in the notice all of the conditions which may eventually have a bearing on the sale of the property. In many cases it is impracticable to comply strictly with these requirements, because the existence of leases in regard to the property that has to be sold, claims for fencing contributions from adjoining owners, claims laid by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure to the proprietary rights of crops grown on the land and traders’ pledges in respect of pumping and other equipment, often come to the knowledge of the Bank only after the publication of the notice. For this very reason it has always been customary in the past to announce all the conditions of sale immediately before the start of the auction. In order to obviate this problem with which the Bank has been confronted as a result of the court’s judgment, the Act is now being amended in such a way that the Bank is only required to publish in the notice the terms of payment of the purchase price, whereas all the other conditions of sale have to be announced immediately before the auction commences. Whereas in the past the Act did not require any description of the property that is being sold to be stated in the notice, any misunderstanding that may arise in this respect is now being obviated by the insertion of a provision to the effect that the notice must contain a description of the property according to the title deed.

In conclusion, the Act provides that the Bank may sell the whole or part of the security for its mortgage debt. The interpretation that has been attached to this in the past, was that it granted the Bank a discretion to decide whether all the properties pledged to it collectively in the form of a mortgage should be sold, or whether only some of them should be sold. Although it has always been the policy of the Bank, if possible, not to sell more than is necessary to cover the debts under its mortgage, the Bank has nevertheless in its sales tried not only to sell a part of its security if that in itself did not form an economic unit, nor to leave a part of it unsold if that, too, did not form an economic unit. This is of course in accordance with the Government’s policy which is opposed to the uneconomic subdivision of land.

In the court judgment which I have already mentioned earlier on, it was found, however, that the Bank did not have a discretion to sell more of the pledged property than was necessary to cover the debts under the mortgage. That means that in certain cases the Bank is now obliged to sell uneconomic units or to leave uneconomic units unsold, and in order to obviate that the Act is now being amended so as to grant the Bank a specific discretion in this respect.

As the Minister has said in his lengthy and detailed explanation, this Bill modifies the present Act, and it is generally agreed to by the farming community. We support the Second Reading of the Bill. It contains a number of improvements which allow the Land Bank to hold property instead of summarily realizing it, and generally speaking it is an administrative measure which is intended to bring the Act up to date.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

This Bill deals with the amendment of two relatively old Acts. The principal Act was passed 57 years ago. Consequently one can understand, seeing that circumstances have changed considerably since that time, that some of the provisions have become outdated and obsolete and therefore no longer serve any purpose. In other cases it is necessary to modernize the provisions and to adapt them to present-day circumstances and requirements for practical purposes. By doing that, we want to make provision for the fine and important work done to date by the Public Debt Commissioners to be continued even more efficiently. I may just mention that we intend to consolidate all the provisions relating to the Public Debt Commissioners at an early opportunity.

In the light of what I have already said, some of the proposed amendments are of an obviously administrative nature which in my opinion need no explanation. Consequently I shall just explain some of the more important amendments.

In the first place I therefore want to refer you to clause 3. Under the existing provisions the Commissioners may invest funds deposited with them in terms of section 9 of the principal Act only in local Government stock or in securities having not more than five years to run of the United Kingdom or the Government of India or of any British Colonial Government. For many years, however, the investments have been restricted to local Government stock only.

In the first place this amendment therefore proposes the extension of the field of investment of the Commissioners for funds held by them in terms of section 9 of the principal Act so as to include investments by them in stock of, for instance, the Land Bank, local authorities, the Rand Water Board, ESCOM, or otherwise in any securities of the institutions listed in the proposed new section 10. You will notice, however, that certain restrictions are imposed, that investments in securities of some institutions will in addition be subject to the approval of the Minister of Finance.

The following, inter alia, are the reasons why the Commissioners feel that it would be in the public interest if they were to be allowed to invest in stock of municipalities or other public utility undertakings as well.

Firstly, owing to the Commissioners’ participation, there is a reasonably lively market in gilt-edged securities, in other words, safe Government stock. Unfortunately, the semi-gilt-edged market, that is, stock of, for example, municipalities and public utility undertakings, is stagnant and holders of such stock find it very difficult to sell. The difference in return between gilt-edged and semi-gilt-edged investments is ¾ per cent in the case of long-term securities, and as much as 1¼ per cent or more in the case of short-term securities. Without more effective support the difference in return may become even larger. If the Commissioners were to be allowed to buy more stock of municipalities and public utility undertakings, they would be able to create a more lively market in semi-gilt-edged securities, which would generally have a favourable effect on the capital market.

Secondly, the Commissioners are already allowed to invest certain provincial pension funds and funds which they hold in terms of section 16 of the principal Act, in stock of municipalities and utility undertakings which yield a better return, but pension funds of the Central Government and other funds which they hold in terms of section 9, must be invested in Government securities which yield ¾ per cent less per annum. This anomaly will be removed if the Commissioners are allowed to buy more stock of municipalities and utility undertakings.

Thirdly, ESCOM, for example, is experiencing problems in financing its loan programme which has a detrimental effect on the capital market. If the Commissioners were to be allowed to buy more ESCOM stock, it would be possible to lessen the discouraging effects ESCOM’s loan requirements have on the capital market, and ESCOM would find it easier to satisfy its loan requirements. I do want to issue a warning, however, that the State will retain its first claim on the Commissioners’ funds. If this clause is passed, the municipalities and utility corporations must not expect that an unlimited source of funds will be available. Subject to the requirements of the State, however, I am sure that the Commissioners will try their best to help these institutions.

The Commissioners, therefore, recommend that the Act be amended in such a way that they will be allowed to invest up to a maximum of 15 per cent of the deposits in question which they have under their control on the preceding 31st day of March of each year in any of the securities proposed in the new section.

In the second place, the existing provisions relating to foreign investment are being amended. Although the Commissioners seldom invest in securities of foreign governments or of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, there are occasions when this is necessary. Therefore, provision for such eventualities is being made, but where the existing provisions restrict the Commissioners as far as securities of foreign governments are concerned to the United Kingdom, India or a British Colonial Government, this is now being amended and provision is now being made for securities of any foreign government. We do not at present have any such foreign investments in mind, but these will in any case be subject to the approval of the Minister of Finance.

The proviso to the existing section 10 falls away, because officials are no longer allowed to convert part of their pensions into a cash payment.

Clauses 5 and 6 do not actually contain anything new. These are existing provisions and procedures which are merely being included in a more specified and clearer form; or, where something had previously been the practice over the years, it is now being embodied in the Act.

You will find another important amendment in clause 11. At present the Commissioners can see no sound reasons why stock purchased for the Sinking Fund must, as the Act at present provides, be retained by them until the expiry date of the stock. In the case of other funds under the control of the Commissioners a watchful eye is being kept over the investment portfolio of a fund and where it is in the interests of a fund to sell the stock and make a more profitable investment, this is done. Such conversion of stock not only benefits the fund concerned, but the resultant buying and selling of stock also help to create a market in Government securities which is so essential for a country’s economy.

By obliging the Commissioners to retain the investments of the Sinking Fund up to the expiry date, that Fund’s investment portfolio of more than R85 million is being frozen and it can be of little value to the money and capital market in general. What is more, the Sinking Fund is also being deprived of the advantages which can be gained from such a judicious and periodical revision of its investment portfolio. It will, therefore, be in the ublic interest to allow the Commissioners more freedom as envisaged by the amendment.

Clause 12 does not contain any new provisions and the proposed amendment is merely consequential upon the repeal of sections 7 and 8 of the principal Act. Section 4 provides that any funds which may become available for the redemption of debt shall be paid to the Commissioners for the credit of the General Sinking Fund and shall be applied by the Commissioners to the purchase of stock or debentures of the Government which shall thereupon be cancelled.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side support the second reading of this Bill with certain reservations. As the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, the whole object of this Bill is to make the task of investment by the Public Debt Commissioners more flexible. It gives them a more open market and greater opportunity to invest funds in various organizations. During the Committee Stage we will go into the matter in greater detail, but I think it is only right that we should at this stage point out to the Deputy Miniser those items with which we on this side do not entirely agree. I refer particularly to clause 3 on page 5 which provides for two classes of investments, namely “securities issued by a body owned or controlled by the Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Limited”, or “securities issued by any other body established by or in terms of any law”. The hon. the Minister refers to investments in companies controlled by the Industrial Development Corporation. We do not quarrel with investment in the I.D.C., but when it goes further than that and deals with companies controlled by that body, then we feel that the definition is too wide because it does not contemplate what may happen if amounts are invested in securities of companies which subsequently are not controlled by the I.D.C. The I.D.C. makes investments in various companies and we have at times queried some of the investments they have made. In fact, it is often very difficult indeed to obtain full particulars as to the investments made by this body. We know that some of its investments in certain companies are not as profitable as the companies first promised and in some cases the I.D.C. is having great difficulty in pulling these companies straight. Having regard to the nature of the funds invested by the Public Debt Commissioners and the necessity for ensuring that these funds are securely invested, it seems to be inadvisable to give them such wide powers to invest in companies which are controlled by these companies because it may be that stock in those companies may show a loss on realization. The price of stock invested in companies depends upon the prospects of early realizability which depends upon the prosperity of the company concerned. It also depends upon the history of their profitability. For those reasons one must question in some cases investments by this body. The funds of the I.D.C. are of course guaranteed by the Government, but it does not necessarily follow that when it initially obtains control of a company, it will continue to maintain such control. For example, the I.D.C. may invest in a company and subsequently the minority shareholders in that company may get an offer from another organization and may decide to buy the majority shares from the I.D.C. They then approach the I.D.C. and say that they have reached the stage where they feel that they would sooner have control of the company themselves and come to an arrangement with another company. They then make an offer to the I.D.C. to buy its stock. In this case the Public Debt Commissioners are in this position, namely that they are holding investments in that company while the I.D.C. has relinquished control because it has sold the controlling interest and the Public Debt Commissioners find that they are holding stock which is no longer controlled by the I.D.C. When they want to put these shares on the market they may find that they are not in such an advantageous position. I submit that it is not advisable for funds of this kind to be placed in investments of this kind.

I come now to paragraph (i) which states “securities issued by any other body established by or in terms of any law”. Mr. Speaker, I submit that that provision is far too wide altogether. I think that there is ample cover under the various heads of investment already given in this clause. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will during the Committee Stage give us reasons for making the field of investment so wide. Mr. Speaker, we support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, where the Bill provides for consolidation, we will naturally support it, but the hon. the Minister himself has put his finger on the vulnerable part of this Bill, namely clause 3. I do not, however, intend to discuss clause 3 at this stage. The time to do that will be during the Committee Stage. It seems to me that the Public Debt Commissioners are now going into the market. They are conservative and invest Government funds. Anyone who is familiar with investment knows how they operate, but now they are broadening their scope and going into commercial investment. They are spreading their wings and are going to fly in a different direction. I think it is a matter which we will have to consider very seriously. We shall naturally consider it when clause 3 is under examination during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinetown and the hon. member for Kensington referred to clause 3. The hon. member for Kensington spoke in very general terms and said that the Commissioners were now going into business and that the field which they may enter may perhaps have been made somewhat wide. I do not think that the hon. members have objections to the principle involved, namely, the opening of a slightly wider field to the Commissioners. I think the question the hon. members are concerned about, is this: Where should the line now be drawn, how far may they go and where must they stop. These things we may discuss and I have no objections to such a discussion. I should like to refer to paragraph (h) to which the hon. member for Pinetown also referred, namely—

Mr. Speaker, I admit that this clause opens the door rather wide. I think I may say at this stage that it is not the intention that the Commissioners are to utilize the stock of these companies to such a large extent, or that that is what they envisage. In the first instance hon. members must remember that such investment will in any case be subject to the approval of the Minister of Finance. If this carries no weight with them, I will proceed to the next argument. Actually the only thing envisaged in paragraph (h) is to make provision for investments in the industrial undertakings which the Industrial Development Corporation may establish and conduct in terms of section 3 (a). The undertakings established and conducted in terms of section 3 (a) are those which may in terms of the said section be established and conducted with the approval of the State President. There are only two at present, namely Sasol and Foskor. That is what the Commissioners envisage. I am aware that the clause opens the door wider than actually envisaged by the Commissioners. If the hon. members are concerned about this provision I shall consider moving an amendment during the Committee Stage to make this applicable only to the undertakings established in terms of section 3 (a) of the Industrial Development Act. Under present circumstances that would provide for purchases from Sasol and Foskor only. Then the field will not be as wide open as now visualized by the hon. members.

The next provision to which the hon. member for Pinetown has objected in particular, is paragraph (i), namely:

This is not so wide. These are bodies established in terms of laws passed by this Parliament. In other words, these are Iscor, the Rand Water Board, the Broadcasting Corporation, and Escom. It includes only these few. I think that when the bon. member for Pinetown looks into the clause more closely, he will not have such a material objection to that paragraph. It is not just any company for which application for registration is made to the Registrar of Companies; they are bodies established by laws passed by this Parliament. It refers only to those few bodies. There may perhaps be one or two more. I think the objections which the hon. members have and which deserve my consideration, are those which relate to paragraph (h), and I shall consider moving a suitable amendment to that paragraph during the Committee Stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the present temporary basis on which subsidies are paid to the provinces is laid down in section 2 of the Financial Relations Amendment Act, 1957 (Act No. 38 of 1957). When this temporary arrangement was proposed as an interim measure for a provisional period of three years, it was explained why subsidies could not continue to be paid to the provinces on the basis laid down in the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1945. I do not intend elaborating on that. The then Minister of Finance also explained, however, that, since it was extremely difficult to find a formula which could continue to work satisfactorily for both the Government and the provinces, the Government would have the whole matter investigated by a commission or committee. When the temporary formula was extended for a further period of three years in 1959, it was explained to hon. members that, for various reasons, it had not yet been possible to appoint a commission of inquiry. This commission of inquiry into the financial relations between the Central Government and the provinces under the chairmanship of Professor Schumann …

It brought out a report a long time ago.

… was able to commence its business only by the middle of 1960, and its final report was received during 1964, after it had first brought out an interim report on the take-over of Coloured education. That is my reply to the hon. member for Green Point.

Hon. members will recall, however, that in the meantime another committee, namely the Borckenhagen Committee, was carrying out an inquiry into the financial relations among the Central Government, the provinces and local authorities. Although this committee was dealing more specifically with the inquiry into the finances of local authorities and arising from that, the financial relations with the provincial authorities, it gradually became clear from the interim reports brought out on various matters by the Committee that the reports of the Schumann Commission and the Borckenhagen Committee would have to be dealt with jointly and simultaneously in considering them finally. The final report of the Borckenhagen Committee, that is to say, the report on Divisional councils, was received about a year ago.

Attention has been given to the reports in the meantime, but hon. members will appreciate that, owing to the complicated nature, implications and extent of the whole matter, it will not be possible to complete the correlation, study and consideration of the reports and proposals regarding a different formula of subsidization before the end of this financial year. The existing legislation provides for the payment of subsidies to the provinces up to 31st March, 1968, only it is necessary, therefore, for the present temporary basis of subsidization to be extended for another year.

The matter is being tackled in earnest at the moment, and we are determined to try and reach finality this year.

Perhaps I may point out that in cases where a province found it impossible during the past few years to balance its finances during any financial year, its statutory subsidy was supplemented by the Government by way of a special extra-statutory grant voted by Parliament.

The four Administrators have been informed of the proposed extension.

Mr. Speaker, we support the Second Reading of this Bill. It is patchwork legislation, because we are still waiting to receive the Schumann Commission’s report. The Minister made reference to it, but what is the great secret about it? Why cannot it be published? Why can we not all see it? Or are they finding the Schumann Commission’s report so damaging to the Government that they want to keep it a secret? Will the Schumann Commission report embarrass them?

As far as the Borckenhagen Commission’s report is concerned it looks to us as if it is going to exceed the Press commission in length of time. “This year, next year, sometime, never!” Surely, as a matter of finance, and having regard to the urgency of the matter, it is necessary that the relation between the provincial finance and that of the Central Government should be put on a sound basis. That is common cause on both sides of this House. The Government has accepted that and appointed the Commission of Inquiry. But here, Mr. Speaker, the Minister has just said “Nog ’n jaar”, another hand-out. It is very unsatisfactory. It is time that the Borckenhagen Commission finished its work. It is time that we have their report. It is time that the Schumann Commission’s report is tabled in this House, so that we may see and read its conclusions for our own edification and get an opportunity of seeing this vexed question of provincial financial relations put on a much sounder basis than it is to-day.

Mr. Speaker, I just have to reply to what the hon. gentleman said. As far as these reports are concerned, I stated explicitly that the Government regarded it as necessary—and the hon. member for Pinetown would agree with that if he was better informed—to consider the reports, namely the report of the Schumann Commission and that of the Borckenhagen Commission, jointly when determining the new formula. [Interjections.] I shall come to that in a moment if hon. members will just be patient. Five parts of the report of the Borckenhagen Commission have been made available. There are ten parts. The first five parts have already been made available, while the next two parts have been made available to the municipal associations as being confidential. I am afraid these parts are no longer as confidential to-day as they were intended to be. In any case, three parts are still outstanding. A White Paper will be prepared in due course. [Interjections.] Well. Mr. Speaker, we have asked for an extension of one year. I will have to do one of two things. I will either have to finalize the matter this year or ask for another year next year. I would not have asked for one year if I thought that I needed two more years. Since it is our intention to finalize the matter within a year if it is at all humanly possible to do so, we are asking for an extension of only one more year, and we intend submitting a White Paper to you before the end of that year, on which occasion the reports of the Schumann Commission and the Borckenhagen Commission will probably be submitted as well. For the purposes of the studying and assimilation of these reports by the Government it is not considered desirable to make the remaining reports available at this stage. I think that is sufficient promise to the hon. gentleman opposite.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Hon. members will have observed from the documents already tabled, that the Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Revenue Funds for the financial year ending 31st March, 1968, require a further amount of R763.800 to be voted.

As is customary, I shall not comment at this stage on the revenue prospects. When the main Estimates are presented to this House on 13th March, 1968, details of the working results for the current financial year will be furnished.

I do want to mention, however, that it is expected that it will now be possible to cut the original Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed from Revenue Funds by approximately R12 million so that the original amount to be voted may be decreased from R730,493,000 to R718,665,800. There are only a few smaller items for which specific provision has to be made.

Of the R596,000 required under Railways— Head No. 17—approximately R591,000 is in respect of the write-off of assets, mainly rolling stock, which exceeded the provisions originally made in this respect.

Under Harbours—Head No. 25—approximately R20,000 is required as a result of stock adjustments and R48,000 for assets withdrawn from service.

Under Airways—Head No. 30—provision was originally made for the payment of an amount of R330,000 as compensation for rights in respect of international traffic to and from Rhodesia and surrounding areas, which, in terms of the pool agreement had to be paid by B.O.A.C. to Central African Airways, but as a result of the establishment of Air Rhodesia, arrangements were made for direct payments by S.A. Airways to Air Rhodesia as from 1st September, 1967. Consequently it is necessary to vote specifically an estimated amount of R100,000 in respect of compensation to Air Rhodesia up to 31st March, 1968, and to decrease the original amount voted by the same amount.

As regards the Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works, an additional amount of approximately R230,000 is required under Head No. 1—Construction of Railways —because more work than initially anticipated was done during the year on the avoiding line between Chiselhurst and East London Harbour and on the new single line between Kensington (Cape) and Montague aGrdens. An amount of approximately R5½ million requires to be voted under Head No. 2—New Works on Open Lines.

It is now the intention to finance certain expenditure on cartage service equipment, which would initially have been covered by the Renewals Fund, from Loan Funds. As a result of this and the earlier delivery of vehicles, an amount of just over R1 million requires to be voted for cartage services. A good deal more progress than originally anticipated was made during the year in connection with works relating to the elimination of level crossings and an additional amount of R1.1 million is required in this respect. Similarly the more rapid progress in relaying and deviation works on the Belfast—Steelpoort, Komatipoort—Soekmekaar, Pretoria—Messina, Glencoe—Hlobane and Hoedspruit—Metsi sections necessitates an additional amount of R1 million to be made available. On the conclusion of various relaying works an amount of approximately R216,000, originally charged to the Renewal Fund, has to be reallocated to the Betterment Fund, and this requires Parliamentary appropriation. An amount of approximately R1.6 million in respect of the defraying of belated debits has to be sanctioned by Parliament in terms of a resolution of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours. Under Head No. 3—Rolling Stock—sanction also has to be obtained for an amount of R215,000 in respect of belated debits. On account of the acute shortage of third class passenger coaches the delivery of this type of vehicle was expedited during the year with the result that this already heavily taxed section of the Renewals Fund will not be able to meet the demand. Consequently it has been decided to finance portion of these costs from Loan Funds, which requires a cash provision of nearly R3.9 million.

Under Head No. 5—Harbours—inter alia,an additional amount of R450,000 is required as a result of the fact that 28 wharf cranes for Durban Harbour were delivered earlier than anticipated, while approximately R222,000 is required to cover belated debits. Earlier delivery is also the cause of an additional amount of R70,000 in respect of test equipment and approximately R461,000 for workship machinery and equipment having to be provided under Head No. 6—Airways. As it is anticipated that the expenditure against the Airways head of the Renewals Fund will exceed contributions during the current year, it has been decided rather to finance a further amount of R½ million of the purchase costs of the two Boeing-707-320 aircraft from Loan Funds and to cover the costs of the flight simulator for Boeing-737 aircraft from capital funds as well. This requires an additional amount of R406,000.

With regard to Head No. 7—Pipelines—a decision has been taken, as hon. members are now aware, to construct a second pipeline and it is estimated that an amount of R4 million will be spent on that during the current financial year. Under Head No. 8—Working Capital—R2 million is required in respect of additional spare parts and engines which have to be acquired at rising prices for the growing Boeing fleet as well as for the larger number of electric locomotives and motor coaches.

An additional appropriation totalling R18,110,800 is required for Capital and Betterment Works. Savings totalling R11.7 million under the existing appropriation may, however, be utilized in defraying that expenditure, while R1.1 million will be provided from the Level Crossings Elimination Fund and nearly R1.8 million from the Betterment Fund. Consequently only an amount of R31 million in additional loan funds is required. Therefore the total appropriation for Capital and Betterment Works for the current financial year now amounts to R164,027,600.

It is clear that the Opposition is not opposing this motion at this stage, because from the nature of things one is able to discuss these matters better in Committee. But I should like to avail myself of this opportunity—I do not often get the opportunity to do so—to say that we on this side of the House should like to vote money for the harbours of South Africa at the present time. I think every South African is proud of the achievement of the South African harbour organization in having succeeded to cope with the enormous amount of work thrust on them by occurrences in the Middle East. In this we are not only rendering South Africa a service but also the Western world. Then we also want to avail ourselves of this opportunity to welcome the statement by the hon. the Minister that the elimination of level crossings is being expedited. This is something about which all of us are concerned and we are glad to see that this progress is being made.

In the course of his remarks the hon. the Minister referred to the fact that certain amounts which are now being voted have been transferred from the Renewals Fund to the Betterment Fund and that certain amounts have to be voted in terms of a recent resolution of the Select Committee. I notice, however, that there are more than 120 items on the capital programme for which we have to vote money and which did not appear at all on the main Estimates for this year. I just want to know whether the hon. the Minister’s remarks explain all of these 123—I quickly counted them—items, because if that is not so it seems to us that something is amiss somewhere, that we have to sanction capital works in a main Estimates at the beginning of a year to find that 123 works are commenced in the course of the year, works which we do not know about and works about which the Administration apparently does not know when the main Estimates are presented to this House.

I have not counted the items, but if the hon. member draws my attention to each specific item during the Committee Stage, I shall deal with them.

Motion put and agreed to.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister how it is that an item, which was originally estimated at R2,000, has now suddenly become R50,000, which is 25 times as much. I refer to item 742 (a), “Assets withdrawn from service and written out of Capital Account”.

The additional amount provides for adjustments relating to assets withdrawn at Table Bay harbour as a result of the restoration of the eastern mole. The hon. member knows, of course, that when assets are withdrawn, an amount similar to the amount, after depreciation has been deducted, which is still debited to Capital Account, must be credited to Capital Account out of Revenue. For instance, if you withdraw five or six locomotives from service and there is still, say, 50 per cent of the original cost standing as a debit in your Capital Account, then you must get the necessary credit by way of Revenue to write that amount out of the books.

Sir, I appreciate the procedure; there is no query about that. My query is that the Estimates for 1967-’68 should have foreseen an item of R2,000 which has now suddenly jumped to R50,000, particularly where the item is a harbour item where it should have been foreseen that there was a likelihood of writing off the item. One would have expected that the amount would have been foreseen in the Estimates. What concerns me is the percentage of error, namely 2,500 per cent, in foreseeing the amount to be written off. The procedure to be followed is laid down; that is clear, but what concerns me is the extent of error in an increase of R48,000 on an item of R2,000.

Tremendous wear and tear.

With all the Ministers going overseas.

I will get the desired information and give it to the hon. member. You can never estimate what assets are going to be withdrawn. You make provision for more or less a nominal amount. You might have an accident to five or six electric locomotives which are smashed beyond repair. That is something which cannot be foreseen at the beginning of the year. Consequently it is impossible to estimate accurately which assets and what number of assets are going to be withdrawn.

But this is a harbour item.

The same applies there.

Head put and agreed to.

Capital and Betterment Works:

Head 1,—Construction of Railways, R229,600:

Here we have an opposite error in calculation in that there is a saving of R5 million on an original estimate of R10.9 million, or in other words, a 50 per cent error the other way. The note at the bottom states that the additional expenditure is R229,600.

Order! The hon. member can only ask the reason for the increase. He cannot discuss that aspect now.

But can the Minister explain this saving?

I can give the hon. member all the information in regard to the increase, but in regard to the savings there will have to be another opportunity to debate that. That is not permitted now under our Rules of Procedure. In regard to the actual reasons for the increase, it is first of all to facilitate the movement of traffic for the new grain elevator. The work was speeded up, but apart from that an additional amount was required for an increase in basic wages, material prices and higher tender prices. I might inform the hon. member that it is virtually impossible to make an accurate estimate of what the cost of an asset is going to be, with these continually rising prices and wages. As regards the Kensington-Montague-Gardens railway, the work was completed much sooner than we originally expected, and there were also increases in prices of materials and basic wages, etc.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 2,—New Works on Open Lines, R5,456,800:

As regards Item 81 on page 13, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would give us an idea as to what arrangements we have with Lesotho in regard to the new goods office. I am discussing this new item of R39,000 which is to be spent. That is at Maseru. Do we lose that asset, or does it remain our property, and if any losses are incurred on this particular line, will the Lesotho Government reimburse us?

Then there is Item 95 on page 14 which provides for an additional amount of R295,600. This was previously included in Item 722, but the note at the back states that it is an additional amount which was not foreseen. Is this for additional accommodation again at Langa, and do we also lose the value of the assets in Langa?

Order! This is not a new item. It used to be Item 722.

Yes, but in the small note it says that this is unforeseen expenditure.

The hon. member can only ask the reason for the increase.

Then I ask for the reason for the increase under that item.

Sir, may I draw your attention to Item 722, in which it is stated that this item replaces an item included in the original Estimates. Item 722 in the original Estimates relates to the 1967-’68 allotment for new quarters, improvements and the replacement of quarters for non-white staff. I submit that this Item 95 does not relate to quarters; this is for accommodation in the Langa Bantu township. Therefore it is not simply a replacement of an item.

Order! It is included in that item.

But my submission is that this is not the same sort of housing and therefore it is not the same item, and therefore we are entitled to deal with it as a new item.

It is not for me to decide on that. I must take it that what is submitted here is correct.

But I am submitting that this is not the same item.

What do you want to argue about? I can give you all the information.

The Minister has promised to give the necessary information. If after that has been done the hon. member still thinks that it is a new item, he can argue the point.

I would like to know the reason for the increase under Item 71 on page 12, and also under Item 84 on page 13.

May I ask the hon. the Minister to explain Item 97 relating to the 1962-’63 allotment which is shown as an additional amount, and to explain to what item on the Brown Book for last year this is additional.

I notice that the original estimated cost of Item 86 was R55,200 and that R14,667 had been spent on it up to March, 1967. In the main Estimates, however, nothing was requested for this Item. Now the Minister is requesting an additional amount of R21,800. The Minister said that we could put questions in individual cases, but I trust that he will save me the trouble of getting up 123 times by explaining to me why the same phenomenon occurs so often in these Additional Estimates.

This is not a new item. This is merely an increase in the original amount.

But there was nothing in the main Estimates.

But the year before that there was.

I want to know why there was nothing in the main Estimates. On a point of order, Sir, if something is now being requested and nothing appeared in the main Estimates, does that not constitute a new item?

This is not a new item, because money was voted in respect of this item on a previous occasion. The hon. member should in actual fact have inquired last year, when the main Estimates were under discussion, why no provision was being made, while so much had been spent on it the year before.

I should just like to know this. This additional money does not form part of last year’s Estimates; it is additional to the current Estimates.

The Capital Works Estimates form part of the entire item voted, even if it was 20 years ago.

The hon. member for Salt River wants information in regard to Item 81. For some years the passenger trains have terminated at Marsailles. After discussions with the Lesotho Government, it was decided to allow the passenger trains to go right through to Maseru. That is why this item is provided for, because the facilities for handling passengers and goods were inadequate. The work was started during the current financial year under the Unforeseen Works Allotment, as a matter of urgency. It remains our asset, of course. We do not hand it over to the Lesotho Government and they do not guarantee any losses. There have been no such arrangements in the past, nor will there by any such arrangements in future. The whole thing belongs to us.

In regard to Item 95, there is a very acute shortage of Coloured labour in the Peninsula. The hon. member knows it is the policy to replace Native labour with Coloured labour as far as practicable. Of course, where no Coloured labour is available we have to use Bantu labour. We do not terminate the services of the Bantu. It is when they leave the service or ask for transfer that we, if possible, replace them with Coloured labour. If Coloured labour is not available we use Bantu labour. It was necessary to provide accommodation for 1,000 Bantu in order to prevent a serious dislocation of essential services in the harbour area. That is why this accommodation was provided in Langa. [Interjection.] I think the hon. member should discuss that under the Vote of my colleagues, and not under mine.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) wanted information about Item 97. This is to provide departmental housing for Whites throughout the Republic and South West Africa. The decision to retain four houses with out-buildings and garages at Dannhauser, originally intended to be disposed of, involved a revised allocation and accounting adjustments from Renewals to Capital Fund.

The hon. member for Umlazi referred to Item 71. More efficient and speedy handling of goods and cargo is the purpose in providing for these mechanical appliances. The decision to transfer four fork trucks originally intended for scrapping necessitates the revised allocation and accounting adjustments from Renewals to Capital Account. As regards Item 84, “Durban Harbour, Roads Drainage Tracks and Lighting on Reclaimed Sites at Fynnland:”, the additional amount is required as the Durban Corporation, taking possible future development in the area into consideration, insisted on a very high standard of drainage, and the additional amount is necessary to complete the drainage.

Is this area for shunting or stabling?

No, this is for the oil services for that area.

*The hon. member for Yeoville queried Item 86. This is for the improvement of the catering facilities and service. As regards this item, the reason for no provision having been made in the previous year is that it was anticipated that the work would have been completed the year before. Now the work has in fact been completed and provision has to be made during this current year. This is applicable to all these items.

I am sorry, but the explanation the hon. the Minister gave on Item 97 is not quite clear to me. That is a 1962-’63 allotment for white housing. In the Brown Book there are allotments for white housing, but none of them going back as far as 1962-’63. The earliest one is in 1964-’65. So on the Brown Book where we voted this money last year this item did not appear. Now it suddenly materializes out of thin air and that is the query I have in regard to that matter.

The hon. member should look at Items 721 and 722 on last year’s Brown Book.

With respect, Item 721 refers to non-White housing, and this is an item for white housing.

I explained it to the hon. member and told him that this particular amount under Item 97 was required for the following purpose. The decision was taken to retain four houses with outbuildings and garages at Dannhauser, originally intended to be disposed of. This involved a revised allocation and accounting adjustments from Renewals to Capital Account.

Mr. Chairman, …

Order! I think the hon. member has had his three turns.

On a point of order, Sir, is there such a restriction in this Committee?

Yes.

In regard to Item 95. would the hon. the Minister give us details of the nature of that accommodation? I particularly want to know whether this is to be of the barrack type of building, whether there are any subdivisions in the building, and whether they are made of wood or of brick.

I will try and get the plans and send them to the hon. member.

The only thing the hon. member can ask is the reason for the increase. The hon. member cannot ask anything else.

I was just hoping the Minister was prepared to meet us …

I will not allow the hon. Minister to answer it.

The hon. the Minister did in fact furnish us with some information but I am very glad to have the plans.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 3,—Rolling Stock, R4,105,900:

Mr. Chairman, I should like some information on Item 138 on page 20. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could give us an explanation as to when they are going to go ahead with this. There is another item of R200 on the Estimates. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could tell us something about the background as to what is going to happen. We were promised over the years that the Railways were going ahead with these radio sets in coaches. Very little however can be done during this particular year.

I do not know about years. When did I say that years ago?

It was when we were discussing the riots and trains were held up …

I think the hon. member is under a misapprehension. He should look up Hansard again. These are radio sets installed in multi-coaches on the Native runs mainly between Johannesburg and Native areas. A very small amount is required for this year. Next year we will have a much bigger amount in the Brown Book because tenders will have to be asked for these radio sets.

What do you want the R200 for?

That is merely to get the amount in the Brown Book and to get Parliament’s permission. In the meantime we will call for tenders. It is a new item. It is in fact an adjustment of allocation from Head No. 2 and Head No. 3. That is apparently what is happening here.

Head put and agreed to.

Head 5,—Harbours, R671,600:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the reason for the increases in Items 142, 143 and 144 on page 22.

Item 142 is in respect of the investigation of the nature of the sea bed in the area covered by the proposed Outer Harbour Scheme. The late delivery of equipment required for preliminary investigation work delayed completion. That is the preliminary work for the Outer Harbour Scheme. The hon. member knows that I have appointed a committee to go into the whole matter. Before any further allocations are made the committee will have to report. In regard to Item 143, owing to the high spots in the approach channel the depth is insufficient to accommodate vessels with loaded draughts of approximately 38 feet, especially at neap tide. Work started during the current financial year under the Unforeseen Works Allotment as a matter of urgency. The project under Item 144 is bound up with the development of the Durban harbour as the ship-repair “L” berth is no longer available for ship repairs. The decision to retain the hangar, originally intended to be demolished, has resulted in a revision of allocation and accounting adjustments from Renewals to Capital. The additional amount is in respect of increased costs. The work has since been completed.

Head put and agree to.

Head 7,—Pipelines, R4,000,000:

I want to ask for reasons for this item.

This is a new pipeline, it is a new item, as the hon. member can see.

Does this pipe go via Richard’s Bay?

Yes. It is a pipeline to transport crude oil from Durban harbour, in the beginning, and eventually from Richard’s Bay to the new refinery built at Sasolburg. It will also convey crude oil to the oil storage tanks where we store it for use in lean periods.

Mr. Chairman, I realize that I may be out of order, but I should like a little more information as regards the reasons for this increase of R4 million. A pipeline from Durban to Johannesburg has just been completed. Is full use being made of the pipeline? Is there no space which can still be used?” Is there something wrong with the pipeline? Why must the second pipeline be constructed when full use is not yet being made of the first one? What, in the light of this, is the reason for the increase?

The first pipeline will not be able to carry the additional crude oil. As soon as the refinery at Sasolburg comes into production, a very large quantity of oil will be required. In addition a large quantity of oil is required for the storage campaign on which we are engaged. The present pipeline will not be able to carry all this. A new pipeline must be constructed. As I have said, this is really a matter of Government policy. These additional funds which are required, do not come from the ordinary funds voted for Railway capital works. They are in addition to those funds.

This is a fine conversion on your part !

You mean on your part?

Head put and agreed to.

I move—

The provisions of this Bill amend various Railways Acts and the implications of each clause are fully explained in the explanatory memorandum which has been tabled. The matters dealt with are not contentious and my remarks will consequently be brief.

Clause 1 is of a consequential nature and arises from the amendment proposed in clause 4 concerning the payment of pension moneys in respect of the month in which a beneficiary dies. The amendment contains no new principles.

In regard to clause 2 the position is that Act No. 32 of 1895 which provides, inter alia, for the payment of pension benefits to certain Railway pensioners and widows of ex-servants who receive benefits under the Act, is to be repealed following upon a review of pre-Union legislation. In order to ensure the continued payment of these annuities it is necessary that suitable provision be made therefor in other legislation.

The purpose of clause 3 is to enable the Railway Administration to extend the sale of Bantu beer to all departmental compounds where beer is not sold at present, as well as to departmental non-White cafeterias which actually form part of compounds and are managed and controlled by compound staff.

In terms of extant legislation, Bantu beer sold by the Railway Administration to its Bantu servants must be consumed in the building or room of the compound in which it is sold; Bantu beer cannot, therefore, be sold in compounds where there are no mess halls or where mess halls are too small. This restriction prevents residents from taking liquor to their quarters. Furthermore, the Act provides that Bantu beer is to be sold only in departmental compounds, with the result that servants who are not accommodated in compounds, but who purchase their food from departmental cafeterias, are precluded from enjoying beer with their meals according to Bantu custom.

Clause 4 provides for Railway pension moneys to be paid up to the end of the month in which a retired servant or widow of a deceased servant or annuitant dies.

The present arrangement whereby the pensions and allowances of certain beneficiaries are paid into their accounts at commercial banking institutions and building societies, was introduced in September, 1967. At present pension moneys and. where applicable, allowances, are paid to beneficiaries up to the date of their death. As pensions and allowances are paid into accounts at financial institutions in respect of a full month, the amount paid to a beneficiary for the remaining portion of the month in which he dies, has to be recovered. This procedure necessitates considerable administrative work and Parliamentary approval is consequently sought for the payment of the pension benefits to all Railway beneficiaries up to the end of the month of their death. This is, of course, to their benefit. Provision for the payment of the relevant allowances on a similar basis will be made by means of departmental instructions.

The purpose of clause 5 is to permit of increased payment in lieu of leave being made to those Railway servants who can elect to retire at the lower age limit but who prefer to remain in the Service for an extended period of up to three years—five years in the case of S.A. Airways pilots.

The present policy regarding payment in lieu of leave to servants who retire from the Service, has been reviewed at the request of the staff. The proposed procedure will place Railway servants on an equal footing with their colleagues in the Public Service and will also encourage staff to remain in the Service after reaching the lower age limit, so that the services of experienced staff will be retained.

In terms of extant legislation a servant who is to retire on the grounds of superannuation, ill-health, reduction in or reorganization of staff, or on account of certain other factors, is entitled to payment of his emoluments in respect of a period of vacation leave due to him at the date of his retirement not exceeding six months; any leave in excess of three months granted within the last 12 months of service is. however deducted from the period in respect of which payment is made.

In accordance with the proposed procedure servants who elect not to retire at the lower age limit will, apart from the maximum period of six months leave payable at present, subject to certain limitations, be entitled to payment in respect of a maximum additional period of three months’ leave—a pro rata proportion for each completed year’s service after reaching the lower age limit—provided they have sufficient leave to their credit.

The proposed procedure is also to be applied to widows. If a servant dies before reaching the lower age limit, the maximum period of leave in respect of which payment may be made to his widow, is six months; if, however, he dies after reaching the lower age limit, his widow will be entitled to additional payment depending on the servant’s period of service subsequent to attaining the lower age limit and provided he had sufficient leave standing to his credit.

Clause 6 provides for the granting, in certain instances of an award based on the actual pecuniary loss in the case of accidental injury or death on duty of a servant.

Extant legislation provides for the payment of benefits in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1941 to Railway servants whose earnings are in excess of the amount of R5,460 per annum and who, because of their high earnings, are not automatically covered by the provisions of that Act. Such servants, or in the event of their death, their dependants, are, however, precluded from claiming common law damages from the Department.

Compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act to a servant who, as a result of his high income, is not normally entitled to such compensation can, however, from a financial point of view, be an inadequate substitute for the right to claim common law damages. This is so, since compensation under the Act is calculated to meet the needs of lower paid workers and is not necessarily related to the pecuniary loss caused by the accident, whereas the basic purpose of common law damages is to reimburse the person concerned in respect of pecuniary loss.

In order to ensure a more realistic approach to the matter, the relevant Act is being amended to permit of an award being made by the Railway Administration equivalent to the pecuniary loss caused by an accident on duty which is due to the negligence of the Administration or of a servant of the Administration acting in the course of his employment.

Clause 7 is consequential upon the proposed amendment in clause 4 and contains no new principles.

Clause 8 determines the commutation factor to be applied to flight engineer officers on their retirement.

When the question of the lower retiring age for this group of staff was submitted to Parliament last year, it was inadvertently overlooked to make the necessary provision for the commutation factor applicable to the lower retiring age, to be applied to them on their retirement.

In the circumstances, approval is now being sought with retrospective effect from 8th March, 1967, viz. the date from which the lower retiring age for flight engineer officers became operative, to apply the correct commutation factor to them on their retirement.

Clause 9 makes provision for increased annual contributions to the Level Crossings Elimination Fund.

In terms of the Level Crossings Act, 1960, a sum of R500,000 is annually paid into the Fund from each of the following funds—

The total annual contribution thus amounts to R1,500,000.

When the Fund was initiated the rate of contributions was considered sufficient to eliminate approximately 20 level crossings per annum. However, owing to the subsequent rise in building costs, it is not possible to achieve this object and at present only about eight level crossings can be eliminated annually with available funds.

Having regard to the high incidence of fatal level crossing accidents, it is in the national interest that as many level crossings as possible be eliminated and it is, therefore, necessary to make available more funds for this purpose.

Clause 10 provides for the validation of certain changes in the service conditions of the staff that were introduced with retrospective effect, or in respect of which approval of amended regulations was not obtained within the prescribed period.

Mr. Speaker, I move.

Mr. Speaker, discussing this Bill has been greatly facilitated for us as a result of the fact that the hon. the Minister and his Administration have placed the White Paper at our disposal. We should like to express our appreciation for that, because this Bill deals with quite a number of matters which are not closely related to one another, and it would have taken hon. members a long time to do all the research themselves. We are grateful for this assistance.

Most of the provisions in this Bill are for the benefit of the staff, and consequently we shall support it and not draw out the discussion. Naturally there are matters that we want to discuss further, but it will be more appropriate to do so during the Committee Stage. There is, for example, clause 10, about which we are not quite satisfied. Certain members of this Committee have had experience of the provision concerned and would like to raise the matter with the hon. the Minister, both now and at the Committee Stage. Subject to that, however we are glad to be able to support the measure.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise one point at this stage, and that is a matter which arises in clause 10—“Validation of certain changes in conditions of employment”. We can appreciate the difficulty in regulations having always to be approved in the statutory three months, which used to be the position. We make no objection to that change. However, I am concerned with the fact that this also applies to retrospective regulations. A Railway servant is working under certain regulations. Those are his conditions of service. He acts under them, and he acts entirely legally as long as he is carrying out those regulations. Now, in terms of this clause, those regulations could be amended The servant need not be told about the amendment, but they are then brought into effect retrospectively to a date prior to the date on which they first came to the servant’s notice. The effect of this is that a servant can now technically commit the crime of breaching a regulation when he was not aware of the change, when it was not yet in force. He then becomes liable for punishment for something which he did perfectly legally in terms of the regulations. We believe that no person should be punished retrospectively, and similarly, that no regulation should be applied without the person to whom it is applicable knowing about it. Assume a person does something. It is his right in terms of the regulations. They are changed. New regulations are introduced with effect from a month previously. That means that a person who, when he claimed the right, had every legal claim to it, suddenly finds that taken away from him. We would like to suggest that the retrospective part, as far as notification of Railway servants is concerned, should receive consideration and that no servant should be made subject to a regulation unless he has been notified that that is now a new regulation. These are regulations governing their daily work, their conditions of service, how they must act, etc. I would plead with the Minister that no person should be subject to a rule unless he has been notified that that is the position from a fixed date, either on that date or in the future.

I should like to raise one other point. As we said earlier, we welcome very much the increase in the contribution towards the elimination of level crossings. But in the past the position has been that the money in the fund could not be spent. When the fund’s income was R1½ million per year there were surpluses of R3,182,000, R3.3 million, R3.1 million and R2.2 million, according to the latest report of the Controller and Auditor General. In other words, the money could not be spent, and I hope the Minister can tell us to-day that not only are we increasing the amount, but that the machinery for spending that money has been improved to such an extent that it will in fact be possible to spend what is available.

I am in full agreement with the hon. member. It would be most unfair to promulgate regulations of which the staff is unaware and that they should be subject to disciplinary steps if they break those regulations. I can give the assurance that the only regulations that are validated, are regulations that are really in the interests of the staff. No regulations that can possibly result in disciplinary steps being taken against the members of the staff if those regulations are contravened, are validated.

[Inaudible.]

It is only to their benefit. Now I will give the hon. member some indication of this. This happens almost every year.

The first one is an amendment to Staff Regulation 99, arising out of changes to the sick pay conditions affecting employees. Before anything is done in regard to the Sick Fund, agreement must be obtained from the staff, because, as hon. members know, the Sick Fund is controlled by the staff. The staff and the Management are represented on the Central Sick Fund Board. It is only at the request of the Board that any changes are brought about. In this particular case regulations are being promulgated arising out of changes in the Sick Fund pay conditions affecting employees. It was necessary to amend the Staff Regulations with effect from the 16th December, 1964. It was, however, omitted to amend in Regulation No. 99 (2) the reference to Regulation No. 119 (5), which had been cancelled and replaced by Regulation No. 117 (3).

The second one was in regard to the Superannuation Fund Regulations. When the Superannuation Fund Regulations were reprinted in 1960, the grade of Flying Instructor was not included therein, as it had been abolished. The grade was, however, reintroduced with effect from 1st December, 1960. Provision should, therefore, have been made for it to be reinserted in the regulations concerned as from that date and to cover subsequent amendments, but this was inadvertently overlooked.

The third one being validated is that approval was granted for an increase in the Sick Fund contributions with retrospective effect from the January, 1966 pay month. It was consequently not practicable to notify the staff thereof on or before the operative date. I give the hon. member the assurance, as I have said, that usually regulations which benefit the staff and which are of retrospective effect are validated in this, a Bill which comes before Parliament yearly.

They will not take away any rights?

No, they will not. The hon. member can rest assured that he will hear from the staff very soon if we take away rights and then validate it afterwards.

In regard to the machinery for the elimination of level crossings, I think I have explained to the House on a previous occasion that it is not due to inability on the part of the Administration that the money is not fully spent every year. Negotiations have to take place between the local authorities and the Administration in regard to the sharing of the costs. That takes time. Calling for tenders takes time. The planning takes time. Very often it does happen that all the money in a particular financial year is not spent.

It is cumulative?

Yes. In other words, the money is not repaid into the Railway and Harbour Fund. It remains in the Level Crossings Elimination Fund. Everything possible is being done to speed up the elimination of level crossings. The additional amount required, as I said in my opening remarks, is as a result of the increased costs, mainly building costs. As a matter of fact, even by having an additional amount of R1½ million, less than 20 level crossings per year-—the number we had originally envisaged—will be eliminated. But everything possible is being done to speed up the elimination of level crossings.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

This Bill will replace the existing War Veterans’ Pensions Act, 1962. As hon. members will see in the long title of this Bill, its main object is to consolidate all the measures relating to war veterans’ pensions. Section 4 of the existing War Veterans’ Pensions Act, 1962, makes all those provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act relating to the appointment and powers of a district pension officer, the functions and powers of the Secretary in regard to pensions, and the determination of the amount of any pension, mutatis mutandis applicable to war veterans’ pensions. So, for example, the provisions of sections 3 to 6 inclusive, 8, 10 to 18 inclusive and 20 of the Old Age Pensions Act are made applicable to war veterans’ pensions.

The Old Age Pensions Act, however, was repealed in 1967 and replaced by the Aged Persons Act, 1967. It goes without saying that provision must first be made for those provisions in the Old Age Pensions Act which are applicable to war veterans’ pensions, before the Aged Persons Act can be put into operation. All these provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act are now being re-enacted in this Bill, and hon. members will find them in clauses 4 to 12 inclusive.

I now want to deal with the amendments appearing in this Bill. Firstly, clause 3 (5) is a new provision in terms of which the payment of a war veterans’ pension is suspended after such a pensioner has been absent from the Republic for a period of more than six months. If, however, such a pensioner resided in the Republic for not less than 15 of the 20 years immediately preceding his application for a pension, the Secretary may permit payment of the pension to be continued under certain circumstances. The Aged Persons Act, which was passed by the House last year, contains a similar provision and the reason for this is that we want to prevent a person from coming to live in this country for only a very short time, for example five years, then leaving the country and receiving a pension from this country for the rest of his life.

Secondly, another important object of this Bill is in future to have the amounts of pensions, as well as the means to be taken into account in determining the amounts of pensions, determined in terms of regulations under the Act. Similar provisions already exist in the Aged Persons Act in respect of old age pensions and in the Children’s Act in respect of maintenance and family allowances. During the past number of years concessions have been granted to social pensioners virtually every year. Before these concessions could be put into effect, all the relevant Acts first had to be amended. This not only took up much of the time of this House, but also created administrative problems. All concessions are announced by my colleague the Minister of Finance in his Budget Speech, and hon. members therefore have sufficient opportunity to consider such concessions during the Budget debate and during the discussion on my Vote.

Clause 15 (2) also provides that the maximum amount of a war veterans’ pension shall not be reduced without the approval of both Houses of Parliament. Consequently the rights of the war veteran pensioners will still be adequately protected. That covers virtually everything in connection with this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support this Bill at its second reading. We realize that the amendments to the War Veterans’ Pensions Act is a direct consequence of amendments which were passed last year in terms of the Aged Persons Act of 1967. We realize too that there has been a considerable amount of research following the report of the working group on legislation for the protection of the aged, where they made a similar recommendation that, following the amendment to the Old Age Pensions Act, similar amendments should be made to the other Acts concerning social pensions. At this stage, at the second reading, there are certain comments we should like to make in regard to the principle that is involved in this Bill.

Firstly, Sir, we foresee that considerable advantages might be gained by amendments to the various Acts, following upon a Budget speech in regard to which in the past amending legislation was necessary. The hon. the Minister has indicated that one of the purposes of this Bill is to eliminate certain administrative difficulties so that those amendments can be carried out by regulation. It does mean that we will not have an opportunity of discussing those amendments in any great detail in this House. Consequently, when the Aged Persons Act of 1962 was amended last year, we did express certain reservations in regard to that procedure. It is hoped that if a Bill of that nature is finally passed by both Houses and becomes an Act, and when alterations are to be made to the means test, which will then be made by regulation, the hon. the Minister will timeously table a memorandum setting forth the alterations that will take place. We have, as I have said, previously had the opportunity of discussing the amending legislation. In terms of this Bill, where an alteration is made in regard to the means test, this matter can be dealt with and will be dealt with, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, by regulation. The War Veterans Pensions Bill makes provision for the recognition of the services of those persons who performed active service for their country. As you know, Sir, in terms of existing provisions war veterans are entitled to receive a higher allowance than old-age pensioners. This obviously has certain advantages. There is a different means test applicable to war veterans who are over 70 years of age. The pension payable to a war veteran in terms of this Bill is R8 per month more than the pension payable in terms of the Old Age Pensions Act. It becomes important therefore to study the definition of “war veteran” so as to be able to assess which persons are entitled to receive benefits in terms of this Bill. The definition of “war veteran” as it appears in this Bill, is the same as the definition which appeared in the Pension Laws Amendment Act of 1967, which created new groups under the definition clause. One of the groups that was brought in was the Chinese. The Bill which is now before us is only applicable to Europeans, Coloureds, Chinese and Indians. We on this side of the House would like to express our great disappointment at the Minister’s attitude in precluding one section of the population, namely the Bantu. Strong representations have been made to the Government to include this group of people in this Bill. This legislation which is before us to-day presented the hon. the Minister with an ideal opportunity to include this particular group of persons. We realize that such a proposal will involve additional expenditure and therefore we on this side are precluded from moving an instruction to the Committee at a later stage, an instruction which would have the effect of including the Bantu. It does seem most unfair and unjust that that particular group of persons who also rendered war service should be precluded from the advantages which will flow from the provisions of this Bill. We know that the Government’s attitude is that the Bantu served in non-combatant units. We feel, however, that that is no justification for excluding these people who performed a service for which they had volunteered in the interests of their country. It is a pity therefore that this particular group has been excluded from the definition of “war veteran” and that the Minister has not yet seen fit to allow them the benefits which will flow from this legislation.

Sir, the other points which arise from this Bill are of a minor nature. We shall therefore deal with a them in the Committee Stage. In principle we believe that this is an important piece of legislation, which provides for a slight deviation from the manner in which pensions have previously been dealt with in this House. Although we have certain reservations with regard to the application of the means test by way of regulation to a great extent, we feel in principle that the enactment of this measure is important so as to give recognition to those persons who performed full-time military service.

I rise to add one or two words to what has been said by the last speaker with regard to this Bill. In the first place I want to say that one welcomes this legislation which will now bring the provisions of the law applying to war veterans into line with the legislation passed last year. Sir, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that for a number of years before entering this House I had contacts with Ministers from time to time who were concerned with war pensions. Over the years they have evolved for this country a pattern, so far as war pensions are concerned, which is equal to, if not better than, any other similar legislation that exists. But, Sir, this Bill perpetuates one anomaly so far as South Africa is concerned, and that is the exclusion of the Bantu. One appreciates the reason why this has been done over the years and why it was done originally. There were grave difficulties in tracing the individual Bantu who were entitled to pensions. There were grave difficulties in certain cases in following them up and assisting them to obtain their pensions. That difficulty, however, was overcome with regard to the ordinary war disability pension and I think the Bantu in this country have been fairly satisfactorily dealt with. But in 1941 when the War Veterans’ Pension Bill was introduced, it was introduced originally to provide for Europeans, Coloureds and Indians. It was subsequently extended to include Chinese, but the Bantu were omitted. In the Bill now before us the Minister proposes that the Bantu should continue to be omitted. Sir, Bantu ex-servicemen have been accepted for pension purposes generally on the ratio …

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to proceed on those lines. The inclusion of the Bantu will entail additional expenditure.

Sir, perhaps the hon. the Minister may be able to explain to me, if I may be permitted to ask the question, why there has been this exclusion so far as the Bill before us is concerned. They are ex-servicemen; they are war veterans except that the name “Bantu” does not appear in the definition. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can explain why they are being omitted. I believe that the hon. the Minister has been supplied with cost estimates which I believe are fairly accurate. I understand that the cost would be something in the nature of R¼ million so far as the Bantu are concerned. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister is concerned about the amount involved or whether he is not satisfied with the schedules submitted to him.

Then I want to raise another matter in regard to the Bill and that is the question of translation. In the Afrikaans text of this Bill reference is made to “Blankes, Kleurlinge, Indiërs” but in the English text the word “European” is used instead of “white person”. The word “European” is used throughout the Bill. There is no definition of it and I presume that “European” in this case means a “white person” under the Population Registration Act. It would seem to me in the first place that the term “white person” should be used and, secondly, that a white person should also be defined in just the same way as other persons are defined in this Bill. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will be good enough to give his attention to this matter.

The other point to which I wish to draw the Minister’s attention is that we are dealing here basically with war veterans and I see no reason and the Minister has not suggested any reason why certain of these provisions should apply to one class of war veteran only. For instance, there are certain privileges which apply to European or white war veterans who are resident in or have been resident in Lesotho, Botswana, Swaziland or South West Africa. I refer particularly to Clause 3 (2) of the Bill. It seems to me that there should not be exclusions as far as the question of residence is concerned and that the whole class of war veterans should have the benefits or the penalties which apply to residents in these three territories. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could give some thought to that particular aspect of the measure before us.

I rise to refer to an aspect of this Bill which is another sign of an ever-growing tendency in our legislation and that is to provide in a Bill that the effective aspect of the Bill, the teeth of the law, shall be determined not by this House, where it should properly be debated and decided, but by the Minister. Clause 3 of this Bill defines which war veterans are entitled to a pension. It is provided that the person concerned must have attained a certain age, that he must be resident in the Republic, that he must be a South African citizen or that he must have been ordinarily resident here for a certain period, etc., but it does say “subject to the provisions of this Act”. Then one turns to clause 15 and one finds that provision is made there that the Minister may, subject to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3), make regulations “as to the requirements or conditions, in addition to any specified in section 3, to be complied with by a war veteran in order to qualify for a veteran’s pension or for an allowance”, and the circumstances in which he shall cease to qualify. Sir, the function of this House surely is to determine who should have a pension and in what circumstances he should have it. The conditions under which pensions are given to people are laid down here in clause 3. Those conditions refer to his residence, his citizenship and his age. In addition to that, some other provision can be made by the Minister by regulation.

Order! Is the hon. member not anticipating his own motion on the Order Paper?

With respect, Sir, the question before the House now is whether or not the power to make such regulations should be given to the Minister. If I may say so, there is another difference and that is that here the Minister is in effect being given the power to amend an Act of Parliament and, with respect, the motion in my name on the Order Paper, does not refer to a power such as that suggested here. May I proceed?

The hon. member may proceed, but he must not anticipate his own motion.

I am indebted to you, Sir. Surely if one is going to grant pensions to war veterans under certain circumstances, those circumstances should be clearly stated when we pass the law here. Clause 15 provides that the Minister can make additional provisions to those provided for already in clause 3. They can only be more onerous and we would like to know from the hon. the Minister why he wants the power and what sort of conditions he is going to impose. These conditions are going to be imposed by the Minister on the advice, no doubt, of members of his Department. The decision will be promulgated by regulation; it will be made in a back room somewhere in Pretoria; it will never see the light of day, it will never be subject to public debate or public scrutiny. Sir, this is part of the process of legislation; you debate it in this House and the public is then informed through the Press what is going on and members of the public are then able to make their representations to those persons who are properly charged with the legislative processes, that is to say, hon. members sitting in this House. I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to give us a good reason as to why he wants this power and that he will give us an assurance that he is not going to make it more onerous or will give us an assurance that at the appropriate time in the Committee Stage he will consider amending his powers with regard to the making of regulations so as not to abridge in any way the conditions which are stated in clause 3 to be the conditions under which persons are entitled as of right and as of law, as determined by us here in this House, to have a pension.

I am glad that the broad principles of this Bill have received general support, because it is necessary to get this legislation through quickly so that the Aged Persons Act can be promulgated to enable us to act in terms thereof. With regard to the various questions I want to say this: Firstly, there is the matter referred to by the hon. member for Umbilo, namely the question of whether a memorandum will be made available to hon. members when changes are introduced in, for example, the means test, etc. Yes, just as in the case of old-age pensions, it will be done where it is at all worth while. If it is a very minor amendment which does not justify a memorandum, one can explain it and bring it to the notice of hon. members by simply making an announcement. When material changes are introduced, we shall follow the same practice as in the past and supply hon. members with proper memoranda giving a proper explanation of such changes. I also consider it necessary that, when changes are made in the means test, hon. members should be fully informed of such changes so that they may have an opportunity of discussing them properly during the debates in this House. I think they have a right to that and I shall see to it that they will be able to exercise that right properly by providing full particulars on my part. As regards the definition of “war veteran”, to which various hon. members have referred, and the fact that, in the definition of “war veteran”, “Bantu” was omitted and reference was only made to the other race groups, I can only repeat what has already been said on previous occasions in this connection, and that is that in the original war veterans’ legislation, especially the legislation of 1941, the Bantu were purposely omitted by the then Minister responsible for it, the late Mr. J. H. Hofmeyr. I think hon. members will agree with me that if it was at all possible to include Bantu war veterans, he of all people would have been most willing to do so.

Not at that stage.

Why not? What is the difference between that stage and now? But they were omitted, not for reasons of race or colour, but for other considerations, namely that the Bantu in fact did not serve in fighting units, according to a statement by the then Government, the Government which employed them. They said so. In addition, it was done because it is difficult to trace the addresses of such persons, because they more frequently change their address, and so forth. These were the various reasons given at the time. But I must point out to hon. members that since then up to the present Bantu persons who have performed auxiliary services during wars, have always been granted additional pensions administratively by way of gratuities, and that is still being done to-day. In other words, inclusion of the word “Bantu” will in actual fact not entail additional expenditure; it will perhaps only cause the expenditure to be incurred in a different way. But any Bantu person who has performed war service or auxiliary services and who can furnish the necessary proof, will receive the equivalent of a war veterans’ pension through the Department of Bantu Administration by way of a gratuity. [Interjection.] Just as old-age pensions for Whites and Bantu differ, so there is a difference between what the white war veteran gets and what the Bantu who has rendered auxiliary services gets. They must inevitably differ. I do not know whether the hon. member is advocating that we should make them equal in every respect. Surely we cannot do that. [Interjection.] This is a matter which the hon. member must discuss with the Minister of Bantu Administration, because it is not relevant here. I am dealing here with the practice which has been followed since 1941 and which was introduced by the old United Party Government of that time.

The hon. member for Green Point also referred to the definition of the word “blanke” in the Afrikaans version and “European” in the English version. I have been informed that the word “European” is used in the English version in order to include Whites not resident in the Republic. I must honestly confess that I do not understand it. It is the reason given by the law advisors; the definition of “white person” would in fact only be valid for the Republic, according to the Population Registration Act, and exclude other persons. Personally I cannot agree with this and I am quite willing to examine it further in the Committee Stage to see what we can do about it. I am informed that in the War Veterans’ Pensions Act the term “white person” is not used because such pensions are also paid to persons outside the Republic. They are persons not classified under the Population Registration Act, and the same definition of a white person as is used in, for example, the Aged Persons Act cannot be used here. But I shall look at this matter again. [Interjection.] It is for that very reason, because only white persons in Lesotho, Botswana, Swaziland and South-West Africa qualify, but not the non-Whites. According to this the non-Whites cannot get it. This has always been the case, also under the old existing Act which we are now amending and consolidating. It has been the case ever since 1941.

The hon. member for Durban (North) also referred to the powers under clause 15 to make regulations, and he refers particularly to the powers under clause 15 (1) (b). These powers are merely a clear definition which makes it possible to give the regulations the force of law, but as the hon. member can see, the requirements and conditions imposed under paragraph (b) are laid down “subject to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3)”. Therefore they must not be in conflict with the provisions of subsections (2) and (3).

It deals only with the conditions.

Also the residential qualifications, etc., laid down in terms of this Act. All the basic principles laid down in this Act cannot be amended by way of regulation. This is only to make it possible to add to the regulations. But in such a case the regulations will still be tabled here and will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. There is nothing which prevents Parliament, in the case of a regulation already made, from deciding against it by way of a substantive motion or whatever; it can happen and then it can be rectified. There is an opportunity to debate the matter. In other words, Parliament remains the highest authority, because it can review all regulations issued under all Acts. I therefore see no problem in this and I do not think the hon. member need be concerned about it. We shall never use these powers to the detriment of pensioners; we shall only use them for their benefit. In dealing with pensioners of whatever kind, all parties have at all times tried to act in their interests when making regulations, and with a view to improving their circumstances. All powers that can be exercised in terms of this can therefore only mean an improvement in the circumstances of those persons. It is also provided specifically that existing privileges cannot be reduced by way of regulation without the approval of both Houses of Parliament. Consequently this can only mean additional benefits; it cannot mean the withdrawal of benefits. I therefore do not know why the hon. member is so concerned.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

This Bill will replace the existing Blind Persons Act, 1962. As indicated in the long title of the Bill, it is to a Large extent a consolidation of the existing laws relating to blind persons, with a few necessary amendments.

Section 8 of the existing Blind Persons Act, 1962 (Act No. 39 of 1962), makes the provisions of sections 3 (2) and (3), sections 4 to 6 inclusive and sections 10 to 20 inclusive of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1962, mutatis mutandisapplicable to pensions payable in terms of the Blind Persons Act.

The Old Age Pensions Act, however, was repealed in 1967 and replaced by the Aged Persons Act (Act No. 81 of 1967), but this Act cannot be put into operation before the Blind Persons Act is amended to make provision for the measures concerned, and the necessary provision is now being made in this legislation.

Hon. members will find that clause 7 to 14 inclusive are consequently only a re-enactment of those measures in the Old Age Pensions Act, 1962, that were applicable to pensions payable to blind persons.

It is envisaged to have the amounts of pensions for blind persons and of attendants’ and other allowances payable to such persons, as well as the means to be taken into account in determining the amount of such pensions, prescribed by regulation in terms of the Act. Hon. members will find this in clause 17 (1).

It is being done to facilitate the administration of the Act. All concessions in respect of social pensions and allowances are announced by my colleague the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech and hon. members therefore have sufficient opportunity during the Budget debate and during the discussion on my Vote to discuss this aspect in detail.

In the past number of years concessions were made to social pensioners virtually every year and it was found that continual amendments to make provision for these concessions interfered considerably with the administration of the Acts concerned.

This amendment will also bring the provisions concerned into line with legislation authorizing the payment of old-age pensions and maintenance and family allowances.

Clause 17 (2) provides that the maximum amount of any pension shall not be reduced without the approval of both Houses of Parliament. Adequate provision is therefore being made to protect the rights of the pensioners.

Section 12 of the existing Blind Persons Act provides that the Secretary for Social Welfare and Pensions shall register all welfare organizations which have as their object or one of their objects the promotion of the welfare of persons who are totally or partially blind.

This provision resulted in unnecessary overlapping of work and also conflicted with the spirit of the National Welfare Act, 1965. For example, that Act makes it compulsory for all welfare organizations to register as such with the National Welfare Board. Organizations seeking to promote the welfare of blind persons therefore had to be registered by the National Welfare Board as well as by the Department. In order to eliminate this double registration the provision concerned is not being re-enacted, with the result that henceforth such organizations, like all other welfare organizations, will only have to be registered by the National Welfare Board.

Clause 5 (5) contains a new provision in terms of which the payment of a pension must be suspended after the recipient has been absent from the Republic for more than six months. The Aged Persons Act contains a similar provision, the purpose of which is to prevent persons from residing in the Republic for a very short while, for example five years, and then, after settling in another country, continuing to draw a pension from this country for the rest of their lives.

In terms of the proviso a pension may under certain circumstances be continued in respect of persons who resided in the Republic for not less than ten out of the fifteen years immediately preceding the application for a pension,

Clause 5 (6) provides that the Secretary may pay the pensions to persons who had already left the country at the date of commencement of the Act, after they have been absent from the Republic for longer than six months. Such persons are therefore not affected by the restrictions.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support the second reading of this Bill. As the hon. the Minister indicated, a considerable number of the matters provided for in this Bill are also provided for in other legislation which makes provision for social pensions. However, there are one or two points in regard to which the Minister may give some further information. There is a provision in the Bill whereby the pension is terminated or suspended after a period of six months. The Minister referred to this aspect when he introduced the Bill. Now, it might conceivably happen that certain blind persons may of necessity have to travel overseas and remain there for a long time, perhaps to receive medical attention. It is honed that this provision relating to the suspension of the pension after a period of six months will be applied in a lenient manner. I concede that in terms of clause 5 of this measure it is possible for that term to be further extended but the extension is limited to persons who had been in the Republic for not less than ten of the preceding fifteen years. As I say. instances might occur where people have to be outside the Republic to receive urgent medical attention, and they might have to remain overseas for a very long period. It is hoped that the hon. the Minister will assure this House that regarding the suspension of pensions provided for in clause 5 deserving cases will receive sympathetic consideration. We on this side support this Bill in principle.

Mr. Speaker, I sympathize with what the hon. member for Umbilo has said in connection with the provisions of clause 5. The object of the clause is to prevent persons from residing in the country for a short time, then leaving it for a relatively long time, and returning only to qualify for the pension, only to leave the country again. In a bona fide case, where, for example, a person has to be absent from the country for longer than six months for medical treatment, I shall see what we can do. I think the hon. member has made out a case in that respect.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill will replace the existing Disability Grants Act.

As can be seen from the long title, the object of this Bill is to consolidate all the various provisions relating to disability grants, and to make a few amendments that are necessary.

The amendments are in the main that the amount of disability grants as well as the means taken into account in determining the amount of the grants will no longer be determined by the Act, but by regulations under the Act.

These provisions already exist in the Aged Persons Act in respect of old-age pensions, and in the Children’s Act in respect of maintenance and family allowances. In order to facilitate the administration of the Acts concerned, it has been decided to follow this procedure in respect of all the various social pensions and allowances.

Hon. members will therefore find that sections 11 and 12 of the existing Act are not being re-enacted in this Bill, but that in clause 15 provision is being made for those provisions to be laid down by way of regulation.

Clause 15 (2) provides that any maximum amount prescribed by way of such a regulation shall not be reduced without the approval of both Houses of Parliament. The rights of the drawers of allowances are therefore being adequately protected.

In the past number of years social pensions and allowances were reviewed virtually every year and concessions were made. Such concessions are announced by my colleague the Minister of Finance in his Budget Speech. Sufficient opportunity therefore exists to take all concessions into thorough review in this House during the budget debate as well as during the discussion on my Vote. In any case I cannot make concessions by way of regulation before the expenditure in connection therewith has been approved by Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support the second reading of the Bill. It is, perhaps, the last of the Social Pension Bills which will now enable the hon. the Minister to bring into operation the Aged Persons Act of 1967. We have heard in the introductions of the Bills which have just been dealt with that similar circumstances exist for all these social pensions to be dealt with on the same basis, particularly as regards residential qualifications as well as other aspects. Therefore we on this side support the second reading of the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This measure arises from a decision taken by the Government in 1963 that every Department must review all pre-Union legislation relating to it with a view to its repeal, the incorporation of necessary portions thereof in post-Union legislation, or the re-enactment of necessary portions thereof.

As hon. members will remember, a large number of those statutes which had already become obsolete were repealed by the Pre-Union Statute Law Revision Act which was introduced by my colleague the Minister of Justice last year.

Cape Act No. 32 of 1895, the only remaining pre-Union statute relating to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, provides inter alia for the establishment of a pension fund for widows of Cape public servants, and since the Cape Widows’ Pension Fund still exists and may continue functioning for some considerable time, it is necessary to ensure its survival by re-enacting the relevant portions. Chapter II of the Bill provides for this, while Chapter I deals with the repeal of the Act and any subsequent amendments thereto.

I therefore want to emphasize that this measure in no way alters the present position of Cape public servants, all of whom have retired by now, and their widows.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support this Bill. It is obvious that it deals with an old Act which is being repealed, dating from 1895. I feel though, that the hon. the Minister might have given a little more information in regard to the Cape Widows’ Pension Fund. Chapter II of this Bill deals with the manner in which the continuation of the public service section of the Cape Widows’ Pension Fund should be administered, investment of moneys of the Fund, additional contributions and other matters pertaining to the Cape Widows’ Pension Fund. The administration of this Fund has, from time to time, caused a little concern in that the administration of the Fund is unique. During the 1964 session I asked the then Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions certain questions relating to the position of the Fund. It would appear that the actuarial calculations that are made from time to time are certainly a most important part of the administration of this Fund. Perhaps the Minister can give the House some indication as to what the future of the Fund is to be, because obviously if no further people require membership of the Fund, a situation will eventually arise where a decision will have to be made regarding the continued existence of the Fund. Perhaps at this stage, where the old Act is being amended and certain Cape pension laws are being repealed, the Minister could indicate what the future of the Fund will be in the light of legislation which has now been placed before this House.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I have no information as to the actuarial position of that fund before me at the moment. I shall go into the matter and furnish the particulars required to the hon. member at a later opportunity. I may give the assurance, however, that there is no reason for concern in this regard.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This measure has already been published for general information in a Government Gazette Extraordinary, on 22nd December, 1967. No objections to or comments on it have been received by either my Department or myself.

The amendments which are being proposed have arisen from the suggestions received by my Department after all interested political parties and other bodies had been invited to submit proposals in regard to amendments to the Electoral Laws.

The comprehensive amendments which are perhaps generally expected—and can justifiably be expected—are not being introduced in this measure. Those amendments will be introduced when all the data have been correlated and summarized. This measure contains the essential amendments which are regarded as being absolutely essential at this stage.

The amendments included in this Bill, are principally aimed at ensuring that when an election or elections are to take place, voters’ rolls, rolls which are up to date as far as possible, are available, as well as to ensure that when elections take place the machinery functions smoothly and matters are facilitated for all concerned.

No principles contained in the principal Act are being amended, and the amendments which are now being envisaged, are consequently not contentious. In fact, I am convinced that they will meet with general approval and support.

Sir, kindly grant me the opportunity now of explaining the envisaged amendments briefly to hon. members. For the sake of convenience I shall deal with the clauses one by one. I shall deal first with clause 1. In terms of the present provisions of section 8 (1) of the Electoral Laws the position at present is that a general registration of voters must take place at intervals of not more than five years. The last general registration commenced on 5th August, 1963. That means that the next general registration must commence not later than 3rd August of this year. The next general election of members of the Provincial Councils is to take place during 1970, and if a general registration has still to take place during this year and new voters’ rolls are drawn up, they will by that time have become rather obsolete. If the next general election of members of the House of Assembly is to take place in 1971, the voters’ rolls would at that stage be approximately three years old already. It is of no use therefore having new voters’ rolls drawn up this year and only using them in two years’ time. In order to rectify this state of affairs, subsection (1) of section 8 of the principal Act is now being substituted by a new subsection (1) in which it is being provided that the next general registration of voters should take place during 1969, and subsequently at intervals of not more than six years. Consequently reasonably up-to-date voters’ rolls will be available for the general Provincial Council election, as a result of which there will be an expected decrease in the number of post and special votes and problems which usually occur in the tracing of voters who have moved. In addition the amendment will entail that my Department will be allowed more scope to fix the dates of future general registrations, taking into consideration the general elections which are to follow. The drawbacks which have originated as a result of the present five-year period will to a large extent be eliminated if it is increased to six years because, as I have said, it will afford us more scope.

I come now to clause 2. This clause must be read in conjunction with clause 4 since it has a bearing on that clause and since clause 4 contains only consequential amendments which arise out of the amendments as proposed in clause 2. In terms of the present provisions of section 71 bisof the Principal Act, a blank ballot paper has to be completed by every person wishing to vote as a special voter—the name of the candidate, constituency, etc., has to be filled in. The writing out of the ballot paper takes up a great deal of time. During the recent general election of members of the House of Assembly it was found however that many voters voted as special voters in the constituencies in which they were registered. These special voters in particular could actually have made use of specially printed ballot papers, which only differed in a minor respect from the ordinary ballot papers, but the section in question did not allow this to be done. Therefore it is being proposed that a new subsection(1) be substituted for the existing subsection(1) of section 71 bis of the Principal Act, in terms of which presiding officers will be allowed, where it is practicable, to make use of printed ballot papers. By this means a great deal of time will be saved and it will be possible to deal more rapidly with voters. These amendments will be of particular importance at the coming general election of members of the Representative Coloured Council. In cases where fewer than 50 voters have been registered in an electoral district, such voters may vote as absent or as special voters. In all such cases it will subsequently be possible to make use of the special printed ballot papers. Consequently it is necessary to substitute a new subsection for the existing subsection (1) of subsection 71 sept.

I come now to clause 3, Section 71 quat of the principal Act provides that at all times during the hours from 7 o’clock in the forenoon to 9 o’clock in the afternoon during the period from the 21st day before polling day up to and including the second day immediately preceding polling day not less than one presiding officer and his assistants shall be on duty at the office of every electoral officer and every returning officer in order to enable special voters to vote. Experience has shown that during the last general election of members to the House of Assembly there were many instances of presiding officers and their assistants who remained on duty, particularly those in the isolated country districts, without a special voter ever turning up. The result was that the spare time of many officers was taken up unnecessarily. In addition it resulted in a very considerable expenditure of allowances, allowances which had to be paid to the officials. The new subsection (1) of section 71 quat which is now being proposed, envisages that presiding officers for special voters should only render service after normal office hours in essential cases. The hours during which after-hour service has to be rendered, will be determined after consultation between the chief electoral officer or an electoral officer, the presiding officer and the political parties in question. This will not prejudice the special vote system in any way. The special voter still has every opportunity to vote which he is entitled to.

This amendment will be of great importance particularly at the coming general election of members of the Representative Coloured Council where there will be almost no Coloured voters in many parts of the Republic but where officers will still have to be on duty after hours if the Act is not amended. However, all presiding officers will still have to act as such during their normal office hours.

As far as clause 4 is concerned, I have already said that it must be dealt with in conjunction with clause 2, and consequently I do not want to elaborate any further on it, except perhaps merely to mention that the main purpose of the proposed amendment is to eliminate delays in the completion of ballot papers.

Clause 5 contains the short title of the Act and it is not likely that anybody is interested in that. Sir, I trust that I have now explained this amending Bill to the satisfaction of all bon. members. I may perhaps just mention in passing that other proposals in regard to certain amendments to the Electoral Laws have also been received. I referred to these proposals at the beginning of my speech. However, they are not urgent and my Department is still subjecting them to thorough examination and consideration.

Mr. Speaker, we have no objection in principle to this legislation, but as the hon. the Minister quite rightly expected, we are disappointed that this Bill does not have the full scope we expected it to have, particularly after the various representations which have been made to the Department. I hope that the hon. the Minister will, in his reply, be able to tell us more or less when he expects to introduce the promised more comprehensive Amendment Bill. I am talking about the one in respect of which he promised that it would be referred to a Select Committee so that all parties could try in good time to discuss and, if possible, to eliminate the various problems before the next election. It will not help to wait until a few months before the next elections before tackling such a discussion. The last Select Committee sat for many months. Subsequently it had to be converted into a commission which had to sit during almost the entire recess. I hope that we can be presented with the draft bill during this session still so that we can give proper attention to it.

As far as this particular bill is concerned there are three points I want to raise. We accept of course that it is in the interests of all that the date of the general registration should be amended to be as close as possible to that of the election, and we support that. But it must not be too close to the election. The date mentioned by the hon. the Minister namely the 3rd or 5th August, means that if the registration should take place then, it would take a month and the voters’ roll would still have to be drawn up. Then the voters’ rolls would have to be under scrutiny by the parties for a month and only after that would they come into effect. That means that it would be impossible to furnish that August voters’ roll to the parties for actual organization purposes before the beginning of 1970. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider holding the 1969 general registration somewhere in the middle or just a little before the middle of the year so that we can have at least one supplementary registration before that voters’ roll has to be used in an election. The hon. the Minister is aware of the problems of obtaining pollsters and the poor registration which is carried out in many areas owing to the difficulty of finding the right people to do that work; therefore it is still necessary for parties to do quite a good deal of hard work after the registration in order to supply those deficiencies. I am therefore requesting the Minister to give consideration to a reasonably early registration which will at least furnish us with one or perhaps two supplementary rolls before the election which is to take place round about April, 1970.

The second point I want to put is that the next election which is going to be held is a provincial election. In Natal and the Free State it is customary, after a registration, to draw up the voters’ rolls on a Parliamentary basis first. Then all those cards have to be converted for the provincial constituencies. Now this is a very big task, a task which takes up a great deal of time, and I want to suggest that the hon. the Minister considers having the general registration in Natal and the Free State undertaken on a provincial basis right from the start. Let the registration take place on a provincial basis, and then it can be converted again for the Parliamentary constituencies. If this is not done, those provinces will have to lag at least two or three months behind the Transvaal and the Cape before their voters’ rolls are available. There is nothing to prevent that. The Act does not provide that it should be done on a Parliamentary basis; it merely states that voters should be arranged in constituencies. All that has to be done is to arrange administratively that the constituency shall then be a provincial constituency.

We are all in agreement as regards the amendment to the special voters’ system which makes it possible for the printed ballot paper to be used. Where ordinary ballot papers are available it is unnecessary to have to fill in all those details, and we support that provision. There are problems, however, as far as clause 3 is concerned, which deals with the question of the hours of service of the presiding officers. We accept that it is unreasonable to expect that every officer for special votes should remain in his office from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. if he has no work to do. It is unreasonable and we are quite prepared to support an amendment in this regard. But what is in fact necessary. is that the voters should know where he stands. As this clause stands at present, the Chief Electoral Officer may stipulate that a person should work only his normal hours. In the first instance those hours are not laid down by law. It varies in various offices and various areas. I feel that the normal working hours should be laid down from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. so that there is clarity in regard to the normal working hours of the officers. There may in fact be exceptional circumstances where certain normal working hours are different from those in other areas. We feel therefore that the question of working hours does not require an important change but that it will ensure clarity in respect of what those working hours should be.

Subsection (2) makes provision for various additional times at different offices. In the interests of the voter who wants to vote, there should be a notification informing him where and when he can vote. I agree wholeheartedly that in a city, for example Durban, where one has the electoral officer as well as the magistrate offices, it is absolutely unnecessary to keep both in service. It is sufficient if there is at least one place where a voter can go and vote. The voter is entitled to know that he will be afforded the opportunity of voting in any city or at any magistrate’s office between certain minimum hours. I do not think that much use was ever made of the period from 7 to 8 a.m. Neither do I believe that the last few hours up to 9 p.m. are necessary. They are perhaps necessary at the major offices, but not at the smaller ones. I hope the hon. the Minister can give us some indication of what his ideas in this regard are. and how it is intended that this discretion which is now being granted in practice to the Chief Electoral Officer is to be exercised. Will arrangements be made to ensure that the voters will at least know when they can vote at the various places? A notice can for example be issued before an election to inform people that the normal hours will apply at every magistrate’s office plus a minimum of one or two hours after the normal closing time. In the large cities the offices can remain open for a further two to three hours.

The Minister also referred to consultation with the parties but no mention is made of that in the Bill. The only thing mentioned there is the notification to parties. No provision is made for consultation. The Minister said that there would in fact be consultation and it is possible that he will consider including it in this clause as well.

With the exception of those three points which have caused us a little concern, we accept the Bill in principle and we hope that at the Committee Stage we will be able to support the Bill in its particulars as well.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member for Durban (Point) raised those three points. I want to give him the assurance that, considering the changes which we are now making. particularly in so far as the Act now provides that a period of at least five years should elapse before a general registration of voters, the Act does not therefore stipulate that it must be six years. It states, “not more than six years”. Consequently I think I can give him the assurance that it is the intention to arrange that general registration in such a way that it will in fact take place early enough so that there will at least be an opportunity for one supplementary registration to take place before an election. I think that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself complained last year when my Vote was under discussion, that it was not desirable to submit old or meaningless voters’ rolls. In the urban constituencies in particular there is so much movement of the people that the tracing of various people presents great problems to the parties.

What about the idea of a central registration office?

When my Vote is being discussed, I may perhaps have something to say about that. We are working in that direction.

He has requested firstly that we should undertake the registration for Natal and the Free State on a provincial constituency basis and not on a Parliamentary constituency basis because the provincial elections are to take place sooner than the Parliamentary elections. I shall go into that idea and determine whether it is practicable, since it is surely also the intention with re-registration to ensure that all one’s voters get onto the voters’ roll, and to make it as easy as possible for political parties to trace voters. That is why I have no basic faults to find with the principle behind that idea. In respect of the hours worked by the presiding officers, it follows naturally that proper notifications will be issued. The public and the political parties must know where they can take their voters who want to vote as special voters to after hours in cases where, for example, there will only be one place for this to be done and the times for doing so will be laid down, as compared to other places where such times will not be laid down because it will not be necessary to do so. The electoral officers and the chief electoral officers have already had a great deal of experience with the introduction of this new system of voting. In my opinion the responsibility can be conferred upon them, because of the experience which they have at their disposal, to determine whether there should, in Oudtshoorn for example, be more places available where votes may be cast by means of special ballot papers, i.e. throughout the night, or perhaps just for one night, or whether or not after-hour voting ought to take place. I want to mention the example of De Rust, the town nearest to the place where I was born and raised. There it is not necessary for people to remain after hours, because we vote early there, we vote for the National Party, and we get over with it.

I shall go into the necessity for including an amendment in respect of consultation with political parties, with the purpose of introducing that amendment, possibly in the Committee Stage. I feel very strongly about this matter because I do not think it is sound, seen from the point of view of general principles, not to hold thorough consultations with one’s political parties in such a matter. If we consult them with the appointment of certain electoral officers. then why not do so in these cases as well? The hon. member need not feel any doubts about the matter. I shall go into it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.