We should like to have more clarity on the effects which will result from certain provisions in this particular clause. The hon. Minister the other day indicated that a new and more logical system in regard to the relations between Government Departments, and between provincial administrations and Government Departments, would result from this particular clause. The hon. Minister stated that if Department A requires that Department B should perform a certain service for that department, say removing telephone lines, then actually Department A bears the cost, and not Department B. However, I have now discovered that it is an entirely fallacious argument, that it just is not true. I have here the financial regulations of the Treasury, and I shoud like to refer the hon. the Minister to paragraphs 118 and 119 which I shall now read out to him. Paragraph 118 says—

And then paragraph 119—

In other words, if the Post Office is asked to render the service of removing its telephone lines or other communication lines, the Post Office actually has to pay and not the department asking for the service. The hon. the Minister used exactly the opposite argument of what I have said and what these financial regulations say, when he argued in favour of this clause and when he argued in favour of making provincial councils pay in future instead of the Post Office. Surely, if, say, the Post Office is prepared to pay Railways, is prepared to pay Water Affairs for the re-routing of a particular line, surely the Post Office should also be prepared to pay in the case of a provincial council, where a work of a provincial council necessitates the removal or changing of telegraph lines. Why indeed, the hon. the Minister must know that this is the case. Not so long ago there was an instance where the Department of Defence wanted to remove an ammunition dump, and in removing that ammunition dump, it was also necessary to request the Post Office to romove and to change certain of its lines and poles. In that case the Department of Defence did not pay for the removal: the Post Office paid in accordance with these financial regulations. The hon. the Minister will be able to verify that this actually took place not so long ago when there was a dispute between the Department of Defence and the Post Office. So again I ask, why then should provincial councils in this instance be forced to pay?

Provincial councils are at present in the following special position too. The hon. Minister says that there is a quid pro quo in this Bill; he says that suppose Water Affairs were to build a dam and it became necessary for a provincial council to re-route a particular road in the vicinity of that dam, then under his proposal now it would be for Water Affairs to pay and not the provincial council. But, Mr. Speaker, that was the position in the past too, because these financial regulations specifically exclude in cases such as this provincial councils from the definition of “a department”. It says here—

So actually provincial councils were not forced in the past to pay for the re-routing of a particular road where that had become necessary on account of work done by the Water Affairs Department, such as the construction of a dam.

I also hope that the hon. the Minister will reply to the question which I have put to him and to which he has not as yet replied. Was there actually consultation with the bodies involved in this particular clause? Was there consultation with the provincial councils and the divisional councils before the Minister decided to proceed with this particular clause? If there was consultation, when did it take place, with whom did it take place and was such consultation on an official level?

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that we are not satisfied with the clause. We do believe that a cherished right of provincial councils is being interfered with. We believe that this right has previously not been abused and that there is no particular need for this particular clause. We know that the whole of the Nationalist Party voted for Section 83 in 1944, the section which the Government now seeks to amend. Indeed half of the present Cabinet voted in favour of this clause in 1944. I do not believe that the hon. the Minister has made out a sufficiently good case why it has become necessary after all these years to change this particular section. On account of those reasons I am afraid we on this side must persist in our refusal to support this clause.

Mr. Chairman, this particular arrangement has been standing for more than 30 years, this arrangement which the hon. the Minister is now seeking to amend. This particular arrangement has stood for more than 30 years between the Post Office Department and the Divisional Councils and the Provincial Councils. This is the arrangement which the Minister now seeks to amend. In his second reading speech the hon. the Minister gave us as an example the case where the Water Affairs Department had built a dam and where the Provincial Council had to construct new roads at their own expense. I submit that the example which the Minister gave us was a very weak one indeed because the Department of Water Affairs does not go all over the country building dams immediately above roads. Dams are built few and far between. What is going to be the result of this particular amending clause? As we know, Sir, roads are becoming more and more important. I want to quote from the National Transport Commission’s report of March 1961. This is what they say—

It goes on to say—

What about telephones?

I am coming to the telephones. This report also speaks about what will have to be done; how there will have to be four one-way traffic lanes separated physically from one another; how intersections on the same level will have to be eliminated; how the elimination of intersections by bridges and things like that will need clover leaves occupying some six to 20 morgen each. This is the programme of the National Transport Commission, but the National Transport Commission’s roads are being fed by the provincial roads and as they expand, the provincial councils will have to expand their network of roads. They will have to re-align their roads and in re-aligning their roads to keep pace with the vast development which is envisaged, the provincial councils will carry an unbearable burden. They will have to pay the Post Office for the lines which it will have to remove. But the main point is this, Mr. Chairman, that the provincial councils are not doing themselves a service when they move the telephone lines of the Minister’s Department. The Minister’s Department wants to be next to the provincial roads so as to have access to its lines.

Order! The hon. member is not entitled to criticize the principle.

I am trying to point out, Sir, that in his second reading speech the hon. the Minister said that this was a very small thing. I am arguing against that point, Sir. This particular clause is doing away with sub-section (4) of Section 83 of the Act.

Order! The principle was accepted at the second reading.

Mr. Chairman, is your ruling that all this affects the principle of the Bill and that we cannot speak against this clause?

The hon. member cannot speak against the principle; the principle was accepted at the second reading.

Can we not give the reasons why we intend voting against this clause?

The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) was in order.

I wish to say in that case, Sir, that we on this side of the House cannot support this particular clause because of the effect it will have on provincial councils.

On a point of order, Sir, hon. members are making so much noise that we cannot hear what you or the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) are saying.

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I was pointing out what effect this particular clause is going to have because of the vast network of roads that is going to be affected. I was saying, Sir, that had it perhaps been an issue here or there we on this side of the House may have supported this clause.

This particular amendment is a piece-meal piece of legislation. It is an amendment in this particular case but in other cases it leaves the field wide open. There are other Departments of State which are affected. We feel that had it been necessary to introduce an amendment of this nature, it should have been an over-all amendment dealing with all the Departments and not just with the one with which it is dealing now. We on this side of the House feel that we cannot support this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I sympathize with the hon. member who has just resumed her seat, because I know she finds it difficult to object to this Bill. Her final objection was really ingenious. Here we are dealing with the Post Office, which has to make laws for itself, and now the hon. member objects to the Post Office making laws for the Post Office, but she evidently wants the Post Office to make laws for all State Departments.

Perhaps I should also say something about the other point made by the hon. member, where she was quite out of touch with reality. She again wants to adopt the standpoint that where roads are reconstructed, all the telephone wires and cables must be moved so as to be alongside the new road. But that simply is not so. Just mention one case to me where the Post Office has ever said that the Provincial Administration must shift the poles and wires so that they can be alongside the new road. She cannot mention a single case like that.

They must pay for it themselves.

That has never happened yet. When the Post Office re-lays lines for its own benefit and convenience, it pays for it itself. But it is never necessary for it to shift the poles, wires and cables so as to be next to the road. Why should we do that? The poles stand there and are quite serviceable, so why should they be moved? Therefore I repeat that I sympathize with the hon. member because she had to look for an argument.

The same applies to the argument of the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan). He wants to link up this matter with laws dealing with financial relations which were passed previously, and with cases where the Finance Acts dealt with contractual obligations, where a contractual relationship exists between one Department and another, and where one Department asks the other to do certain work for it. That was so. But I very clearly told the hon. member that as the result of the expenditure incurred through the rebuilding of roads, the building of bridges and of dams, the State came along with this Act out of the goodness of its heart, in order to meet the difficulties of the Provincial Administrations and divisional councils. What does it matter if there are earlier Acts which regulated contractual relations differently? Here we have an Act which we need not pass. If the hon. member has his way, it will favour the Central Government, but it will not favour the Provincial Councils and Divisional Councils. Why does he continually object if the Central Government wants to make concessions to the Provincial Councils and the Divisional Councils? I find it difficult to understand that there are two hon. members opposite who really profess to plead a case for the Provincial Councils and the Divisional Councils, whereas in fact they do precisely the opposite. What they are advocating is to the detriment of these bodies. That is surely strange. I just want to say again that this proves to me that those hon. members have spent days and hours in seeing whether they cannot find an argument to use against this Bill, and now they have eventually discovered an argument. It surely does not redound to the honour of those hon. members.

The hon. the Minister has asked this side of the House to give one example where a Divisional Council has in the past been obliged to pay where the Post Office has perhaps had to remove a line. How can the hon. the Minister ask that question? According to Section 83 of the Act the hon. the Minister has never had the power to compel a Divisional Council to do so. That is our whole argument. I wish to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to Section 83 (1) which provides—

In that case a private person is obliged to pay the costs if he is responsible for such removal or alteration. But (4), which the hon. the Minister now seeks to delete, previously gave immunity to Provincial Administrations and Divisional Councils who were consequently not responsible for the costs.

Order! Hon. members cannot talk against the principle of the Bill in the Committee Stage. The hon. member is doing that and he may not do so.

I merely wish to point ou that if (4) is deleted, it will be possible to hold a Divisional Council or a Provincial Administration liable for all sorts of things.

Order! It was already decided at the second reading to delete it and the hon. member cannot discuss it again. It is a principle which has been accepted.

Mr. Chairman, in that case I wish to put a final question to the hon. the Minister. We have repeatedly asked the hon. the Minister to tell us whom he consulted in connection with this Bill and when, and he has not replied to us as yet. We are giving the hon. the Minister the opportunity of giving us that information.

When the hon. the Minister replies to that I should also like him to reply to the following question: The hon. the Minister has issued a challenge to this side of the House to give him one example where the Department of Posts and Telegraphs has asked that, where a telegraph line has had to be re-laid as a result of the re-routing of a road, it should be paid for. The Minister said that it was not necessary to relay such a telegraph line. He said that the poles were in a certain place and why should they be moved when a provincial road was re-routed. I wish to bring the following to the notice of the Minister. Perhaps he is aware of it and perhaps he is not, but when a provincial main road is constructed—those are the more important roads of the Provincial Administration—the law provides that it should be fenced in on both sides. The hon. the Minister now tells us that the telegraph line can remain where it is. Will he explain to me how he will be able to service those telegraph wires; and whether he cannot use that as a reason to force the Provincial Administration to pay for the re-laying of the telegraph wires?

Order! That has nothing to do with the clause.

I merely wish to repeat the question which I put to the hon. the Minister on a previous occasion Has there been consultation with the divisional councils …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause, and the clause does not refer to consultations.

Mr. Chairman, I accept that the principle of the clause has been accepted, but nevertheless we should like to know whether there has been consultation with the Divisional Councils and Provincial Administrations. I should like to give the Minister an opportunity of replying to this question.

When I was a boy I always heard that a wink was as good as a nod to a blind horse. A moment ago I clearly indicated in my reply that this is to the benefit of the provincial councils and the divisional councils and therefore, from the very nature of the case, it is unnecessary to consult them. The fact that provincial councils have pointed to the tremendous losses they will suffer and that the Government is passing this legislation to meet them surely proves that it is in their favour. Is it not ridiculous …

Order! I hope the hon. the Minister will not go further with this matter either. It is irrelevant.

I abide by your ruling, Sir. The other question put by the hon. member for Drakensberg was how the Post Office would now have access to its telephone and telegraph lines. How do the farmers get to those lines? There are gates all over. These existing gates have always been used. The hon. member need only travel through the country to see everywhere that telegraph poles are far from the roads. They are serviced and there has never been any difficulty. The farmers use those fields and they can get there, and the Post Office officials get there in the same way. Surely that is obvious.

Mr. Chairman, the reply given by the hon. the Minister makes the matter even more serious, to my mind. He told me …

Order! That has nothing to do with the clause.

On a point of order, Sir, the hon. member for Drakensberg has not yet had an opportunity of telling you what points she wishes to raise. It was in reply to what the hon. the Minister said.

Order! Yes, but the point put by the hon. Minister was also out of order.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

AYES—84: Badenhorst. F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, W. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H.G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, P. J.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk.H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H.F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Von Moltke, J. van S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

NOES—42: Basson, J. A. L.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N.G.; Emdin. S. Field, A. N.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hopewell, A.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss. U. M.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and T. G. Hughes.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

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

I know this clause has been introduced by the Minister with some reluctance and while we agree that the powers taken by him in terms of this clause are necessary I would just like to suggest to him that he should not succumb to the temptation to use its provisions as a revenue-producing machine. He knows that we should encourage as many people as possible to see and share in State undertakings such as our air services as intimately as possible. I hope he keeps his powers within flexible and moderate limits and does not impose undue charges on the public. He indicated in his opening speech that this clause would only be applied at Jan Smuts, but I presume that similar conditions may prevail at other airports and charges for admission may be made and parking meters may be installed at other centres.

I should like to have some clarity from the Minister in respect of sub-section (a), in which the Minister can grant authority to a person to prescribe by regulation various matters in regard to the landing and take-off of aircraft. The difficulty I see and the point on which I would like some information is this. Regulations are normally laid down of a general nature affecting the take-off and landing of aircraft at particular airports. The conditions prevailing at the various airports vary, and as the Minister knows, in respect of airports recognized internationally, these regulations are laid down by international agreement before an airport is recognized as an international one. I would like to ask the Minister how he intends this provision in the Bill will work. Will the control officer at any particular airport be empowered by the Minister to lay down separate regulations for D. F. Malan or Jan Smuts, from airport to airport, because they cannot be of a general nature because the conditions vary at the various airports? I would like to know how this power to make regulations will work and to what particular person these powers will be granted which the Minister at present holds.

Then I would like clarity from the Minister in regard to (b). Here the Minister has the power to demarcate certain parking areas at the various airports, and he has indicated that he intends to apply it in the first place at Jan Smuts because of the large number of visitors to this airport at week-ends, as a form of entertainment. If the Minister is going to levy a charge for parking at Jan Smuts, I submit that there must be a free parking area for air passengers. It is unreasonable to think that an air passenger who arrives in his car should pay for parking, even if he is brought there by a friend. Then there is the other aspect that a large number of vehicles stand at Jan Smuts for three or four days at a time, having been left there by business men who are away for a few days. I would strongly suggest to the Minister, before levying charges for parking, that these areas be clearly demarcated and that adequate facilities be afforded to bona fide passengers for free parking. How the Minister will organize it I do not know, but it appears to me that there will be considerable difficulty, and if the matter is not properly handled there will be considerable dissatisfaction on the part of the public on the Rand.

There is one matter the Committee has not yet considered and that is that under Clause 3 (h) there is provision for aircraft to be requisitioned for air-sea rescue services. Provision is made for regulations to be prescribed, for compensation and the various issues affecting such requisition. I would like to ask the Minister what the position is in regard to compensation for an aircraft lost on such a search. If the aircraft is requisitioned for a rescue and it should be lost, either through the weather or by accident, or even through bad flying, would the liability for that loss be on the State which requisitioned it, or on the owner of the aircraft or his insurers? Assume that the State requisitioned an aircraft and put its own pilot in, that is the one circumstance. In that case it would be a State pilot flying a requisitioned plane. In the other case both pilot and plane are requisitioned, and if that plane crashes, on whom would the responsibility fall for losses suffered? I hope the Minister will clarify that.

I have already replied during the second reading debate to the hon. member for Wynberg, namely, that we welcome the public at our airports, but that we must give prior consideration to air passengers. It is only in those cases where air passengers suffer considerable inconvenience as the result of an influx of the public on certain days that an attempt will be made to control it. We have had a case already where two persons had to leave Jan Smuts and about 600 came to see them off. They cluttered up the whole airport and there was no room for anyone else. So there must be some control. I do not think a small entrance fee will act as such a deterrent that the public will not visit the airports. To a certain extent it will also be a source of revenue because all the airports are run at a considerable loss.

Are you thinking of varying the entrance fee at the different airports?

That has not been decided yet, but it can be considered, what the fee will be. Before a decision is taken, the necessary facilities will have to be provided, such as a turnstile at the door or an automatic ticket-machine. This is merely to empower the Department of Transport to charge fees at airports when it is found to be desirable. [Interjection.] Persons accompanying a passenger will have to pay the entrance fee, too, the same as on the railway station. In regard to the parking meters they will not be installed on the whole area. A certain area will be excluded, but again it is essential to have some form of control, especially in the case of people who come there to spend the day at the airport, as many people do. They have lunch and tea and spend the whole day there, with the result that passengers who have to leave by plane have no parking space available. This is a matter which will have to be considered very carefully before the meters are installed, to see that provision is made for bona fide air travellers and at the same time to control ordinary members of the public who come to spend the day there.

What about those who leave their cars there for two or three days?

That is why we have already provided garages for them, but they have to pay for the garages. The garages were erected by private companies and travellers can hire the garages to park their cars until they return again. I think it is wrong for any passenger to remain away for three or four days and to expect his car to remain parked at Jan Smuts, taking up space, without paying any fee.

50 cents a day is too high.

Those are private garages.

Will you take them over?

No. In regard to sub-section (a), the hon. member for Turffontein wanted to know who will be designated to issue these Notams. This is a practice which is in operation at present. Conditions change rapidly at different airports and it is much more convenient and effective to issue these Notams than to change the regulations continually. The Secretary for transport will be designated as the officer who issues the Notams, in regard to the landing procedure at airports, etc. Conditions rapidly change and instead of providing for it by regulation the Secretary will be designated to do this. It is the practice at present, but now we want statutory provision for it.

In regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), the State will assume full liability for any loss of aircraft requisitioned for this purpose.

The hon. the Minister has done a complete somersault since yesterday. Yesterday we raised the question of a passenger by air leaving his car at the airport and the Minister said clearly and unequivocally that provision would be made for passengers’ cars to be parked, if they were left at the airport, and for persons bringing passengers to catch a plane. We raised those points particularly. I particularly raised the point of the person who left his car overnight or for a couple of days at the airport, and the Minister yesterday gave the House the assurance that separate areas would be put aside for those cars, but to-day he blandly says that those people will have to pay, a complete reversal and a somersault from his own words 24 hours ago. Now, what is going to be the position? Do we have to believe what the Minister said yesterday, or what he said to-day? We already have to pay 5s. per trip on the bus, for passengers —not the public. Now he wants to charge passengers for parking. He wants to charge the person who takes them in, whereas yesterday he indicated that this would only apply to sightseers, the public who were cluttering up the airports. That was the reason he gave yesterday for wanting this power, and when we asked him he assured us that passengers and those taking them to airports would not be inconvenienced. Now he says that a person taking a passenger to the airport will have to pay an entrance fee, the same as on a railway station, and the passenger will have to pay for his car. The next thing is that he will charge us for saying “Good morning”. Surely a passenger pays to make a journey. Yesterday the Minister assured us that these regulations were not designed …

I gave no such assurance.

I hope the Minister will read his Hansard.

I read it this morning, and I gave no such assurance.

We asked the Minister to assure us that passengers would not be inconvenienced. Is it not an inconvenience to have to buy parking space and to pay for entering of the person who is taking you there? You cannot send your car away when you get to the airport because the plane may be delayed for three hours. I myself have spent six hours waiting at the airport because of some technical fault in the plane. Therefore you cannot send away the person who takes you to the airport. He has to wait until the plane takes off and that was the point we raised yesterday. I specifically asked the Minister about that yesterday, and he said no, he would not interfere with that sort of person, but to-day he tells a different story. I want to ask the Minister to reconsider his attitude and to consider instead the convenience of the passenger who is paying a reasonably high sum for his fare, which is a source of income to the Department. I ask the Minister to consider the passengers and not to place unnecessary pin-pricks and annoyances in their path. If he wants to, let him charge an extra 10s. on the ticket, but it is this perpetual looking for a sixpence or a tickey which annoys the passengers who have spent £50 on a trip. The passenger does not want the annoyance of getting to a turnstile with a R2 note and there is no change and he has to wait for ten minutes until they find change. If the Minister has to get money from the passengers, let him put it on the ticket, but not in this way which is just an annoyance to the travelling public.

The hon. member should open his ears and take more notice of what I say, then he will not make remarks about turning somersaults. I gave the assurance yesterday that a certain parking area would be free from meters. The only place where parking meters will be installed will be in the immediate vicinity of the terminal building. But obviously passengers cannot be allowed to leave their cars there for two or three days while they go to Cape Town and come back again.

They do so now.

They can rent a garage, and pay 5s. a day. If that is the practice, it should be stopped. They will not leave their cars on the railway station while they go to Durban and back, and expect not to pay a charge. Why should an exception be made in the case of airports? It is quite wrong. In regard to the convenience of passengers, when an entrance fee is charged the passenger of course will not pay it, because he can show his ticket, but the persons accompanying him on those days when charges are made will have to pay that small fee. You cannot distinguish between ordinary members of the public and people seeing passengers off. I quoted the case where 600 people came to see off two passengers. Does the hon. member want those 600 to come in free? I gave no assurance yesterday that I am not giving now. I am merely repeating now what I said yesterday.

The Minister has said that the fee will be charged to ensure that the airport should be reasonably accessible to the air traveller. He says that is why he wants to install parking meters. I agree entirely that on the face of it the passenger deserves consideration, and the Minister has cited the example twice in the last 10 minutes of two persons who were seen off by 500 or 600 people, to the obvious inconvenience of the genuine traveller. But the installation of parking meters does not cure that sort of nuisance, or not entirely. First of all it, does not follow that everyone who comes to see a passenger off comes out in a motor-car. There are times when they charter Buses, each of which can take 60 people. Furthermore, the Minister has not dealt at all with what happens at an airport when there is a large crowd to welcome certain people arriving there. We have seen two examples recently, where the business of Jan Smuts Airport was completely and deliberately dislocated by large welcoming parties running into thousands. On those occasions the officials administering the airport had no remedy whatever in regard to the fact that—according to Press reports—10,000 people gathered at Jan Smuts, and no passenger could get in or out of the airport. How will the installation of a parking meter cure that sort of dislocation? Furthermore, the Minister knows as well as I do that it has become part and parcel of the so-called “promotion” of important “artists” who visit South Africa to proclaim in the Press for days ahead: “Meet So-and-So at Jan Smuts Airport on Sunday afternoon at 4 p.m.” We have seen over and over again what happens when an important rock-’n-roll singer—important, not from my point of view but from the point of view of thousands of teenagers—arrives here on a tour, and the promoters spend a lot of money advertising the arrival. There, again, the Minister has no remedy whatever in regard to the inconvenience caused to bona fide travellers by the presence of thousands of youngsters. It is no use thinking parking meters will cure the situation.

How will you cure it?

First of all, you need not worry about installing parking meters because that is the function of a local authority; and the Minister is innocently setting up a new department which is a sort of parking business, and he is now not only going to prevent people from parking but he will tell them that if they do park they must pay for it. The way to prevent the congestion at airports is to ensure that only a certain number of visitors at any particular time are allowed to enter the airport, unless they can provide a ticket or some proof that they intend to travel by air. One does not have to deal with those landing because there is no problem there. There are possibly two airports in South Africa where you have this problem, at Jan Smuts and D. F. Malan. There must be some other way of curing this inconvenience other than by going into the parking business, as the Minister wants to do now. I want to remind the Minister that normally, and under any ordinance that I know of, parking fees can only be collected by a local authority, if they are going to be applied to the improvement of road conditions, or the provision of off-street parking.

But we introduced meters at the Johannesburg station.

I am only too well aware of that. On Sunday last, when I had to leave on the Blue Train, I was at my wits’ end to find a coin for the meter on Platform 16, and the Minister’s official, a policeman, would not hear my story—that I had to catch the Blue Train. So I know the parking meters are there better than the Minister does; but long before parking meters were introduced there were time limitations on parking in every important city in the world. These matters were regulated by way of notices prohibiting parking beyond a certain period of time, and you had the necessary patrolling force to see that those who transgressed were dealt with. The reason why parking meters came into the picture was that someone thought it would be a very profitable field for manufacturing, and then the local authorities all over the world were persuaded to buy them because of their revenue-producing aspects—but it has not cured any parking problem anywhere. It has merely provided the local authority with revenue which can be used to provide off-street parking. But the Minister will not use the parking fees to build parking garages at Jan Smuts or D. F. Malan. He says he introduces these meters to control the congestion, particularly at week-ends, and also that it is a good thing to have people interested in air travel— then the Minister says that if you want to come and see the Boeing take off, you must first pay 10 cents an hour for parking, and if you have not moved your car after an hour you have to go and put in another 10 cents, which, incidentally, is completely against the normal practice in the operation of a parking meter system. You are not supposed to leave you car there; you must move it, but the Minister says in effect you must go out and feed the meter. No municipality will countenance that because the object is to keep the parking bays clear, because they want a turnover of the greatest possible number of cars. It is quite clear that here the Minister seeks to take from the air-minded public and those who go there to meet arriving passengers the odd 10 cents or 50 cents. As I am personally very unlikely to feed any of these meters at Jan Smuts, I only speak on behalf of those who have made a practice of going there for their own good reasons. The Minister feels there is some need for this legislation, purely to alleviate congestion: I submit with great deference that he is wrong and I hope the Minister will tell me where I am wrong, because on a previous occasion he merely answered a 40-minute speech by saying that “the hon. member is right off the rails”. Well, now suppose I am right up in the air, but I hope the Minister will tell me where I am wrong in saying that there must be another way of dealing with the congestion, even if it is by issuing a permit to the visitor who cannot produce an air ticket, on proof that he is going to buy one. Surely it is better to deal with the matter in that way than, in the first place, to take a cheap profit from the public and in the second place, to irritate considerably people who, according to the Minister, should be encouraged to take an interest in the operation of our airports.

The hon. the Minister as Minister of Transport, who looks for a greater amount of traffic both on the Railways and in the Airways, adopts a most extraordinary attitude in respect of this matter. Sir, we on the Witwatersrand have a particularly keen interest in the matter of Jan Smuts Airport. For those day passengers and overnight passengers who make a habit of going down to Cape Town or Durban or Port Elizabeth for a matter of 24 hours, the parking of their cars at Jan Smuts Airport whilst they are away is a matter of prime concern. I am sure if the hon. the Minister took out statistics in respect of the day passengers on the two flights from Johannesburg to Durban every morning, he will find that at least 50 per cent of those passengers are making a day flight, flying to Durban in the morning and returning in the evening. Those same passengers, while they are about their business and using the Airways to facilitate their business, will now be required to pay at the rate of 5 cents or 10 cents per hour while their cars are parked at Jan Smuts Airport. That is what the Minister said this afternoon. He said, “Within the vicinity of the airport I will make some charge by way of parking meters or by some other method I want to submit to the hon. the Minister that as far as I am aware every other international airport has facilities for through passengers or bona fide passengers using the flights that arrive and depart every day. Why cannot we do it at Jan Smuts Airport? There is plenty of land available at Jan Smuts Airport to extend the parking facilities for motor-cars, so it seems to me that the Minister is embarking on a tickey-grabbing procedure in order to boost the revenues of the airport or to reduce the costs of the airport at the cost of driving away air passengers from South African Airways. The Minister is not creating an additional facility; he is creating a pinpricking annoyance for Airways passengers. Sir, the Minister can adopt this attitude because he arrives at the airport in a chauffeur-driven car and he has no difficulty at all when he arrives at and departs from any airport. But there are many passengers whose wives or relatives or friends drive them to the airport because of the unsatisfactory road transportation services and the irritating delays that take place at many of our airports as far as the road transportation services are concerned as supplied by South African Airways from the airway terminal to the airport itself. Most people make a practice therefore of using private transport. I submit to the hon. the Minister that if he is going to apply this provision he should at least demarcate a clear area, with some means of checking, for any bona fide passenger arriving at the airport so that he can park his car there. It is not an impossible matter to arrange. I would also say to the Minister that if the matter has reached such proportions at an international airport (because Jan Smuts Airport falls into that category) then the time has arrived when the Minister should extend the parking facilities at that particular airport. Sir, the reason why the Minister gave the example this afternoon of two passengers with about 600 people to see them off, is that in this particular instance they happened to be Indians. That is why the Minister referred to this “irritation” this afternoon. But what about the irritation caused by the Nationalist Party when the Transvaler exhorts Nationalist supporters to come to the airport to welcome a hero from overseas who has allegedly saved South Africa? The Minister’s own party organized this irritation for through passengers and international passengers. Why then should the Minister come here this afternoon and advance arguments such as he did? Why should he pick on Indians? Why not pick on the alleged 2,500 or 3,000 Nationalists who were brought to the airport recently to welcome back the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

What about the fight when Douglas Mitchell arrived in Durban?

That was a spontaneous fight. Sir, one can well appreciate the difficulties that may be experienced over the weekend at Jan Smuts Airport; I have seen it myself. But on the other hand I do not think that members of the public who come out over the week-end to see the latest aircraft developments and to see foreign airways passengers arriving would mind paying for the facility of parking in a special parking area. But the Minister should not take a short-sighted approach in regard to this matter. He should attend to what is his first function and that is to build up airways traffic for the South African Airways, and what the Minister intends to do here will certainly be no incentive for a person to use the South African Airways if he has to consider all the other difficulties that he has to go through before he gets onto the aircraft himself. I would plead with the Minister this afternoon to give us a clear understanding of this matter. Let these areas be clearly demarcated, and if there is serious congestion at the present moment, with traffic parked at Jan Smuts, then the obvious solution is to extend the available parking facilities, particularly since there appears to be ample ground available for that purpose.

Perhaps if the argument is brought a little nearer home it might appeal to the Minister more. I was very much perturbed at the hon. the Minister’s reply that he is not responsible for providing parking facilities for people who want to be away for a few days and leave their cars at the aerodrome in the meantime. I am thinking particularly of Members of Parliament, as well as businessmen and others in the town. Members of Parliament may get an urgent call to their constituencies and they have to get away quickly. They have to leave the House and motor straight out to the aerodrome and leave their car there. That is something that happens frequently, and I feel that it is not a reasonable reply that the hon. the Minister gave in comparing the position at the airport with that of a railway station. At a railway station there are always other facilities for transport, but an airport is always a long way out and it takes people a long time to drive out to the airport. I would appeal to the Minister to take into account Members of Parliament who are frequently called upon in an emergency to run out to the airport and leave their cars there for a few days until they come back again.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) complains that I only said that he was off the rails when I replied to a 40-minute speech made by him. The trouble is that in a ten-minute speech that the hon. member made he contradicted himself at least half a dozen times. I can give a few examples to support that. The hon. member says that he wants control at the airports. He mentioned the rock-and-roll singers coming along and thousands of their fans coming to meet them. I fully agree with him that they clutter up the airport. But at the same time he said that we should allow the public to come to the airport. It is extremely difficult to distinguish between the public coming to the airport to meet a rock-and-roll singer or somebody else and the public coming along to see the aircraft. You cannot ask everybody coming in at the gate, “Are you coming to meet a rock-and-roll singer or are you merely coming to look at the Boeing aircraft?” The hon. member cannot have it both ways. [Interjection.] Yes, I want the public there, but the introduction of parking meters is not an attempt to control the number of people coming to the airport. Only those people who enter the terminal building will be asked to pay a small entrance fee. There is any amount of room outside the terminal building if they want to look at the aircraft, without having to pay an entrance fee. They are not going to be prevented from doing that. As a matter of fact, thousands of persons can be accommodated outside the terminal building and they are still free to come; they are not prevented from entering the airport; they can come and have a look at the planes, but it is merely to have some measure of control in the terminal building itself that a small entrance fee will be charged. Hon. members have experienced the congestion that you find in the restaurants and tearooms on certain days of the week. This will not be a general thing; it will not mean that entrance fees will be charged on every occasion and on every day for entrance into the terminal building. It will probably be during the weekends, on Sundays, in order to have some measure of control. It might act as a deterrent to people unnecessarily coming into the terminal building and cluttering it up. If it does not act as a deterrent and they are prepared to pay, they can still come in, but that will be a small source of revenue then to the Department of Transport which is carrying a considerable loss at the present time in running the airports.

In regard to the question of parking meters, the hon. member again contradicted himself. He said that the only reason why the local authorities introduced parking meters was as a source of revenue, but in the same speech he said that the local authorities expect that at the end of the parking period the motor-car should be moved. The hon. member said that local authorities do not want the driver to come back to the meter and put another shilling into the meter; they expect the motor-car to be removed at the end of the period. In other words, it is a question of controlling parking, and not so much a question of earning revenue. The hon. member cannot have it both ways. If they regarded it as a source of revenue, the local authorities would not worry if that motor-car remained there 48 hours as long as the shilling is put into the meter every hour.

But you want them at the airport?

No. I am saying what the hon. member said in his speech. He has probably forgotten it but that is what he said. The parking meters will only be installed in the immediate vicinity of the terminal building, and parking meters will act as a deterrent. There are many people who instead of paying the shilling would rather go and park somewhere else where they do not have to pay a shilling.

Why should it be a shilling?

I do not say that it will be a shilling. We can make it a pound, if necessary.

Why not make it a sixpence?

It might be a sixpence too. But whatever the amount is, that is an attempt to keep the terminal buildings clear to a certain extent in the interest of the passengers. When a passenger arrives at a terminal building with his luggage, he at least wants to have the opportunity of parking in front of the building’s doors so that his luggage can be removed. But if the terminal building is cluttered up with cars he has to park some distance away, and that is not in the interest of the passenger. There will be a small area therefore where meters will be installed to keep the terminal buildings clear. The rest of the area will have no parking meters. But I repeat that I do not think that facilities should be granted to any passenger to park his car there for two or three days. Nobody else does it; no railway station does it; no local authority does it; why should the airport authorities do it? Hon. members will have to make some other provision for the parking of their cars; they can hire a garage and pay five shillings.

But the other provision is not adequate.

Which other provision?

The garage.

It is quite inadequate. We are often turned away.

I know, but the garages can be extended. It is run by a private company. If they are doing good business and they want to build additional garages and there is available space, they will probably be allowed to do that.

Why do you not do it as a service to the passengers?

We do not want a State monopoly of everything; we want to give private enterprise an opportunity to come in.

I am very concerned about the traveller who wishes to leave his car at the airport. If he accepts the facilities provided at present by the Airways it takes him longer to travel from his home to the airport in Johannesburg and from the airport D. F. Malan to his home in Cape Town than it does to fly from Johannesburg to Cape Town. Travelling by car takes longer than the actual travelling by air. Many people have met that difficulty by parking their cars at the airport for two or three days. It is a convenience and it is a very useful service. But 50c per day seems to me to be an excessive charge. I think the Airways should provide facilities themselves at a charge of approximately 25c per day. At 50c per day it means R15 per month, which is excessive, because in the centre of Johannesburg one can get parking and service for R7 per month. I think this charge to-day is much too heavy. I am concerned now about the travelling public. I am not concerned about people who go to the airport on Sunday in order to have a picnic, as they do, in the restaurant. But cannot we do something more for the travelling public? To-day you have to have two cars in order to get to the airport—a car from your home to the terminal and then the bus from the terminal to the airport; that costs at least R1 and then R1 at the other end. It costs R2 every time you travel in order to get transport. Apart altogether from the inconvenience, the cost as well is much too high and I feel that the hon. the Minister should give consideration to that.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I would like to make a last appeal to the hon. the Minister in regard to the Civil Aviation Advisory Committee and the possibility of making greater use of the Committee which he is now finally entrenching and making an obligatory appointment under this clause. I know that I would be out of order if I were to take it further than the Committee itself, but I raised the question in the second reading debate of other bodies which could assist the Minister, and the Minister said that we have made out no case for that body. That was not so. The case made out by this side of the House and by the Civil Aviation Advisory Committee itself, by the Commercial Aviation Association of Southern Africa and by everyone connected with flying, is that the purpose and the object of these bodies is to put on to them people with experience and who are practically concerned themselves with the day-to-day problems of flying; in other words, to add to the departmental officials. I accept the Minister’s statement that there are bodies or persons which do these various tasks—air-safety, air-worthiness and licensing—which fall under the general direction of the Advisory Committee but for which there are specific people doing a specific job. In fact, one of the Minister’s own arguments proves that he accepts our case. We asked for an air-safety board. He said that there was an inter-departmental committee or a departmental committee doing exactly that job. In other words, he accepts the need for such a body and he has appointed such a body, but it is a body consisting solely of officials. What we asked and what I again ask now is that through the Advisory Committee which he is now entrenching into the legislation, and on their advice, he should accept the assistance and guidance of people intimately connected with flying in a wider field than is contemplated in the Advisory Committee, and that he should turn this Committee which he has, for instance, on air-safety into a wider body by bringing onto it people from civil aviation, people who can bring to bear their experience and background of knowledge to assist the officials who are doing the job now. The Advisory Committee has given advice to the hon. Minister in regard to licensing, and the fact that he wants their advice is proved by this provision in the Bill which is before us now—the fact that he is making that Committee a permanent Advisory Committee. They have advised him and their advice is that the officials who deal with licensing need guidance and assistance of others in order to maintain the high standard which we have achieved in our flying in South Africa. So, Sir, one can deal with each aspect, but my point is that here we accept the principles of advice to the Minister. I am not speaking for myself. I have not got an aeroplane myself; I am not connected with any commercial aviation firm, directly or indirectly, but I know a lot of people concerned and I know the struggle which civil aviation is having; I know the difficulties which commercial firms are having to-day to keep going, and despite those difficulties they are anxious to maintain the highest standards of safety, of air-worthiness, of licensing and everything else so as to retain the confidence of the public in private flying, and they want to assist the Minister. They do not want to be difficult. We are not pleading in order to achieve anything which is either going to hurt the Minister, do harm to the Government, or further the cause of any individual or group of people. It is that the section of people with aviation want to play a part in assisting in the direction thereof purely in an advisory capacity; that is all we are asking, and I ask the hon. the Minister, when this clause becomes law, whether he will not use the machinery he has created here, through this Advisory Committee, to appoint other committees which can guide him on the specific aspects which require attention.

I can assure the hon. member that I will make full use of the C.A.A.C. The members of the C.A.A.C. are practical flying men; they are not necessarily men who have extensive experience of commercial flying, but they are fliers and they have a knowledge of aviation. That is why I have given additional functions to the C.A.A.C. and why I have made the appointment of the members peremptory; in other words, they will be appointed for a stipulated period of two years. I have provided for that on the recommendation of the C.A.A.C. The C.A.A.C. can do valuable work in giving advice to the Department and to the Minister.

I want to assure the hon. member and the House that it is the desire of both my Department and myself to do everything in our power to foster civil aviation in South Africa. We will do everything in our power to encourage and expand civil aviation in South Africa.

In regard to the licensing of aircraft, the hon. member must be aware that the Department of Civil Aviation is not only concerned with small aircraft like Pipers, but the Civil Aviation Department also has authority over the South African Airways who operate Boeings. There is no private flier who has any experience or any knowledge of that type of aircraft. We have no commercial operators in South Africa, except possibly one operating a small aircraft between the Free State and Margate. These people have no knowledge of these big aircraft; they have no knowledge of Constellations and Skymasters, DC7Bs and Boeings, and consequently they are not in a position to give any advice in regard to air-worthiness, in regard to safety or in regard to any other matter pertaining to such aircraft. The departmental officials are experts. They have to control South African Airways in the same way that they control all other civil aircraft. They have the necessary knowledge, and that is why they have to do the work. That is the reason why I have not accepted these recommendations. But the C.A.A.C. can do valuable work in regard to the framing of regulations and in regard to private operators if they do arise. But if the time does arrive when we have commercial operators operating fairly big aircraft on intermediate services, then of course the assistance of those operators will be called in by the Department. The hon. member need have no fears at all; everything in the Bill has been provided for in the interest of civil aviation and the public.

Is that not where the shoe pinches? Is it not that the officials are dealing in terms of the big craft and the small craft owners want to come into the picture because the planning is designed more for the bigger craft than for the small craft and their requirements?

Well, that is the purpose of the C.A.A.C., because they represent the small aircraft owners. They can give the necessary advice and that is their function too. The hon. member will see that the additional function which I am giving them now is the following—

This is an entirely new function that I am giving to the C.A.A.C., which gives them tremendous scope to exercise all their abilities and their knowledge.

May I draw the Minister’s attention to just one complaint? We on this side of the House experienced a certain degree of inconvenience because of the fact that the annual report of the C.A.A.C. was not only behindhand, but that two years had been run into one report. I wonder whether, in enlarging the scope and the usefulness of the Commitee, instructions cannot be given to them to bring out their annual report more timeously. Will the hon. the Minister also ensure, when he lays reports on the Table, that there are adequate copies available for members to study? At the present time only one copy is made available for the whole House. The only way in which I could study it was by going to the Clerk of the Papers and sitting there in his office with a great big book in which it was bound along with about a hundred other annual reports of other bodies and councils. I think it should be printed and not just multigraphed, and the useful information that will in the future come from this committee should be made more readily available to all members. Will the hon. the Minister give us an assurance that this will be done in future?

I will go into that.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 12,

We raised the question here of the changing of the status of a person who may impound an aircraft, from an officer to a constable. The arguments were advanced—and one must accept the validity of those arguments —that there can be circumstances where in an emergency a constable has to take immediate action. One must accept that it can happen that a prisoner is escaping and that the constable cannot wait to look for an officer before taking action. But I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would not consider the question of introducing in Another Place a proviso to the effect that where such an aircraft is detained by a constable, within 24 hours that action shall be approved or otherwise by a commissioned officer of the police or shall be dealt with before a court of law. If a person is arrested he must appear before the court and be remanded the next day. He will then have that protection. But here you have the position that an aircraft can be impounded and kept impounded for a year, and unless security is accepted there is no provision for its release. I wonder whether the Minister would not think that suggestion over. I should like him, although I realize that I cannot expect him to give an immediate snap decision now, to consider the question of introducing a proviso which permits of one of those two possibilities; that where a constable detains an aircraft, that action must be approved by a commissioned officer within a specified period or by a court in the same way as a prisoner is remanded. It would then remove the possibility of excess inconvenience to a person through perhaps a genuine action by some constable but based upon false information given to him. Any person can go to a constable and say, “I believe that this or that is going to happen,” and the constable is then entitled to say that he has reasonable grounds for suspicion because he has certain information, but the information which the constable has may not be factual. I would ask the Minister therefore whether that safeguard in the form of a proviso cannot be considered.

I think the same abuse could occur in the case of a commissioned officer having to detain an aircraft. Of course, the constable must report it immediately to the authorities.

But an officer can put his mind to it; he is not the person concerned.

It is something that has to be dealt with immediately, if possible. The aircraft may be detained or individuals may be detained, but that has to be reported immediately to the authorities. Whether it is a commissioned officer or an ordinary constable detaining an aircraft, the matter must still be reported to the authorities, and then immediate action must be taken. However, I will ask my Department to go into the arguments advanced by the hon. member to see whether it is necessary to have an additional safeguard or not.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 17,

In Clause 17 the Minister is changing the definition of “accident”. I know that this is something which will be welcomed by those who are interested in air-safety, but I would like to ask whether he has consulted with the C.A.A.C. in regard to the definition which he is going to give to “accident” when the regulations come out, as distinct from “incident”. There are certain incidents which in themselves are latently dangerous. There may not be accidents but they have an implicit danger in them. This is an important matter. I do not want to go into details now, but I should be glad if the hon. the Minister can assure us that he will refer this matter to the C.A.A.C. before he comes out with the final detailed classes of “accidents” and classes of “incidents” which he is going to define by regulation.

The C.A.A.C. is always consulted before the regulations are made and they have a full opportunity of giving their views. That has been the practice in the past, and I have also been assured that it will be done in the future. The hon. member I think referred to military planes flying close to commercial aircraft. Now an accident of course is something that has actually happened; an incident might cause an accident—a near miss, for instance. But that type of incident is also now defined under this Bill. But the C.A.A.C. will be consulted.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 18,

I cannot say that I have any definite objection to Clause 18, but I have a suggestion to make which I think will tidy it up and will make it to read, particularly in the English text, more logically. I am not asking the hon. the Minister to accept an amendment now, but I do ask him, in the process of consolidation, to consider my altered wording. In the clause as it now stands it reads: “the State and its officers and employees acting in the performance of their duty shall not be liable for:—

It is quite clear what it means, but it is very clumsily worded. The hon. the Minister gave as one of the reasons for consolidation that he wished to do away with the Nederlands text, but in this case the Nederlands makes the meaing clear beyond doubt; it says—

I ask him to alter the English accordingly; make a literal translation of the Nederlands and the English text will be clearer. Use the words I propose instead of using the clumsy negative phraseology. In other words, from line 24 after the word “it” omit all the words to the end of the sub-section and subsitute these words:

If he accepts that amended wording, the whole clause will be in better English; it will be neater; it will be more easily understood. I am sure his legal advisers will find that the suggested change does not import any new element into the present intention of the clause.

I will ask the Department to go into that.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 19,

May I express my pleasure that the hon. the Minister follows the practice in 20ter of saying “This Act shall bind the State”. I think it is a good idea to acknowledge specifically in all these Bills that the State does not raise itself in privilege above the private individual or company. The Minister did the same in the Ribbon Development Act. It is a good precedent and practice …

Clause put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

We accept the explanation that the hon. the Minister gave of this particular clause in that it is primarily intended to safeguard the manufacturers of and dealers in toys, such as small model electronic toys where you have miniature transmitting and receiving sets. I must, however, express some concern as to whether this particular clause could not be used for influencing the public in regard to the type of set they may or may not wish to buy. The hon. the Minister told me that wireless sets would not fall under this particular clause as Section 8 of the Radio Act precludes him from including wireless sets. I have read Section 8 carefully and I find no particular provision of that nature in Section 8 itself. The legal advice I got is that where he is permitted to exclude any type of radio apparatus from this Act under Clause 1 of this Bill, he could also exclude an ordinary radio receiving set, an ordinary everyday wireless set. I should like to have the assurance from the hon. the Minister that there is no intention of doing anything of that nature, or in any way influence the public in regard to the type of set they may buy.

Yesterday, too, I mentioned that I was told that a certain important organization is quite happy that tellurometers are probably excluded by the Minister as “radio apparatus”, but I also informed the House that I was not quite sure what a tellurometer was. I have now, thanks to research done by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss), ascertained that a tellurometer is a radar-survey instrument used for measuring distances in surveying. I hope that the hon. the Minister will consider excluding a tellurometer from the definition “radio apparatus” in future.

The hon. member received my assurance yesterday already that there was no intention at all to use this provision to prohibit the use of certain radio sets. I also said yesterday that this amending Bill only concerns the ordinary radio sets. I do not think one could regard a tellurometer, which is in fact a surveying instrument, as radio apparatus.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

We should like to have further clarity from the hon. the Minister in regard to the actual effect of this particular clause. You will remember, Sir, that the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) yesterday indicated that two particular types of receiving and transmission sets would not be affected by this particular clause, viz. receiving and transmission sets used by medical doctors and similar sets owned by the owners of radio taxi services. The hon. member for Randfontein pointed out that you cannot speak of two points, a receiving point and a transmitting point, in the case of a doctor’s car, or in connection with radio-taxis as it would not be possible while a medical doctor is travelling in his car or a radio-taxi is proceeding to its destination to telephone from the car itself. That was the explanation of the hon. member for Randfontein. However, the hon. the Minister gave me the impression that he took another attitude. The impression I got from his speech was: Why should the radio-taxi owners not pay the additional licence provided in Clause 2; why should the medical doctor not be called upon to pay an additional amount over and above what he pays for an existing set? I should like very much to have from the hon. the Minister his view on the liability of these two types of owners under this clause and I trust that his reply will be reassuring that there is no intention of applying this particular Clause 2 to medical doctors and the owners of radio-taxis.

There is a third related point on which I should like to have clarity from the hon. the Minister, and that is whether this particular clause is going to apply to the municipalities I mentioned, municipalities which have a radio communication service in their fire departments or in their treasury or engineering departments. This is the case with the Durban Municipality, and with several other larger municipalities. Are they also going to be asked to pay an additional licence fee simply on account of the fact that they are using such a service? I should like to have clarity from the hon. the Minister on that point.

Furthermore, we have reservations as regards the wording of this particular clause. In line 15 the words “normal telecommunication facilities” are used. The hon. the Minister has said that where “normal” telecommunication facilities are available, say to a mine in the Eastern Transvaal or a great construction company, then that company will not be allowed to use its radio transmitting service to keep in touch with head office if normal telecommunication services are available in the form of a telephone office near by. My doubt is about the meaning of the word “normal What will be considered as “normal” in this case? It might very well be that you have a mine in the bundu and that the Minister or the Post Office Department is prepared to extend an ordinary single party line from a central party system to that particular mine. That particular party line might be totally inadequate for the purposes of the business conducted by that mine or construction company. On the other hand, the Minister or the Postmaster-General might say, “These are normal telecommunication facilities; you can use that party line; you can use that little one-man post office and because you are not using it, but are using your radio communication system instead, you have to pay an additional fee”. I should therefore like to have an assurance from the hon. the Minister that when it comes to the interpretation of the word “normal” it will actually be “normal” from the point of view of the normal requirements of such a mine or such a construction company and not normal from the point of view of the postmaster and the Post Office Department itself.

I do not wish in any way to infringe the ruling you gave earlier to-day, Mr. Chairman, but I do wish to raise the matter of consultation, not consultation before this Bill was introduced, but afterwards. Under Section 3 of the Radio Act, it is said that the Minister must consult the Radio Advisory Board in regard to the Act itself. Now I am not going to ask him whether he consulted the Radio Advisory Board before this particular clause was approved at the second reading yesterday. I want to ask him whether he intends consulting the Radio Advisory Board in future when it comes to the application of this particular clause, when it comes to deciding which people, which owners of transmitting sets will be excluded in future from the operation of Clause 2. The Radio Advisory Board is an extremely important body, and it is necessary under the Act itself that the hon. the Minister should at all stages consult with that Board, and not go over their heads, particularly in matters of this nature.

I can only repeat what I said yesterday, that Clause 2 only applies where telephone facilities have already been provided. Take the case where there is a telephone service. but the mines still make use of a radio transmitter. Then the mine will have to pay for the use of the transmitter the amount it would ordinarily have paid for its telephone services. Now I want to point out to hon. members that the key words in this whole clause are those words which the hon. member himself called “ordinary telecommunication facilities ”, or “the usual telecommunication services” and it is for the court to interpret them, and in my humble opinion the court’s interpretation will always be “that which is the usual practice in those circumstances”. As I explained yesterday, a medical man driving in his motor-car is not included in that.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether there will still be access to the court in view of the fact that the clause says “where telecommunication facilities are available in the opinion of the Postmaster-General ”?

The hon. member will notice that those words are used in two places. It is said that “in the opinion of the Postmaster-General, normal communication facilities are available ”, and then it says towards the end of the clause “That licensee would have paid for normal telecommunication services if the licensee had made use of such services”. In the application of this sub-section it always means that where there is any doubt the opinion of the Postmaster-General will be decisive, but the Postmaster-General must always and in all circumstances direct his mind to the matter, as stated in the law. In other words, he must take into consideration what the normal telecommunication services are. If he does not do so, he can be taken to court.

Is it normal for the Post Office or normal for the mine?

Normal for everybody. What is normal for a taxi-driver is not necessarily normal for a mine. It may perhaps be normal for a doctor, but not normal for a mine. The normal service available to a doctor is the telephone line connecting his patient with his consulting-room, and when he is in his motor-car that normal service is not available to him. In other words, he cannot come under the provisions of this clause. But in the case of the mine, where the normal procedure is that it makes use of the telephone when head office gets into contact with the mine, and where the normal service is in fact available, and it then makes use of the radio, then this clause comes into operation and the company has to pay the same amount for the radio service that it would have paid for the ordinary, normal telecommunication service.

The hon. the Minister says that medical men will not be covered by this provision. But now I ask the hon. the Minister whether that does not apply also to taxis equipped with radio sets? Are they also exempt from this provision?

Yes.

Now the hon. member has said that it can so easily happen that a mining company abuses this, e.g. by perhaps being linked up on a party line, and the party line may be overloaded, so that the mining company then does not enjoy the normal facilities. Now I want to point out to the hon. member that a mine never uses a party line, but is always given its own line, and that difficulty will therefore never arise. The hon. member also put another question to me, whether we intended invoking the advice of the Radio Advisory Board. The Radio Advisory Board, as it is constituted, is a technical board composed of technical men, and in regard to matters of policy it will of course not be consulted. It is, however, consulted in regard to technical matters.

I have the Radio Act here and Section 3 says that the Radio Advisory Board shall advise the Postmaster-General on matters relating to the control of radio activities within the Union. Surely that is more than mere technical control. It refers to the type of control also provided by Clause 2 of this amending Bill.

Perhaps I should point out to the hon. member that this is a permissive clause. The Minister appoints the Board for his own convenience. He is not compelled to do so. The Radio Advisory Board which has been appointed is a technical board to assist the Minister in regard to the technical control, and not in regard to ensuring that the radio activities conform to the accepted policy. That has always been the composition of the Board in the past, and it has always been used in that way. If the necessity should arise for having a different arrangement, and for receiving assistance in regard to matters of policy, the composition of the Board will probably have to be changed before it can be consulted. But the way it was always used in the past was as an advisory board in regard to technical matters.

I am sorry that I was not here yesterday during the second reading debate on this Bill, but I should like to ask the hon. the Minister with all due respect whether he will not consider altering in the Other Place certain words which are used here. The clause now reads—

Will the hon. the Minister not consider deleting the words “in the opinion of the Postmaster-General”, because according to what the hon. the Minister said a moment ago, his idea apparently is that the courts of law will decide whether normal services are available. Will the Minister’s intention not be defeated by the wording here?

I want to point out to the hon. member that this arrangement between the Post Office and the mining companies is an administrative arrangement. There must be somebody who arranges it and uses his discretion, and the obvious person is the Postmaster-General, who is clothed with the highest authority. Now the hon. member should take into consideration that the Postmaster-General cannot act blindly or arbitrarily and unreasonably. Therefore the Act provides certain limits within which the Postmaster-General must exercise his discretion, and if he does not exercise his discretion reasonably in terms of the provisions of the Act, the injured person can take him to court. That is the role played by the court. The court is not invoked to make administrative arrangements, but is only there as a court of appeal when somebody feels that he has been treated unjustly.

Clause 2 of the Bill put and the Committee divided:

AYES—82: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G.F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, W. A.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, H. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath. J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vos-loo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie, and J. J. Fouché.

NOES—42: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hopewell, A.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and T. G. Hughes.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 3,

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House have certain reservations in regard to Clause 3 in so far as it may cause a hardship to local authorities. For that reason I propose moving the following amendment—

You will realize the difficulty which this particular clause will cause to a local authority or a similar body. I want to mention the case of the Durban Fire Brigade as an example. As you know. Sir. they have a radio transmitting station. This particular radio transmitter has to be operated in three shifts by more than one operator. Members of the department often go on holiday and substitutes have to be found. Under this particular clause, as it reads at the moment, it will probably be necessary for each and every one of those employees of the Durban Fire Department to get a permit from the hon. the Minister to operate the radio transmitting apparatus. That indeed would have a very stifling effect on a local authority, and it is in order to obviate this that I have moved this amendment. The hon. the Minister did give us an assurance that when a local authority as such gets a permit, it will not be necessary for all the employees of that local authority to have permits as well. I am not so sure that is the position under this particular clause and in order to make assurance doubly sure we have moved the amendment. You see, Mr. Chairman, we are not objecting to the fact that a local authority should have a permit. That has been accepted at the second reading. It is simply that we wish to exclude the necessity of every operator of that local authority having to have a personal permit from the hon. the Minister himself.

There is one other point which I want to raise in connection with Clause 3 and it is this: This clause seeks to amend the original Section 17 of the principal Act. The original Section 17 reads (and I am shortening it slightly)—

Amongst others this clause seeks to delete those words “a citizen of a Commonwealth country”. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether the reason for the deletion of those particular words in the clause has anything to do with our membership of the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board. I do not have clarity as to what our position is at the moment in regard to that Board. It may very well be that the Minister has to delete these particular words because our relationship with that body has completely changed.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

With respect, Sir, the original Section 17 contained those words, “a citizen of a Commonwealth country”, and this particular clause seeks to delete those words.

But we are discussing this clause.

Yes, Sir, I now want to know why there is a difference between this clause and the previous clause; why this clause has been introduced instead of the other clause. I think I am permitted to discuss that, Sir. I also wish to ask the hon. the Minister to indicate shortly whether this particular amending clause provides the necessary remedy for the evil of having our relationship with the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board changed. These were the points which I wanted to raise under this particular clause and I trust the hon. the Minister will reply to me.

Perhaps I should first point out to the hon. member that we are no longer a member of the Commonwealth and therefore our membership of the Commonwealth Telecommunication Council has also lapsed. That makes it necessary to remedy the position. We want to amend it without offending Britain. We remain good friends and we do not want to give offence. Therefore we have deleted the position of South Africa in it. We could very easily just have deleted the words “Commonwealth country” and left “South Africa” in it. We simply deleted everything and said anyone approved of by the Postmaster-General. But let me go further. There are three sections in this Act which sometimes may be confused with each other, viz. Sections 5, 6 and 17. Now hon. members should note the difference between these sections. Section 5 provides that a man may not possess a radio transmitter without obtaining a permit for which he pays. Section 6 provides that one may not operate a radio transmitter without a permit, but no fee is charged for that. And then Section 17 provides that the person who handles a radio transmitter must be approved by the Postmaster-General. We must therefore note that Section 5 practically provides for the registration of the set. You, as a person, receive a certificate allowing you to handle that transmitter on payment of a fee. The assurance I gave yesterday was that the municipalities already pay for it. Therefor we are not demanding extra payment for the officials of that municipality who have to handle the transmitter one after another. The argument raised by hon. members was that everybody would now have to pay again. In other words, my assurance was that the official of the municipality would not be charged an extra fee when once the municipality had paid for a licence to handle, possess and use a radio transmitter.

You are therefore accepting the amendment?

No, no, I am coming to that. Now Section 17 has a totally different meaning. I must now go back and remind hon. members of Section 17 as it read in the past. As it read in the past, it was practically the same as it read in England and almost all other countries of the world. Section 17 is mainly a security measure. You will remember, Sir, that it has always been, and still is, one of the principles of the great states of the world that the merchant navy and the air fleet form part of the defence forces of the state. Consequently they have always demanded that the persons who are officers of high rank in the merchant navy, or who control radio transmitters, should be approved persons. In times of war they must know that they can depend on the merchant navy, in the same way that they must be able to depend on the commercial air fleet. That was the original meaning of this section. In other words, it is really a security measure, and therefore we cannot abandon the principle that every person who handles a radio transmitter should be an approved person. Of course, in normal conditions, when there are no troubles, it may not be necessary for the Postmaster-General to say: “I must in every case approve of the officials of the municipality before they are allowed to handle a radio transmitter”. But it must have the power at any moment, when circumstances demand it, to say to the city council: From now onwards all your officials handling radio transmitters must be approved of by me. That is the import of Section 17. That has always been its meaning. For this reason, and however much I want to meet hon. members, we cannot accept this amendment. The effect of the amendment moved by the hon. member will be that in future the State will lose all control over the persons handling radio transmitters. You will remember, Sir, what happened in regard to the Bradcasting Corporation. In spite of the fact that the Broadcasting Corporation exercised careful control over its staff, they discovered one day that certain of the Bantu announcers played music and made announcements which were in conflict with the accepted policy. This shows how essential it is for the State to be on its guard. But I still want to give the assurance to hon. members that the Postmaster-General will still be able to do what he did in the past. In the past he never told the municipalities to submit the names of all the persons to him for approval before they could operate the radio transmitter of that municipality. However, he still retains the right to do so. He must have that power, and we dare not deprive the Postmaster-General of that power. However much I want to comply with the wishes of hon. members, I regret that it will not be possible to accept the proposed amendment.

Sir, I am pleased to have the Minister’s assurance on this particular point. if you read this new Section 17, which I propose to do, it makes it quite clear that the Postmaster-General must enforce this particular section of the Act when the Bill becomes law. Because it says quite clearly what he has to do—

Now, Sir, this is the very point we are trying to get at. The first thing I would like to say to the hon. the Minister is this, that the type of apparatus that is operated by local authorities, to the best of my knowledge and belief, is apparatus which does not have a very great range. So to compare it with the S.A.B.C. or any organization like that is a bad comparison, because whilst the one has a range running into many thousands of miles, this apparatus is designed particularly for local use. It is usually the VHF type and its range is therefore considerably limited by the height of the aerials they are able to use, which are usually on top of public buildings and the like. This is definitely goint to impose a hardship. If the Postmaster-General is going to carry out the provisions of this clause, as I read it, Mr. Chairman, each individual who uses that equipment on behalf of a local authority or on behalf of a provincial authority to control the traffic on congested roads, will virtually have to be licensed by the Postmaster-General. Whilst I accept the Minister’s assurance when he says he is not going to demand it, the fact remains that it is being written into the law. If the Minister is sincere—and I believe that he is—I see no reason why we cannot amend this clause so as to make specific provision for this particular type of individual who is going to use this particular type of apparatus. As I have said, you cannot compare this with apparatus which has a terrific range. There I agree entirely with the hon. the Minister. I am not at variance with him there. I believe it is very necessary to be sure of the bona fides of people who are going to use a long-range transmitter. But when it comes to the ordinary worker controlling an ambulance in a localized area, or a fire brigade, or a traffic controller and the like, it is going to impose great hardships on local authorities throughout South Africa if the terms of this clause as we are going to write it into the Act, have to be complied with by the Postmaster-General. I do not see how the Postmaster-General can avoid complying with the laws which are passed in this House. I am going to ask the Minister to reconsider his approach to this matter even if the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan), to exclude the servants of local authorities specifically, is not acceptable to the Minister. After all, Sir, the Minister is going to licence the local authorities who use this type of transmitter. Surely he must trust them to put people in charge of that apparatus who are in fact capable of operating it. In times of war and the like obviously stricter measures could be applied immediately under emergency regulations. But there is no need for that at this stage. I believe that some specific exclusion must be written into this clause on the lines of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Orange Grove, so that we can in fact be sure that these hardships and inconveniences will not be imposed upon local authorities who need this apparatus. It is not a luxury; it is a necessity and they use it in the public service. I think the Minister should reconsider his approach.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to remind the hon. member that this clause is not new. It is a clause which has been in existence at least since 1952 and possibly much longer. It has always been interpreted as not being applicable to individuals in the employ of municipalities. It has always been implied that it is not necessary to apply it to a particular person. I can assure the hon. member that in future it will be applied in exactly the same way. It is impossible for me to accept the amendment for the reasons which I mentioned a little earlier. The hon. member said that the transmitting stations of these municipalities had to get in touch with their vans and that they had a limited range only. The range of those transmitting stations is up to 50 miles. Especially in a harbour city like Durban for instance, they can be very dangerous because they can get in touch with ships and submarines. We must protect South Africa against the possibility of dangers like that. We dare not give way. However much I would like to assist the hon. member I do not see how I can accept the amendment. I do not see how we can tell municipalities that they can employ anybody they wish, somebody who has not been scrutinized by the Postmaster-General, and think that we as a State can be safe in times of danger. This is a security clause, Mr. Chairman, and we cannot do anything which will jeopardize the security of the country. I am afraid I cannot meet the hon. member as far as this clause is concerned.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister is correct in saying that this particular provision has applied since about 1952, since the original Radio Act. The hon. the Minister will remember that in the original section South African citizens who operated radio transmitters of this nature did not need any particular permit from the hon. the Minister. He is introducing a new restriction. In other words, this is something new, something which did not apply in the past. I should also like to stress again the point raised by my hon. friend from Umlazi (Mr. Lewis). He has asked the Minister how the Postmaster-General is going to avoid breaking the law when trying to comply with the Minister’s interpretation of this Act. Because it states clearly that—

In other words, whatever the hon. the Minister may want to do or whatever the Postmaster-General intends, the Act says that he must see to it that every single operator of that particular municipality gets a particular personal permit. That is after all what the Act says. It is plain English. How is the Postmaster-General going to get past that?

I finally cannot ignore an implication in the reply given by the hon. the Minister that the municipality of Durban is a security risk or could be a security risk in future. I regard it as a very unfair implication on a very loyal and patriotic community. To imply in any way that he, the Minister, is better able to ensure that the employees of the Durban municipality will be loyal than the Durban municipality can do, is indeed a very farfetched statement on the part of the Minister.

I just want to make one point which I think the Minister is perhaps exaggerating a little bit. First of all, I should like to remind him that before the Durban Corporation can use apparatus, the Minister has to licence them to do so. So he has a check there. He can say they can or they cannot use it. That decision rests with the Minister or with the Postmaster-General. Surely, Sir, if the Minister was not satisfied that the proper people were going to operate that apparatus, he would not issue a licence to them to have it in their charge. He is dealing here not the way he would perhaps deal with a radio amateur where first of all the man has to have a licence for the set. Then of course the Postmaster-General will ask: “Who is going to operate it. Will any of your friends operate it?” That is a totally different matter and I think in that case it will be absolutely necessary. If the radio amateur is going to allow his friends to use his set, I think it is fair that the Postmaster-General should know what other people are going to operate that set although it is licensed to a particular person. But when you come to a local authority, of course, or a provincial administration the position is totally different. That apparatus is designed and used for one specific purpose. And I doubt whether many of the sets could operate except on the particular frequency they were designed to operate on. They may have a little tolerance either way but I do not think they are designed to operate over a very wide range of frequencies. Here the local authority is the body which has been licensed by the Postmaster-General or the Minister to use the apparatus. Surely in that case it becomes unnecessary because you are licensing a responsible body to use apparatus for a specific purpose for which it has been designed. Therefore, I do not think the same conditions and the same arguments can be applied as apply in the case where the hon. the Minister licences a private individual. But when it comes to local authorities I think the Minister is using a wrong argument because he is applying to those local authorities the arguments which should apply and which do rightly apply to an individual who is licensed to use a set. I think if the hon. the Minister considers it from that angle he will see it in a different light.

Perhaps I should just reply briefly to the point raised. I think the hon. member has really contradicted himself. The hon. member has just said that if you licence an authority under Article 5 you can ask that authority whom it is going to allow to work that transmitter. In other words, he does not object to that being done but he objects to Clause 3 which specifically says that every person who handles a transmitter must be authorized to do so. The hon. member really reads Article 5 incorrectly if I may say so.Article 5 does not give the Postmaster General the right to ask who is going to use the transmitter. It only asks: “Are you the owner; are you going to use it?” Supposing the person says that he himself is going to use the transmitter and he allows somebody else to use it, nothing can be done about it. But Clause 3 empowers the Postmaster General to take action in cases where that is done. In the case of a local authority say, like the municipality of Durban, you must remember, Sir, that the municipality is not concerned with whether a person is a good South African or a loyal South African. It is concerned with whether he is a good mechanic or a good electrician and it sends that person out on its vans. In times of difficulty those people must be prevented from using those transmitters. We come to the same conclusion every time, namely that in times of difficulty it is essential to exercise control. The hon. member said that as the clause reads at the moment, it imposes a duty on the Postmaster-General to authorize every person individually. The hon. member may be quite right; I am not going to question his interpretation of the law. But in the past it has not been applied that way. In the past it has always been applied in this way: When a municipality was licensed it was never questioned as to who was going to operate the apparatus, whether it would be a South African citizen or a Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Irish Republic. In other words, they had a blank right to use the transmitter and that procedure will be continued in the future. I do not think the hon. member need be worried about the application of this clause. It has to remain as it is because we do not know what awaits South Africa in the future.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I should like to move a very small amendment here. As a matter of fact, looking at Clause 4 I wonder whether this particular clause is actually necessary. It is true that it is stated in the Constitution and in the Interpretation Act that where the words “Governor-General” and “Union” appeared in the past, the words “State President” and “Republic of South Africa” must be read in their place in the future. Actually therefore Clause 4 is not really necessary. But if the hon. the Minister thinks that it is necessary and that Clause 4 must be inserted, then I think it will perhaps be a good idea to be consistent throughout the Bill and to bring about an amendment also in the Second Schedule, where reference is made to certain amounts in pounds, shillings and pence, so that in the future these amounts will appear in the decimal system. That is the only reason why I move the following small amendment—

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

This clause has given rise to considerable anxiety amongst the trade unions in South Africa and it would appear that on a close examination of this clause that anxiety may not be justified. But I think it is as well that the Minister should clarify the position in respect of his intention in introducing this clause, for the following two reasons.

In this existing Act Section 38 (4) says that any person applying for or in receipt of any benefits shall satisfy the claims officer that he is unable to obtain suitable work and shall for that purpose attend at such places and at such times as the claims officer may determine. That is the existing Act, and it would appear that it does not apply in respect of those who are not in receipt of benefits and who become subject to the penalty clause in terms of Section 40 (g), which says that subject to the provisions of this Act a contributor shall not be entitled to receive benefits for a period of six weeks from the date on which he became unemployed if in the opinion of the claims officer he lost his employment through his own misconduct or voluntary left it without just cause, provided that if in any particular case the claims officer considers that owing to special circumstances the exclusion from benefits for such a period may be inequitable, he may reduce the period. The point I want to make is that the existing two clauses which are now the law appear to be very wide indeed. They cover practically everything except the position of a person who has applied for benefits which have been rejected and who is actually affected by the penalty period of six weeks. The Minister now seeks to impose upon that person the conditions of Section 38 (4). If that is the correct position, it would appear that the only person who will be called to order in terms of this new 4bis is the person who has not played the game as far as the Act is concerned and who has already incurred the penalties prescribed but who, because of these penalties, will not come and report to the claims officer as specified by the claims officer. Now, if that is the case it does not seem unreasonable that the Minister should ask for this additional power. but the trade union movement see in this a threat to the genuine work-seeker and I hope the Minister will clarify this position and indicate whether he supports the contention I have put to him. that this clause is designed to deal with the person who has incurred the penalty and during that penalty period has refused to come to the claims officer to report for possible employment. I hope the Minister will clarify this point.

In this clause steps are being taken against two classes of persons, firstly those who lose their employment as the result of their own misconduct, and secondly those who leave their employment voluntarily, without sound reasons. Section 40 (1) (g) of the principal Act provides for a penalty period of six weeks during which those persons may not receive benefits, because it became clear at an early stage that if people were allowed to become unemployed on a large scale, either through misconduct or because they voluntarily leave their employment, and then to draw benefits, the Fund would very soon be stripped entirely.

The only thing that these persons will now be expected to do in terms of this new clause is to come and sign the unemployment register regularly during this penalty period in order to prove that they are genuine work-seekers. If they do not come and sign but hide away until they again become entitled to benefits, then there is only one logical inference that can be drawn and that is that they are not genuinely seeking employment but that they are only interested in drawing benefits. In other words, the only logical inference that can be drawn is that these people are exploiting the Fund.

I want to ask the United Party, and particularly the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan), whether they admit that people of that kind are only out to exploit the Fund? If so, why then did they shed crocodile tears in the second reading debate because we referred to these people as exploiters of the Fund; and, if not, why did they not oppose this clause and vote against it? If hon. members opposite do not admit that these people are exploiting the Fund of the workers, then I am really surprised that they do not oppose this clause. On the other hand, if they do admit that these persons are exploiters, they must not make the accusation against us that we called the workers “hoboes” and “idlers” when we referred in those terms to those exploiters of the workers’ unemployment Insurance Fund. That certainly makes a very great difference.

I think the hon. member has forgotten that the original six weeks’ period has now become 13 weeks, and this is one of the objections the workers have to this clause. In the memo submitted by the S.A. Trade Union Council they object to the fact that the period was extended previously from six to 13 weeks and they consider that this is already too harsh a penalty, and they object to the further extension of the powers of the claims officer in respect of workers who have voluntarily given up their employment and they point out, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) has mentioned, that certain conditions may be imposed on workers by claims officers which make it virtually impossible for the workers to carry out those conditions. For instance, they mention that, owing to the economic position of the person who has given up his employment, he might not even be able to pay the cost of transport to and from the claims officer’s office to make this regular report in terms of this new clause. I think the Minister should reassess the situation before he imposes this additional hardship on the unemployed person. I think everybody is at one with the hon. the Minister, particularly the decent workers, that abuses of the fund should be prevented, but I think, in seeking to curb abuses, the Minister must not make the position of unemployed workers impossible.

This sub-section clearly removes any doubt as to the legality of the existing practice that an applicant upon whom a penalty has been imposed, who has lost his work through misconduct, must sign the unemployment register regularly during the penalty period. Therefore it simply legalizes the present procedure. That is all this amendment seeks to do. In other words, it is the practice to impose this penalty, and there has been a doubt as to whether the workmen should sign the register or not. This sub-section which the amendment seeks to add to Section 38 is intended, as I say, to do away with the doubt that now exists as to whether the person who has lost his employment through misconduct or who voluntarily leaves his job without just cause …

What is just cause?

It is a legal term, and I think any hon. member knows what it means if a man leaves his employment without just cause.

If he is put on short time and he leaves, is that just cause?

I think it may be, in my own interpretation. As I read it, the intention of this new sub-section is to remove any doubt in regard to the practice which has been in existence for many years now. As far as I know, there has been no objection to this clause. As hon. members know, I received a deputation from the T.U.C. and no objection to this clause was raised in the discussion. I think hon. members should merely accept the position that it only legalizes what has been the practice in the past, and removes any doubt as to whether the workman should sign the register or not.

When the second reading was taken, the Deputy Minister was asked whether he could produce any examples of abuses. I do not know whether this is an abuse or not, but I would like to give hon. members an example of what this amendment seeks to cover. I have an example here of Mr. A—I do not wish to mention names—who, for some reason which can in no way be considered to be just cause, decided to terminate his service with his employer. He applied for ordinary benefits and was penalized for a period of six weeks because he had left without just cause. As soon as the applicant realized that even if he reported regularly and signed the register, he would nevertheless not receive any benefits during the said period, he decided to take advantage of the opportunity to go on a holiday. He therefore left the town and did not report for work or benefits, but, after the six weeks, he returned and then started signing the register again. As the Act stands at present, it provides that a person who has lost his employment for his own misconduct or has voluntarily left his employment without just cause shall not be entitled to benefits for a period of six weeks from the date on which he became unemployed. According to the present administrative procedure, Mr. A was on his return advised that he had not completed his six weeks’ penalty period, as he had not complied with the provisions of the Act during the relevant period. As he did not sign the registers regularly as prescribed by the Act, his original penalty was then extended by six weeks. I am advised that this procedure has been followed with some hesitation by the claims officer, as, according to the present wording of the Act, there is a doubt as to whether the person must actually comply with all the other provisions of the Act during this penalty period. But my information is that these claims officers have, nevertheless, been encouraged to extend the penalty period in such cases, in the knowledge that the conditions attaching to the payment of benefits are so worded that benefits are only payable to contributors who are available for work and to whom work may possibly be offered. This is based on the view that any penalty provision that may be applied is to be applied in respect of a period during which, if it were not for the penalty, the contributor would be eligible to receive benefits. Now, in the case of Mr. A he would not have received benefits while he was on holiday, even if no penalty had been imposed, because during that period he was not available for work. The relative clause will, in fact, legalize the procedure now followed and eliminate any doubt that may exist. I think it should also be taken into consideration that one aim of the Act is that an unemployed contributor must be placed in employment immediately, and, if he does not report regularly and sign the register, it is, of course, impossible to offer him employment, or even to establish whether or not he is available for work. That is the object of this amendment, simply to legalize a practice which has existed for many years.

I think the Minister has indicated that this amendment makes quite sure that the action taken by claims officers in the past is legal. But the claims officers are not bound by any set rules. As the Minister may know, there are claims officers in all the large centres and they are governed by the regulations, but in respect of this sort of thing it is “in the opinion of the claims officer” and it is not possible for all claims officers to be of the same opinion in respect of cases which are absolutely the same. The result is that you have a claims officer giving a decision in Cape Town and one in Durban giving a different decision, and this has led to a lot of uncertainty on the part of the workers when they are transferred, as they often are in the building industry, from Cape Town to Durban. In other words, there appears to be no code for claims officers in respect of the application of the penalty clause, in that one officer will say “I must report daily for work” and another may say that he wants to see me to-day week.I think it is in that regard that there is uncertainty. It does not apply only in respect of the malingerer, but also to the genuine workseeker if there is not similarity in the application of this Act, and this clause will not make that position any better; if anything, it will make it a little worse, because in terms of this clause the claims officer will be able to impose further penalties if in his opinion the contributor to the fund has not signed the register as frequently as he has laid down. It is this question of what he has laid down as a claims officer which causes trouble. I want to ask the Minister whether there should not be some measure of agreement, an instruction from the Department, not to expect those who are out of work to report daily. Perhaps it is not well understood that in so many cases where there is unemployment the bus fare imposes a further burden on that worker and his family. To expect them to come in daily may involve the worker in a cost of 30 cents or 40 cents, which he cannot afford. Therefore I ask the Minister whether he can give some sort of guidance to claims officers in respect of the period during which the work-seeker should report, to avoid an additional burden being placed on him, because in many cases you have the position that the work-seeker can be contacted by telephone. Some claims officers say they will phone the man immediately there is something of interest to him, and I think that is a very reasonable attitude, but it does not overcome the problem of signing the register. If the claims officer says he wants the register to be signed daily, I think it may be a little harsh on a work-seeker. So I ask the Minister to go into this question and make sure that there is some uniformity in regard to the application of the penalty clause by the claims officers.

Where the claims officer has a discretion, as he has, it is very difficult to get uniformity, but I understand that instructions are given to all claims officers to conform as nearly as possible to certain standards, and there is no question of requiring applicants to come in daily. As far as possible applicants are always met. As the hon. member also knows, there is always the right of appeal. If a man feels he has a grievance, he can appeal to the local committee. But generally I would like to say that there is an instruction for the guidance of claims officers, although they can use their discretion, and every precaution is taken to deal with every case on its merits.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I want to deal firstly with sub-section (b) because I think the Minister can assist considerably if he is prepared to accept an amendment which I will now move—

On a point of order, may I raise the question as to whether this amendment is competent? The hon. member was good enough to show me his amendment to-day and I had an opportunity of going into it, and my submission to you, Sir, is that it is out of order, for these reasons.

The hon.amember was good enough to furnish me with a copy of the proposed amendment. I have had an opportunity of considering it and I find that it introduces a new principle not contemplated by the Bill as read a second time. For that reason I am unable to accept the proposed amendment.

Sir, I am sorry that you have given this ruling. I have no intention of arguing the point at all. Unfortunately, of course, I am not in a position now to put the case which I wished to put in respect of the amendment moved by me. The Minister has made it fairly clear, I think, that by introducing his amendment to the Bill, the intention is that those employed on short-time are not going to get benefits in terms of the Act, and it would appear that although that is a decision which the Minister is quite firm about, he has left a loophole by way of this amendment referred to in Clause 2 (b), in that if he wishes to have benefits paid to those who are placed on shorttime and he has consultations with the Board, he will still be in a position to pay those benefits if there is a state of emergency.

Yes he has a discretion.

The Minister has a discretion, and that being the case it is extremely difficult to appreciate why there should be this discrepancy between the powers that the Minister has here and the powers he has in relation to those schemes which can be introduced to combat unemployment. I put it to the Minister—I do not want to argue it—that the schemes which the Minister can introduce to combat unemployment can only be introduced if the Board recommends them. It is not a question of the Minister having a discretion; the Board must recommend that these schemes be introduced. But in this particular provision the Minister says, “No, it is not for the Board to recommend; I am only going to consult the Board.” I would like to ask the Minister why he is creating this difference when basically the problem is exactly the same; it is an emergency created by excessive unemployment.

I think this is a point which the Minister will have to consider, but I appreciate that I cannot move an amendment for the reasons mentioned by the Chairman.

I rise to say a few words about this clause which affects the payment of maternity grants, which the Minister now seeks to curtail under this clause. I want to make a further appeal to the hon. the Minister this afternoon. I tried to make as eloquent an appeal as I could when the second reading of this Bill was taken in respect of this type of beneficiary under the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and I want to make a further appeal to the Minister this afternoon. Sir, the Minister was kind enough to let me see his reply to the second reading debate, and it is quite clear, reading the Minister’s reply to me, that he completely missed the point made by me in respect of the repeal of these provisions of the Bill. The Minister seems to have gathered the impression that I argued that it would be cheaper to pay these grants as a means of increasing the population of our country rather than by way of immigration, for which he is also responsible. Sir, I never said anything of the sort. I cannot understand why the Minister even gave it a thought. I think the Minister understood what I said in the House at the time and he had plenty of opportunity in the recess of studying my Hansard speech if he was in any doubt whatsoever in respect of the arguments advanced by me. I certainly never advanced such an argument in making an appeal for the repeal of these provisions. Sir, I want to appeal to the Minister again to-day. The Minister has made it clear that the reason for the introduction of many of these amendments is the shortfall in the Fund at the present time; that this is a means of closing the gap as far as the shortfall in the Unemployment Insurance Fund is concerned because of rising unemployment. There is to be a curtailment of the benefits paid to workers therefore. And whom is the Minister hitting in curtailing these maternity benefits? He is hitting something like 22,000 working mothers—22,000 out of the 768,000 contributors to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Sir, if the payment of these particular benefits, as they are being paid at present, was a tremendous drain on the Fund, then I would concede that the hon. the Minister may have a point, but there is no tremendous drain on the Fund. Benefits have been paid over the past four years to an average of something like 22,500 women.

Order! The hon. member is making a second reading speech now.

No, I was merely using this opportunity to reply to a particular point made by the Minister, but I am now dealing with the actual provisions of the clause. Over the past four years, maternity benefits have been paid to an average of something like 22,500 working women. I have no means of knowing how many of these contributors were Coloured and how many were White, but the minority was certainly non-White. Sir, what does the Minister seek to save now? As the result of these proposed amendments, these maternity benefits will be reduced by half. Sir, I have had the opportunity of studying the very latest report of the Department of Labour in respect of this particular class of benefit. They refer to the position existing in the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and this is what the report says—

I repeat that the number of persons who received maternity benefits was not unduly large if the substantial increase in the number of contributors to the Fund is borne in mind. Sir, when you look at the figure over the past four years, since the Act was amended, you find that the figure has more or less remained static—the number of contributors to the Fund who have received this particular class of benefit. So, what will the Minister be saving? He will be saving hardly anything in this so-called economy drive that he is attempting to effect by the amendments contained in this Bill.

Order! The hon. member is making a second reading speech now. He is dealing with the principle of the Bill. He cannot continue along those lines.

With respect, Sir …

Order! The hon. member must abide by my ruling.

I will try to do so but with respect may I point out that I am speaking to sub-section (2) (e) in particular and sub-section 2 (c), where reference is made to the contributor who receives maternity benefit grants, and therefore I am discussing the beneficiaries under this particular provision of the amending Bill. I would point out that of the 768,000 contributors to the Fund, not all of them receive this particular class of benefit.

Order! That is an argument for the retention of the old position, and the hon. member must please observe my ruling.

I will observe your ruling, Sir, but I am speaking against this clause.

That is the objection to it, that the hon. member is speaking against the clause. The principle has been adopted.

On a point of order. Sir. are you going to rule that we may not vote against this clause?

The hon. member may vote against the clause and he can state his objections briefly, but he cannot continue a second reading speech in Committee.

May I take a point of order. May I point out that there is not a new principle involved in respect of the payment of these maternity grants; this is merely a curtailment of the benefits which are paid. It does not affect the principle of paying maternity grants at all. I am not talking against the principle; I am talking about the curtailment of the benefit.

The hon. member may proceed.

If, as has been stated, the object of this amendment is to reduce the amount paid out by the Fund. I wish to submit to the hon. the Minister that it is indeed a short-sighted policy that he is following, and I would plead with him again, because of the small effect that it is going to have plus the tremendous harm that it is going to do as far as the workers of South Africa are concerned, that he should give very serious consideration to withdrawing the provisions of this particular clause.

I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the last paragraph—

In terms of the existing Act a contributor qualifies for benefits over a two-year period. If over the two-year period the contributor has been in employment for 13 weeks, then benefits are paid out, and the effect of this clause is that the period for which this person has been employed and has qualified, is substantially reduced, and it is reduced in such a way that the claimant will not be in a position to get any benefits unless she has actually worked during her state of pregnancy. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why it has been found necessary to introduce so harsh a restriction upon expectant mothers, particularly as the existing provisions qualify them to become entitled to this benefit over a period of two years. It is now being cut right away to a point where they must be in employment during the period of pregnancy. I think it was at this stage that we asked the hon. the Minister to give examples of abuses of the existing provisions, in the second reading debate, but the Deputy Minister was not in a position to give such examples. I hope that the Minister will be in a position now to give us some evidence in support of the need for the very severe restriction provided for in this clause.

I would like to move an amendment to paragraph (d). This is a textual amendment. I am sorry that I did not have an opportunity of putting it on the Order Paper, but I only had time to consider it this morning. The amendment reads as follows—

Hon members will find that this is just for clarification really. Paragraph (d) as I explained in my second reading speech, was intended to make it clear that pre-natal payments may not commence earlier than 18 weeks prior to the expected date of the confinement, but by deleting the words “not exceeding” in Sec-39 (2) (i) of the Act, an applicant could lay claims to 18 weeks plus, for instance, two or three weeks after the expected date. The amendment which I have now moved simply puts it bevond doubt that maternity benefits may only be paid for a maximum period of 18 weeks and from a date not earlier than 18 weeks prior to the expected date of the birth. It is simply clarification.

In regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, when he spoke on the first occasion, with regard to the question of the Minister’s discretion and the question of the recommendations of the Board, as Section 39 (3bis) (a) stands, it says—

The key words there are “after consultation with the Board”. We are not altering that. The hon. member sought to alter it but he was ruled out of order by you, Mr. Chairman. We are not altering it. The reason is that I prefer the wording, “after consultation with the Board ”, because the Board is there really to advise and the Minister must decide. In other words, I think in the final issue it is for the Minister to decide and not for the Board; so the provision simply is that after consultation with the Board the Minister may decide to do certain things in the event of an emergency such as abnormal unemployment. I think that is preferable to depending upon a recommendation of the Board itself.

This Clause two has five sub-paragraphs and I think hon. members are simply going from on sub-paragraph to another. I do not know really on which sub-paragraph the hon. member for Turffontein was speaking, or whether he was speaking on all the sub-paragraphs.

I was speaking on those sub-paragraphs which effect maternity grants. I assumed that the Minister knew which they were.

The hon. member’s comments were confined to maternity grants.

There are two provisions affecting maternity grants, as the Minister will know: I did not want to enumerate them.

I know. I wanted to be quite certain. I can give the hon. member for Turffontein the information that he wants. This clause to which the hon. member refers is sub-paragraph (e); that deals with maternity benefits. This clause replaces the present paragraph (b) of the existing Act. There are many women who on marriage cease to be employed. They have no intention of resuming work, and at the moment they can receive maternity benefits. I am of the opinion that in those circumstances, that is to say, where they have no intention of resuming work, benefits should not continue to be paid.

But they have paid into the Fund all these years.

I think I made the point in my second reading speech that a woman should not be entitled to benefits unless she has become pregnant during her period of employment. I am going to give examples later on as to how this works.

The effect of your amendment is to force them to work after marriage.

I am not forcing them to work. In order to counter what I call an exploitation of the Fund—and I am sure it cannot be regarded as anything else—it is proposed that the qualifying period of employment in the case of maternity benefits be increased to 18 weeks during the 52 preceding weeks. Women who are regular workers and become unemployed as the result of pregnancy, really have nothing to fear; they need not fear that they will not receive benefits. I want to give some examples for which several hon. members have asked. I want to give examples of married women who periodically return to the labour market for a short minimum period in order that they may qualify for these maternity benefits. The first example I want to give is the case of a woman whose card number is J208071. She was previously employed from the 17 February, 1953, and on the 1 October, 1961, she claimed certain benefits which were paid as from the 3rd January, 1962. I want hon. members to note that the year in which she was previously employed was 1953, and then she was again employed in 1958, five years later.

Not in between?

No. She became an expectant mother in 1961 and her child was born in 1962, and she started drawing benefits as from 3 January 1962. Well, she did not do too badly.

What had she paid in and what had she drawn?

But is that relevant?

Yes, it is relevant, because she has a credit with the Fund.

Let me give the examples and then the hon. member can debate the point if he wishes to do so. The next case I have is that of a woman who worked in July 1959 and in March 1959. She became expectant in June 1961 and her child was born in March 1962. This is the period during which she was employed in order to qualify. She was employed from 17 October 1961 to 16 January 1962. She was actually employed for a period of three months only during the whole of that period, and she was paid benefits from 17 January 1962.

Let me take the next case, that of a woman previously employed in 1959 who became expectant in June 1961. Her child was born in March 1962. She was employed from June 1959 to November 1959. She actually worked for a period of only four months, and she started drawing benefits from 2 February 1962. Then I have a last case. The period previously employed was from December 1957 to July 1958. She became expectant in 1961 and the child was born in 1962. She actually worked for a period of three months only. In 1961 she came back to work; she worked for three months and drew benefits from February 1962.

Sir, it is estimated in this particular case that by closing this gap, by tightening up the provisions relating to these benefits, there will be a saving of approximately R200,000 per annum. That is the effect of the amendment.

Is that all?

It is our contention that this Fund is not designed for that purpose. If a married woman withdraws from the labour market and she subsequently becomes pregnant and has no intention of working again, it is not the intention that she should come in as a beneficiary. That is my reply to the hon. member for Turffontein. I will deal with the other sub-paragraphs when hon. members have had a chance of dealing with them.

I frankly am completely flabbergasted at the reply the hon. the Minister has given this afternoon. I say frankly to the hon. the Minister that he does not know what he has introduced here. I have come to the conclusion that the hon. the Minister does not know what he has introduced, because if the hon. the Minister knew what we are dealing with here he would not have made the speech he has just made. The hon. the Minister says that the women of South Africa are exploiting the position in regard to these grants.

No, he did not say that.

The hon. the Minister said that there were cases of exploitation. The Minister quoted four examples of four honourable women, in an honourable marriage state, who went and worked like any other worker of the country, who due to their marriage state fell pregnant and qualified for benefits as a result of the provisions which the hon. the Minister’s predecessor introduced in 1961. Like any other beneficiary if they wanted benefits, they had to work for the qualifying period. What is wrong with that? Does the Minister object because an ordinary worker works 13 weeks and by misfortune falls out of employment and claims benefits? Does he then say that he is exploiting the Fund? The Act says how long a worker must work before he qualifies, and why should a woman be any different in that respect? In his introductory speech the hon. the Minister said that the country’s labour is dependent on the working mothers of South Africa. So it is. And when a working mother has contributed to the Fund, the Minister now comes along with his amendment and says “in terms of this amendment you have got to work for 18 weeks and you have to fall pregnant whilst you are working if you want to qualify for benefits. The hon. the Minister does not know what he has introduced, I say with respect to the hon. the Minister, because he tried to give us an explanation of. this sub-section (e) (b) and there is a complete difference between the explanation the hon. the Minister gives in respect of the amendment he is introducing and what stands in the Act at the present time. If the hon. the Minister looks at the original Act, Sir. he will see that it says that a woman may claim maternity benefits if she was a contributor at least for 13 weeks in the year before the date of application, and now it says here “before the expected date of her confinement”. It is going to lock out a large precentage of women. And the Minister knows it. We conceded the amendment to stop abuse when the amendments were introduced in 1961, and any applicant, any working mother, before she qualifies for benefits, as the Act stands at the present time, has to work for a minimum period of 13 weeks in the 52 weeks preceding the date of her application. Now the Minister says that she has got to work for at least 18 weeks during the 52 weeks immediately preceding the expected date of her confinement. In other words, there are many thousands of young women, typists, clerks, seamsters, who enter into the married state, who cease because of their married state to work but they have paid may be for seven, eight or ten years, and when they find six weeks or two months after entering the married state that they are pregnant, they apply in terms of the existing Act for this benefit. But what is the Minister doing now? He says: No, you can get married, but you have to continue to work for 18 weeks. I can see the look of sympathy on the face of the hon. the Minister of Transport in regard to this matter. He has got a great deal of sympathy with our view, because the Minister of Transport was the one who introduced the amendment to the Act as a result of a proposal from this side of the House. He accepted our amendment when he was Minister of Labour. He knew the tremendous advantage he got for the women of South Africa when he did this. What surprises me more than anything else is that I make an appeal to the hon. the Minister of Labour, a genuine and honest appeal, stating the facts, and the hon. the Minister does not even reply to the appeal—he does not say whether he is going to accept our request or not.

What does your appeal mean?

We are appealing for the workers of South Africa and for their benefits.

United Party propaganda.

What amazes me is that the hon. the Minister having once shown true love to the women of South Africa when he was on this side of the House and supported these benefits that he pleaded for, now goes against that love he professed at the time for them. Let me say that the Minister is likely to be jilted in the next election by the women of South Africa. I in all seriousness appeal to the hon. the Minister. The Minister says that it is a mere pittance. Mr. Chairman, it is tickey-grabbing at the expense of the working mothers of South Africa at the expense of our nation. The Minister expects the maximum saving to be R200,000. Sir, R200,000 out of a fund standing at R67,000,000, and that while more than 45 per cent of the contributors to this fund are women workers.

They still get the benefits.

What sort of benefits? No, I appeal to the hon. the Minister of Labour. He knows that the trade unions have asked him to withdraw these provisions that he now seeks to introduce. He knows that every trade union in the country wants him to withdraw these provisions. He knows that even the hon. the Minister of Transport’s trade unions want it. Why go against them? For what reason? To save R200,000 on the present shortfall of this fund? If this Government had not taken the short-sighted approach they did in 1957, when we warned them what they were doing about this fund, we would not be facing legislation of the sort that is at present before us. I appeal once more to the hon. the Minister to reconsider the matter. Let him show himself as a strong Minister in this Government. Let him be the fighter for the workmen of South Africa. He represented a working community. I want the hon. the Minister to show his strength this afternoon. I am sure the hon. the Minister of Transport will assist him in this matter in the Cabinet. Let him stand up and say: “I have the interests of the workers of South Africa at heart, particularly the working mothers of South Africa, and I am going to withdraw this particular provision.” I appeal to the hon. the Minister. If he refuses, let him stand up and tell us why he refuses to heed our appeal and why he is going on with this provision.

When one listens to the flippant language of the hon. member, and bears in mind his discourteous and insulting attitude towards the hon. the Minister, one can understand why that party has been rejected and thrown out of all the workers’ constituencies in our country. That type of interest, which is accompanied by such flippancies, makes no impression on the workers; it makes no impression on this House and it makes no impression on the Minister or the Government or the workers, and I am afraid that if the hon. member wants to occupy the time of this House with such flippancies and so much melodrama, he himself will be drawing benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Fund in the near future.

This question of the elimination of abuses is something which has been receiving attention for a long time. The fact that there are abuses has been admitted for a long time and nobody who is an authority will deny it. Perhaps the hon. member, who now suddenly emerges as a great workers’ authority, is not aware of the fact that the trade union representatives, the workers’ own representatives, have often complained to the Minister about these abuses and that they have often complained on the Unemployment Board, and that it is those trade union representatives who asked that a provision such as this should be inserted in the legislation so that these abuses can be curtailed. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, at the 11 sittings that were held by the committee of the Unemployment Board to investigate these abuses, they went so far as to say—and this included the representatives of the workers—that these abuses were taking place and that if they continued, the question arose whether the Government should not withdraw all maternity benefits. This Unemployment Board, which included representatives of the workers, even considered whether they should not rather recommend that maternity benefits should be abolished. But as an alternative they said that if these maternity benefits were to be retained, now that they have been introduced, they were of the following opinion—and here I propose to quote the words of the committee of the Unemployment Board, on which Mr. Tyler himself sat as the representative of the T.U.C.—

It is the workers themselves who say this.

No, that is not true; it was the Board.

The hon. member says “No”. How is this Board made up? The board consists of an equal number of workers’ and employers’ representatives, and the representatives of the workers served on this committee which had 11 sittings. Mr. Tyler of the T.U.C. served on it, and at that time he considered these matters soberly, but now that he has come under the pressure of the T.U.C. he jumps about like a cat on hot bricks, as I said the other day. However, when he considered these matters soberly, that was the recommendation which was then embodied in the unanimous decision of the Unemployment Board. To come along now suddenly with this melodrama and to suggest that this Minister is heartless and unreasonable, is the greatest nonsense and rubbish that I have ever heard.

That is beautiful language.

That is the only type of language that can bring that type of member to his senses.

The question has been raised here of shorttime which is now going to be reduced. This is being done on the recommendation of the Unemployment Board. I wonder whether members on the other side of the House, who at times try to pose as the friends of the workers, know precisely what it would have meant if this Government had not decided to adopt the attitude which it did adopt. If these provisions had not been introduced, and if we had to grant these short-time benefits on the recommendation of the Unemployment Board, then in Germiston alone, in the years 1959 and 1960, when these short-time provisions were introduced, 1,543 women would not have received these benefits, benefits which then amounted to R144,000. That would have been the outcome of the pleas made by the other side. The Unemployment Insurance Board was opposed to the granting of the short-time benefits which were granted by Minister de Klerk, the predecessor of the present Minister of Labour. If we had accepted the plea of the Opposition, which means that these benefits would only have been granted in those cases where the Unemployment Board recommended it, it would have meant that 1,543 women in Germiston would not have received those benefits; and if this provision were incorporated in the Act and another state of emergency arose, and the Unemployment Board acted as it did in the past, namely to oppose it, then the same situation would arise again. It is stated repeatedly in the report that they were against short-time benefits, but if the Government had heeded their advice at the time, then the female garment workers in Germiston would not have received these benefits. That is the fruit that they would have reaped from the interest taken in them by the United Party.

The hon. Deputy Minister was somewhat melodramatic himself I think, and I am going to try and discuss this clause in a calmer fashion for a few moments. The hon. the Minister told us that he hopes to save something like R200,000 per annum by the change in maternity benefits he is proposing. I put it to him that this is a very small amount indeed in comparison to the tremendous dissatisfaction that these changes are engendering in the minds of the female workers. I don’t know whether this report is correct or not, but according to a statement in “Saamtrek”, the “Garment Worker”, it states here that last year in respect of maternity benefits an amount of R2,500,000 was paid out. That is a very significant figure, R2,500,000 paid out in maternity benefits, according to this report. Now the Minister’s amendment is going to save R200,000 and he cannot surely claim that all of that R200,000 will be to set aside abuses, in other words that this money is being saved by putting down abuses which have been taking place under the maternity benefits. So I cannot see what great advantage the fund is going to gain and I think the hon. the Minister will be very well advised to agree to change this provision. To save R200,000 on maternity benefits where R2,500,000 have been paid out in maternity benefits in one year. I would say is just not worth the candle, particularly as I am sure that the hon. the Minister himself will not claim that the saving of R200,000 will be due only to the putting down of abuses.

That is one of the many items, the R200,000. That is not the only item.

I quite agree, it is not the only item. There are other savings, all incidentally at the expense of the worker.

The money remains in the Fund.

The money may still be in the Fund, but the unemployed worker is not getting the benefits which he was previously entitled to.

The fund belongs also to the workers.

Certain people who are about to retire and who were also hoping to be able to get periodic employment and to draw from the Fund, will also be left in the cold. These people have paid into the Fund for many years, and they are also entitled to get something out of it, and in many cases they are now being cut off from all benefits which previously they were able to enjoy. I don’t believe that it is worth it, and it should not be worth it to the Government to try and save R200,000 on this particular item. I am quite sure if they are looking for economies, they can be effected in other ways, without taking it out on the pregnant workers. I want to suggest at least to the hon. the Minister, if he is not prepared to change this sub-section (e) of Clause 2, to consider at least having some flexibility introduced. While I concede that there are abuses, and the hon. the Minister has mentioned a couple of them—I do not know how many other cases of abuse he can mention—but say there are several hundreds of such cases, he must also surely concede that there must be several hundreds of cases where genuine persons in the labour market who have become pregnant simply cannot work for that period during their pregnancy owing to ill-health. I think there ought to be some flexibility introduced into this thing. There ought to be for instance the acceptance by the Board of medical evidence to the effect that a woman is simply not able to work even for 18 weeks. There was, I believe, this flexibility when the period was 13 weeks, but now that the period has been changed to 18 weeks, the discretionary right which was given to the Board to allow benefits to be claimed even though the pregnant woman had not worked for 13 weeks in the preceding 52 weeks, has disappeared. Am I correct in that?

That is correct, but what remains is the human approach of the claims officer in respect of every case.

I don’t like to rely on the human approach in this case. I think the flexibility should be re-introduced. The discretionary right should be given to the claims officer to exercise his humanity. At least I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the old flexibility should be maintained. Then when there are abuses, obviously the discretionary right will be used to rule them out, but where women are ill and on medical evidence are simply not capable of working— and there are many such women who simply cannot work, practically from the first two or three weeks of pregnancy—their cases should be considered. They are ill, they are confined to bed, they may be subject to easy miscarriage, they may be subject to extensive nausea, anything, but medical evidence could be produced to the effect that a woman is simply not able to work for that period. The fact remains that these people were genuinely in the labour market before falling pregnant. I don’t know how anybody looks into a crystal ball and decides that a woman is never going to work again, after she has had her baby, and that she will not re-enter the labour market, after she has had her child. I do ask the hon. the Minister to consider seriously re-introducing the discretionary right, especially on medical evidence.

One is amazed at the arguments advanced by the Opposition. They accuse us of not being sympathetic to female workers. I want to ask them what is the greatest sympathy—the sort of sympathy of the Government that resulted in benefits being granted to 22,500 women or the sort of sympathy that members of the Opposition are showing to-day for the people who misuse this Fund? What is the greatest sympathy? Surely this Government cannot be accused of not being sympathetic. It is this Government that granted these benefits. The benefits given to the women are very substantial benefits. Do you know that the ordinary benefits which are paid to ordinary workers when they become unemployed, are paid for an average of five or six weeks per unemployed whereas these maternity benefits are paid for 26 weeks, for half a year? If hon. members go into the reports they will find that on an average benefits are paid to workers for approximately five to six weeks.

Are you against that?

No, of course not, I am simply saying that the Government has shown its sympathy by giving benefits extending over 26 weeks to expectant mothers.

Hon. members opposite say that R200,000 is a very small amount, but is it right on the part of hon. members to expect that the contributions of the Government or of the workers or of the employers should be increased so that R200,000 can be given to people who misuse this Fund? This Fund is gradually being drained, and my honest opinion is that until such time as we have eliminated very possible misuse, as far as it is possible to do so, we cannot go and ask the workers to contribute more; we cannot go and ask the employers to contribute more and we cannot expect the Government to contribute more. I think it is immoral to put forward the plea that these abuses should be allowed to continue and that we should then go to the workers and to the Government, which after all gets its money from the taxpayers, and ask the taxpayers to contribute more to the Fund when R200,000 is being paid out to people who misuse the Fund. I cannot understand the Opposition adopting such an attitude here. I think it is immoral to adopt that attitude. Here an amount of R2,500,000 is being paid out to 22,700 women. That is sympathy. It is not sympathy to come and plead that money should be paid out to women who misuse the Fund, with the result that eventually we have to ask for increased contributions from the employers, from the workers or from the Government, which in its turn has to take the money out of the pockets of the taxpayers.

I am at a loss to understand why hon. members opposite should generate so much heat over this amendment.

Why do you generate so much heat?

The Government are introducing this amendment and we are entitled to generate heat because we are opposing it, but why should members on the Government side be so cross about their own amendment? Because that is what the position is.

The hon. Deputy Minister of Labour dealt with the discussions that took place by the Board in respect of these amendments and he said that Mr. Tyler had supported the amendments now being presented to this House, but that at the present time, as a result of pressure put upon him by the T.U.C., he had turned round completely and was jumping around like a cat on hot bricks.

That is so.

Mr. Chairman, what are the facts? The hon. Deputy Minister will know that the members on that Board were told that all the proceedings were in strict confidence, that they were not permitted to discuss these amendments with their own trade unions.

That is not correct.

That is the evidence we have got from the T.U.C., written evidence that was the position.

They had their representatives on the Board, and members of the Board discussed these amendments with their parent bodies.

The employer organizations may have done so, I cannot speak for them, but the trade unions were not consulted in respect of these amendments prior to the Bill being introduced.

How do you know?

Because the T.U.C. has said so. Does the hon. member want me to quote from the memorandum submitted to the hon. the Minister of Labour in which that assertion is made? The Minister of Labour will not deny that was one of the complaints put before him. But the hon. Deputy Minister of Labour did not reveal that fact to this Committee, and I say that the fact that the trade unions have now become aware of the nature of these amendments, has resulted in the representative on the Board saying that he is not now in favour of these proposals because the trade union movement would never agree to some of these amendments.

But originally he agreed with the amendments.

Quite so, but he says in the memorandum that he was under the impression that he was not permitted to disclose any of these discussions that took place by the Board.

But he agreed to them.

He agreed to them, but he had not consulted his trade union.

Can they be so bad if he agreed to them?

I wonder if there are not many things that the Minister of Information has agreed to and then consulted his wife and discovered that he was completely wrong? I make this point because the representatives of organized bodies are in the position that if they are free to discuss issues that are raised at board meetings of this sort, they will not exercise their own discretion and their own opinion before having had discussions with their union.

Why did he not say so?

Because he thought that he could not discuss these matters.

When the House adjourned for the dinner break, I was replying to some of the comments made by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Labour earlier in the afternoon. It is not my intention to say a great deal more about this. What I want to do, however, is to quote to the hon. the Deputy Minister an extract from the memorandum which was submitted by the Trade Union Council to the hon. the Minister of Labour, and the extract I want to quote can be found on page 9 of the memorandum under paragraph (10). It reads as follows—

That is what I was referring to earlier on when I said that the trade union movement was not consulted in regard to these amendments. When they did discover what the amendments were about and what they implied, they protested, and they protested by way of this memorandum. For the hon. the Deputy Minister to state, therefore, that members on the Board representing trade unions, were jumping about like a cat on hot bricks, is not correct Members of the Board were strictly told not to discuss these amendments with anyone. They were not given permission to do that. I am at a loss to understand how such a restriction could have been imposed on members of the Board and I hope that the hon. the Minister will, when he replies presently, inform us how it came about that the Board could impose a rule of strict confidence on members in regard to these amendments. It is important that this point should be cleared up, because there will, no doubt, be further meetings of this Board in future, as well as further amendments to the Act. It is, therefore, essential that this matter be cleared up once and for all.I dealt earlier on with the amendment to paragraph (e) (b) and I then said that the maternity benefits themselves were not being materially reduced, but that the qualifying periods in respect of those who applied for them would be changed materially. I want hon. members to realize to what extent the qualifications for maternity benefits are being changed. First of all, I want to refer to sub-section 11 (b) dealing with the section which the hon. the Minister now seeks to repeal. I want to read out the relevant proviso so that hon. members can realize exactly what is happening. It reads—

This is now disappearing, and the present proposal does not have any proviso at all. It means this: As often happens we have contributors who have made contributions over a number of years and have built up considerable credits, but then left their employment to get married and subsequently came back to employment for a short period. The amendment makes it impossible for their contributions over the last two years to be taken into account. That is why I say that it is not so much a question of the benefits being reduced, but a question of in what way a contributor can qualify to get those benefits. It is in the latter respect that a change is being introduced. I think the hon. the Minister is unwise in making this portion of the Act so rigid. I would have liked to see this proviso retained in order to meet cases of genuine hardship which must arise. Once the amendment proposed by the hon. the Minister is accepted, there is nothing which he can do to assist that contributor who, through no fault of her own, is unable to get the necessary qualifications to enable her to get benefits. As the Act reads now, there is provision for the Board to use its discretion and take into account contributions for the previous two years so that such a person can get benefits. I do not know whether the Minister knows of any cases where there has been abuse of this particular provision. At any rate, I cannot think that there can be many such cases, i.e. where the Board has used its discretion to give a contributor maternity benefits. It is the Board which has the discretion to decide whether such benefits should be paid and I fail to see how the Board in exercising its discretion, has created abuse which the hon. the Minister has now to rectify. I want to ask the Minister to say why he thinks the Board has been irresponsible in the exercise of this discretion? Surely, that cannot be the case? And if it is not the case, then why does the Minister not leave the relevant proviso? If his amendments are going to curtail the actual period during which an application can be made—that is one thing; but to remove the proviso is another thing altogether. As I said I am at a loss to understand how this proviso could have been abused to such an extent that it has become necessary for it to be removed. I hope the hon. the Minister will explain, when he replies, why it is necessary for this proviso to be removed.I think that the Minister has been far too ready to listen to the majority members on the Board in this regard—because it is now a majority view and no longer a unanimous view of all the members of the Board. From what we have been told, there is a complete division of opinion amongst members of the Board in regard to these amendments. The hon. the Minister is no longer in a position where he can say that the trade union movement is behind him in this respect. From the information which has been given to us, it is clear that the employers and the chairman of the Board are prepared to continue to support these amendments while the trade union movement is totally against them. It is this fact which members on the other side should recognize, i.e. that they no longer can hide behind the unanimous support of the Board as a whole. That has been shown to be erroneous. Members of the Board were, as I see it, under some sort of threat not to divulge these proposals to their principals. Hon. members on the other side have now to try and justify these proposals coming from the Minister without being able to claim the support of the trade union movement, i.e. the bulk of the workers in South Africa, because they are opposed to these amendments, particularly the one I have been dealing with. [Time Limit].

I think I should reply to the hon. member who just sat down (Mr. Eaton) immediately, in order to put the record straight, especially in regard to the representative of the T.U.C. on this Board. The records reveal that the Unemployment Insurance Board appointed a sub-committee to go into the whole question of amendments to the Act with a view to seeing where abuses could be stopped, having in mind the remarks made by the Select Committee on Public Accounts. This sub-committee which the Board appointed for this purpose consisted of four members, one of which was a representative of the T.U.C. This sub-committee deliberated for a long time. It worked on the basis of certain suggested amendments, and eventually submitted certain recommendations to the Board. These were regarded as being confidential and for obvious reasons. It was, after all, a sub-committee of the Board, and its first duty was to report back to the Board. Consequently, the recommendations of the sub-committee were marked confidential and were treated as being confidential. During deliberations which the sub-committee had during September 1961, i.e. before it reported to the Board, the representative of the T.U.C. actually stated—and it is on record—that he had consulted his organization about the amendments. That is on record, viz. that the representative of the T.U.C. stated that he had had talks with the organization which had nominated him to the Board, and that they were fully aware of the amendments which were being proposed. Not only did he tell the committee that, Mr. Chairman, but the representative of the T.U.C. was the man who proposed this very amendment! He was the man who actually drafted it! This is on record as well. How can hon. members now come and tell this House that the T.U.C. was quite unaware of the amendments which were being proposed? How can they say that if the representative of the T.U.C. was the man who himself drafted this very amendment?

May I ask the hon. Minister a question?

I will hear the hon. member later. For the present I should like to make clear my point. As I said, I want to get the record straight, especially because there has been a lot of criticism and a lot of talk from the Opposition, that the trade unions were not consulted, and that they did not know what was going on. I, for my part, should like to assert they did know what was going on, because they were informed by their representative on the sub-committee. I do not know what instructions he had from them, but he, at any rate, was the man who proposed this very amendment with which the Committee is dealing at present. I should like the hon. member for Umhlatuzana to be aware of this fact.

The hon. the Minister has now made it clear that he is in possession of written information from the Board to the effect that the representative of the T.U.C. proposed certain amendments and that he had stated categorically that he discussed the amendments with his Union. That information, I take it, dates back to some time before December, 1961?

It is dated September, 1961.

The document from which I quoted, however, was of a later date. It was, in fact, submitted to the hon. the Minister during the current month and I think the hon. the Minister will agree that we must accept that later document as being the correct one?

Except when the document the hon. member is quoting from, is an ex parte statement.

The hon. the Minister has had an opportunity of meeting representatives of the T.U.C. Did he then challenge the representative concerned on this categorical statement?

Yes, I did.

And what was the T.U.C.’s reaction to the Minister’s challenge? That we must know, because it has been said that the representative of the T.U.C. made a categorical statement …

Now try to get out of your difficulties!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister of Information is now trying to get his colleague out of trouble. In any case, he is completely offside, and is guessing, because he has not seen these documents! The point I want to bring home to the hon. the Minister, Sir, is that the T.U.C. during the current month made a categorical statement in a memorandum which it submitted to the hon. the Minister to the effect that it deplored the method which was employed by the Board in imposing a rule of strict confidence on members of the Board in regard to these proposed amendments, and in not consulting the trade union movement when drafting amendments to the Act.

They are like the United Party—having a new policy every month.

I should like to learn from the hon. the Minister what members of the T.U.C. had to say when he challenged this categorical statement by its representative on the Board? We must be told this, because the hon. Minister is now saying that it is the Opposition who is accusing him of not having consulted the trade union movement whereas consultation has, in fact, taken place. But it is not the Opposition, but the trade union movement who is accusing the hon. the Minister of not having consulted them. Our challenge to the hon. the Minister is based on the document which was presented to him by the T.U.C. We want to know where we stand in this matter.and the Minister is the only person who is in a position to clarify this issue. He said that he did challenge the T.U.C. on this particular paragraph because he had documents showing that there had, in fact, been consultation with them. Now we would like to know what the reaction of the T.U.C. was to this challenge.

This debate no longer concerns this particular clause, but the latest attitude of the T.U.C. in regard to the matter. You will remember that this debate started with a request from the Opposition to the Minister to give examples of abuses which have taken place in the past in terms of the section. That was how this debate started. Thereupon the hon. the Minister got up and replied, but hon. members opposite did not abide by it, but made a fuss, which gave the impression that the latest attitude adopted by the T.U.C. was more important than the Bill. The T.U.C. is quite entitled to adopt a different attitude this month from the one they had last month, and they are entitled now to criticize and to turn against the people who represented them on the Board. We cannot prevent them from doing so. However, what I do object to is that this whole debate is now concerned with what is or is not the latest attitude of the T.U.C. We are now dealing with a section of the Act which, if left unamended, will be a source of trouble every year, because those people who non-criticize this amendment still set out from the supposition, and cannot get away from it, that we are dealing here with a charitable fund. The effect of the proposed amendment is to bring the fund back to what it ought to be. If female workers are unemployed they should be entitled to benefits from the fund, and everybody ought to agree to that. Now the intention is to remedy an abuse in this regard. You should note, Sir, that this abuse has nothing to do with unemployment. But this abuse is so infectious that hon, members opposite now think that they can also make misuse of the relevant amendment by advancing all kinds of wrong and unfounded arguments in regard to it! But if the fund is to serve the purpose for which it was established, this amendment is one of the steps which should be taken. The hon. the Minister pointed out that workers left their employment and after a time came back to work for a few months, evidently with no object other than to get benefits which the Act allows them to draw under the circumstances. As soon, however, as they have exhausted their benefits they again disappear from the labour market. That is the type of worker who would never have returned to the labour market unless it was to qualify for benefits from the fund. Having exhausted all these benefits, it means that they will have to work again for an appreciable time before they are again entitled to benefits. The type of workers who act in this way are people who know the art of drawing every possible benefit from the fund, with the result that if they later become unemployed there will be no further benefits available to them. I say they are people who understand that art, and when I say that I am not afraid of being accused of insulting the workers. This particular type of worker comprises only a very small percentage of the workers in general. Now hon. members opposite, however, are running away from the reasons why they put certain questions to the Minister, and they do so by trying to intimate that the opinion of the T.U.C. in regard to this matter is simply inviolable.

Order! I want to point out that this is not relevant.

That is precisely my point, Sir. I pointed out in the beginning of my speech that this debate no longer concerns this clause, but the latest attitude of the T.U.C.

Order! The Minister has replied to the allegations of the Opposition. I cannot allow the documents of the T.U.C. to be discussed further. I have allowed the hon. member to say something about it, but I cannot allow him to expand on it.

I accept that, Sir. In regard to the clause, I want to say that the proposed amendment is one of the methods which can be adopted to put the fund on a sound basis. I want to assure the Minister that I will support all steps calculated to put the fund back on the basis on which it was established, viz. to be an unemployment insurance fund and not an assistance fund or a relief fund, as unfortunately has become the case in the course of time.

The hon. the Minister indicated during his Second Reading speech that he would refer back to the Unemployment Insurance Board for a report on whether he should accept amendments which were suggested by this side of the House. We have had the position now that both the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister in speeches made this afternoon, referred to documents which were not in possession of this side of the House. I am not referring to documents of the T.U.C., but to reports of the Unemployment Insurance Board dealing with the aspects we are now discussing. The hon. the Deputy Minister made a violent attack on me earlier in the afternoon, in the course of which he quoted from the latest report of the Unemployment Insurance Board. I, for my part, should like to know how it is that the hon. the Deputy Minister can quote from minutes of meetings of the Unemployment Insurance Board which should have been talbed in this House for the benefit of all members. Since when does the hon. the Deputy Minister claim unto himself the privilege of quoting from a report from that Board while other members of this House do not have such privilege? The latest report in regard to maternity benefits which is available to us, is the latest report of the Department of Labour for 1960. What is more, Sir, this report directly contradicts the report the hon. the Deputy Minister quoted from. Within my experience of a member of this House, I cannot say that any Minister has yet quoted from a report which should have been tabled for the benefit of all members. So on the grounds of what privilege does the hon. the Deputy Minister claim unto himself that right to the detriment of members on this side of the House?

The hon. member must come back to the clause.

Sir, I do not want to take those points which we on this side have raised earlier in the debate in regard to maternity benefits, further at this stage, because the hon. the Minister has not yet replied to them. I was, however, hoping that the hon. the Minister would, in the dinner interval, have given favourable thought to some of the suggestions we had put forward. I am still prepared to wait for his reply. In the meantime there is another provision of this clause to which I should like to draw attention, viz. paragraph (c), which provides that a contributor who applies for benefits by reason of illness, shall not be entitled to such benefits unless he has been employed as a contributor for at least 13 weeks whether for a continuous period or not, during the 52 weeks immediately preceding the date upon which a period of unemployment is deemed to have commenced. We heard from the hon. the Minister that one of the reasons for all these amendments in respect of maternity grants, illness, etc., is to stop the diminution of the Fund, and he indicated to us that the saving because of paragraph (e) in respect of maternity grants, would be something like R200,000 over a 12 month period. I then endeavoured to determine what the saving would be in respect of illness benefits and I found in the latest report of the Department of Labour that during the year 1959-60, there was an increase of only R1,462 in this type of benefit which was paid out. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he thinks it is right that a contributor who has contributed to the Fund over 14 years and has made no claims on it at all, when he suddenly falls ill, must in order to qualify for benefits, have worked for 13 weeks during the 52 weeks in which he claims such benefits.

That is not a long time! How foolish can you get!

The hon. member for Vereeniging is very vociferous about these matters, but has not yet risen on his feet to support his Minister. Let him go back to Vereeniging and tell the working man there, workers who have been contributors for 15 or 20, or more years, to this Fund, that if they fall sick, they will be required to work despite their illness if they want to qualify for benefits from this Fund. I challenge the hon. member to do that. Because what is the real position now? That the 768,000 contributors to the Fund are now going to be penalized because the hon. the Minister would like to effect a minor saving in payments from a Fund which belongs to the workers. Where is the hon. the Deputy Minister now who was so vociferous before the dinner interval? Over the years he had a great deal to say. The reason why he came into the debate to-night was, I think, because he realized the difficulties his Minister was in. But I want to challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister to get up now and speak in the same words in which he spoke before he rose to the heights of being a Deputy Minister. I want to ask him to fight for illness benefits as he did in the past! You see, Sir, this is no longer a Government of the workers of or of the people of South Africa, but of the capitalist. The Government is no longer interested in the workers. Let me remind the Deputy Minister of what he said—

And these are the very improvements which the Minister now seeks to amend in this clause—

So what?

Let the Deputy Minister get up and repeat the words he used in 1957, because now the Minister is taking the step that a worker has to be sick and work on his feet for 13 weeks out of 52 weeks before he can apply for sickness benefits.

Where did you get that from?

I quoted the words of the hon. the Deputy Minister in this House, Hansard, Col. 1092, Vol. 93 of 1957, when these sickness benefits were introduced. [Time limit.]

I stand firmly by what I said on a former occasion, as stated in that quotation, namely that security is of the utmost importance to the worker. This amendment before us to-day serves to increase that security. I should perhaps remind the hon. member and the Committee that the State as the trustee of this Fund has the duty of ensuring that the money paid into the Fund by the workers should be protected and should be spent in a legitimate and reasonable way, and not wasted. It gives the workers security if they know that their trustee, the Government, handles the Fund in such a way that abuses are eliminated and their contributions are protected. It offers them the security to which I referred in that quotation.

This sub-section (c), which deals with sick benefits, is something which was added by the Government at the time. It is perhaps as well to remind the hon. member that at the time the Unemployment Insurance Board was against the introduction of these sick benefits. In spite of that, the then Minister put these sick benefits on the statute book and granted that benefit, hut that does not prevent us from carefully supervising this benefit introduced by the Government. In view of the fact that it has now appeared that it is being abused, the Government must pay attention to it, and if we do so we do not do it just arbitrarily, but because the workers’ representatives together with the employers asked for it. I now want to quote from the minutes of the Insurance Board dealing with this matter. I quote from the summary of the minutes which they have given us—

That is precisely what is embodied in this amendment. What we are doing here, therefore, is merely to implement the recommendations of this Board on which the workers are represented, and when we do so we are not acting unreasonably. This provision that one must have worked and contributed for 13 weeks is still one of the most humane and conciliatory provisions in the whole world. I have here a schedule, with which. I will not weary the Committee, showing the position in most Western countries, and in most of them the limitations laid on the contributors are more onerous than ours. For example, in Canada, one must contribute for 30 weeks in two years, and in Western Germany for 26 weeks in the past two years, before one can draw benefits. We went further; with these sickness and maternity benefits we went further than all other Western countries, but the principle underlying the contributions is the same. In Italy one must have contributed for a year in a two-year period in order to draw benefits. We must remember that this fund is intended for regular workers who, as the result of unemployment—in this case as the result of sickness—have become unemployed, so that they must be. assisted to find work again. That is the essence of the fund, and if we want to lose sight of that and want to change it into something else, like the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), who at one time wanted to make it a marriage fund, we cannot argue with them because then they are talking about fantasies which are not embodied in practical legislation. This proposal that the worker should have contributed for 13 weeks during the past 52 weeks protects the workers, because in the past the position was that a man who had last contributed five years ago and who became unemployed, as the result of becoming ill, could again apply for sick benefits. According to the resolution of the Insurance Board, that is unreasonable and something which is not envisaged by the Act, and therefore Clause 2 (c) affords reasonable protection for the funds of the worker.

During the second reading when we opposed this Bill, one of the reasons for our opposition was the diminution of the rights of the worker, and after hearing the remarks of the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to Clause 2 (c) it appears quite definite that a right which the workers enjoyed in the past, is now to be removed. In regard to the illness allowances, due to the remarks of the Deputy Minister, it is obvious that the genuine case will be adversely affected by the provisions of this clause; e.g. in the commencement of this clause it says that the contributor may accumulate certain benefits, one week’s benefits for every four weeks’ contributions, and then to be further extended to one week for every six weeks’ contributions. I have in my hand a case which I dealt with only a few days ago, of persons who had been enjoying sick benefits in terms of the present Act. These people, who have been paying into the fund for many years, were then forced to resign their position and leave their employment due to ill-health, and they were able to apply for and receive benefits, and with the accumulation of benefits they are able to continue receiving those benefits from time to time in 26-week cycles. But now it will mean—and I hope the Minister will give us some clarity on this point—that these persons who are no longer able to be employed due to illness, the accumulation of their benefits in terms of one week’s benefits for four weeks’ or six weeks’ contributions, will really only entitle them to one period of 26 weeks benefits.

This is not a sickness fund, but an unemployment fund.

In terms of the clause as it stands now, these people will have to be employed again for a period of 13 weeks and contribute for 13 weeks during the 52 weeks immediately preceding another period of unemployment. So it will mean in effect that these people will only draw this benefit for 26 weeks. The Minister said in the second reading that in certain instances these matters can be referred to under Section 39 (3) of the Act. Well, I have looked at that section and it says that no benefits shall be paid to a contributor for more than 26 weeks in any financial year or in any period of 52 consecutive weeks, provided that any application for benefits rejected by the claims officer in terms of this sub-section shall, together with his report on the surrounding circumstances, be referred to the committee concerned, which shall refer it to the Board, together with recommendations thereon, and the Board may in its discretion authorize the payment of further benefits to the contributor at either full or such reduced rates and for such period as it may deem fit. Now, in view of what the Deputy Minister has said to-night, and in the view held by the Board, it is obvious that persons wishing to claim further benefits as sick benefits have little chance, or no chance whatever, of having those benefits further extended. That leads to only one position, that they then become the responsibility of some other Department, like the Department of Social Welfare, where they can get a disability grant if under the age of 60 or 65 years, or if they are over 65 they can get the old-age pension. But then these people are subject to a means test, and if they fail to qualify in terms of the means test they cannot get the old-age pension. Consequently these people who paid into the fund for years and accumulated benefits, all in good faith, will now only be able to receive benefits for an initial period of 26 weeks, and I feel that the Committee will be well advised to vote against this clause because it is a diminution of the rights of those who contributed in the past.

I just want to give the Minister the assurance that in spite of the challenge issued by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) to the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee), I am quite willing for him to come to my constituency and state his standpoint there, and see how far he gets. I want to give the assurance that the bona fide worker who is a contributor but has never received any benefits because he has been employed regularly, is satisfied. But it is this person who goes from one job to another, and more particularly the one who as the result of his own actions and negligence loses his work, who receives the benefits. The hon. member for Turffontein is one of the people who has already made certain suggestions in this House in regard to the objects for which this fund should be used, apart from the object for which it is being used, and to-night he wants to pose as the champion of the workers, but we know that he just wants to create the impression outside that he is the protagonist of the workers. I want to assure the Minister that in regard to the maternity benefits, the mothers will not object. They are quite satisfied and I want to give the assurance that the time has arrived when we should look after this fund and protect it for the future.

I just want to quote a few words of the hon. member who has just sat down. On 7 February 1961, he said the following—

Listening to the attitude of the Minister and the Deputy Minister and those members opposite who have spoken, I feel that they must be convinced that never again will we have full employment in this country. They must be quite convinced that at no time in the foreseeable future, at any rate, can there be such employment that the fund can on its old basis replace the few pounds it lost during this period. It seems to me that the Minister has failed to appreciate that the maternity benefit in particular is in a way a social welfare measure, and that he should consider seriously the results of his action. It is not enough that the fund should balance. The State is there to see that the people are happy and well and that they are fed, and to me it seems that he is robbing the unborn babe, and not only is he doing that, but he is also starving the born babe, because he limits to eight weeks the time that this unfortunate child — because it is unfortunate to be born under the régime of the Minister—can be breast-fed. This unfortunate child can only be breastfed (unless the mother takes it on her back inside a blanket when she goes to work) for eight weeks. Any medical authority will tell the Minister that the best thing for a child is to be breast-fed for at least nine months.

But you must raise that under the Health Vote.

We are discussing benefits and that hon. member cannot possibly have given consideration to this Act and its effect on the children of this country.

The Minister has quite a lot of questions to answer yet. Most of them he could not deal with before the amendment was put, but so that the position may be made quite clear to the Government we want to indicate that we are going to vote against this clause. There is no way of amending it, as was proved by the attempt I made earlier on, and the collective effect of all these amendments to Clause 2 is to deprive those who have made contributions over the years of benefits which they rightly expected to get in time of need.

The one which has not been discussed is that which extends—I am speaking now of Clause (a) (ii)bis. Here the intention of the Minister is to restrict the accumulation of benefits by introducing an amendment of one week’s benefits for each six weeks’ completed employment. One can take the view here that the Minister has said: Seeing that I am not going to allow contributors to the fund to draw upon their credits, I may as well reduce the accumulation of those credits. That is the impression one gets and that is what appears from the attitude of the Deputy Minister and other hon. members opposite.

And the Board.

Not the Board.

Oh yes, the Board recommended this.

The Minister of Labour has yet to reply to the questions I put to him in respect of the Board and the statement made by the T.U.C. It is extremely important. The Deputy Minister repeatedly claims that the Board is supporting his amendments, but that is not true. The Board, at the time these matters were referred back to them by the Minister, was completely divided. That is the position at this moment and if that is the case I say it is not correct for the Deputy Minister to claim that the Board is still supporting these amendments.

That is what they recommended, but you cannot rely on the T.U.C., Because to-morrow they will adopt another measure.

In view of the importance of this issue, I hope the Minister of Labour will reply to the question I put to him earlier.

You got a reply.

I got no reply. I want to know what the Minister told the T.U.C. when he was confronted with their statement that they had not been consulted. It is no use the Deputy Minister mumbling. We are entitled to this information. But I refer to this question of the credits accumulating and it does appear, although the Government does not say so, that they do not think it is a good thing that credits should accumulate. Therefore they take the step of reducing the accumulation of credits and I say that the workers are entitled to take notice of this. I cannot understand why hon. members opposite are taking this thing lying down. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) made the point that it affects a section of our population who are least able to fend for themselves, those people who are considered by the employment officer to be almost unemployable, those who are over 50 but do not qualify for an old-age pension. They become unemployed and enjoy the benefits for six months. They are then still unemployed and the employment officers cannot find work for them. As the Act stands now, they can then qualify for a further six months, drawing on their credits which may be considerable and which they have built up. But because of this amendment they will not be given the opportunity to get that second six months of benefits. It is true that the Board in its wisdom, if the applicant has appealed to the Board, may say they will give him those benefits, but it is a totally different thing when the Act has established a right to that second six months’ benefits, and now we say that in the place of that right it will depend on an appeal to the Board. This is a very serious thing in the case of those who are over 50 when they are not given the right to that second six months’ period of benefits.

You want to give them an old-age pension.

That is not what I want to do. It is what these people have believed they would get while they were contributing. They were under the impression for many years that if they became unemployed they would get benefits for six months and they could qualify for the second six months. I did not do that; this House did it, and the Government took full credit for it in the elections, but to-day they run away from it. I say it is unfair that this provision should be introduced, particularly in respect of those who have considerable credits and who have paid over the years for this little bit of security which the Minister and the hon. member for Krugersdorp now say they should not worry about because this is not an old-age pension but an unemployment insurance fund. These people are unemployed.

But according to you they are unemployable.

They are unemployed because the Minister cannot give them work. They are able to work, but there is no work for them. Whose fault is that? It is the Government’s fault, and that is why I say that class of person who is willing to work but who cannot get work is being deprived of that second six months’ period of benefits, but the sympathy of the hon. member for Krugersdorp for them is: Go to Social Welfare. I think it is a disgrace.

That is because you want to deprive the other workers of their benefits.

What do the workers say? They say: Leave our benefits alone and increase our contributions. That is the reply to the hon. member, and if the Minister of Labour had taken the trouble of consulting the trade unions before introducing the Bill, that is what he would have been told. But he did not consult the trade unions and the workers as to whether they would rather have an increase in contributions than these amendments.

Did you consult them?

Of course I did. The point I make is that these benefits have been earned by the contributor and now he will lose them because the Minister is afraid that they are abusing the provisions of the Act.

What spectacle are we witnessing here Sir? It is this that hon. members opposite want the Minister and the Deputy Minister to assume the latest colour of the T.U.C., a body which is obviously changing its colour just as the United Party has done over the past 13 years.

Order! Hon. members opposite have put their case and the Minister has replied.

What is the other spectacle that we have witnessed? Hon. members opposite admit that they are pleading for those people who are not unemployed in the ordinary sense of the word, people who can no longer be employed. They want to convert this Unemployment Insurance Fund into a welfare fund. They want to change the whole character of the fund. In terms of this amendment, as far as benefits are concerned, a person has to be employed for at least three months in the year. If a person cannot work for three months in the year, he is unemployable and he should seek refuge somewhere else. He is no longer on the labour market. In other words, it is not a question of unemployment. They want us to give the money which the employee and the employers have contributed to people who are no longer on the labour market. I wish to repeat what I said a moment ago. I think it is immoral to expect the employees, the employers and the Government to make bigger contributions to this Fund in order to assist people who are no longer on the labour market. I do not think they can claim that they have consulted the employees and that the employees are satisfied with that. It is immoral to expect this Fund to pay benefits to people who are no longer on the labour market.

That brings me to maternity grants. All women who are bona fide workers and who fall pregnant, can receive maternity grants under this amendment. The only woman who can no longer receive a maternity grant is the one who is no longer a bona fide workseeker. The Minister has given an example and during my second reading speech I said that according to a recent survey made by the Department of Labour there were 8,700 female work-seekers and that 70 per cent of them were not bona fide work-seekers. Do they wish us to pay benefits to 70 per cent of the women if they are no longer on the labour market? No, it is immoral to drain the fund for the benefit of people who are no longer on the labour market. That is why I say that hon. members no longer have the right to say that they speak on behalf of the workers of South Africa. On the contrary, they do not speak on behalf of either the workers or the employers. I do not know on whose behalf they speak because the recommendations were made by the Insurance Board and they cannot prove that the workers have given them the right to say that the contributions should be increased. Hon. members opposite are pleading for something which is completely immoral. In spite of the sneers they direct at the Minister, I think the Minister is handling the Fund in the interests of those people who should really derive benefits from the Fund and because of that I think we ought to support the Minister.

The last speaker is under a grave misapprehension and it is just as well that we should deal with it straight away. The issue we are dealing with is the case of those over 45, over 50 and 55 who are prepared to work but who cannot find employment. They are prepared to work but there is no work for them.

That is not the question in respect of women.

That is the amendment we are dealing with now. In terms of this amendment any worker, no matter what his age, will in future only be entitled to six months’ benefits in one year. And if he is out of work for a further six months after the completion of that period, he does not automatically qualify for a further six months’ unemployment benefits. It does not matter how many years’ benefits he has to his credit. It is not only in respect of illness, it is in respect of the general position. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) does not know what he is talking about. This prohibition on the benefits being paid has nothing to do with age. It is a restriction in respect of the period in which they are unemployed.

We are making this objection to the amendment because if a person is 35 and he becomes unemployed and the Department of Labour cannot find him a job, he will be entitled to six months’ unemployment benefits; and if at the end of that period he has still not been placed in employment he must wait for a further six months, as the Act stands at the moment, and he will qualify for another six months’ benefits. We object to the amendment because it now abolishes that second period of six months. If I am wrong I am sure the hon. the Minister will tell me but that is how I interpret it. The proviso is that he must work for 13 weeks before he can qualify for another six months’ unemployment benefits in that year. But if he cannot get employment for those 13 weeks, what then?

All the credits that he has is of no use to him because he cannot get employment for those thirteen weeks and the Department cannot find employment for him. That is the issue we are up against. I ask hon. members to study this Bill. They must understand that we are not just opposing it for the sake of opposing it. This is a fundamental issue and we want to know from the Minister why he has to be so harsh in respect of those who have accumulated credits and who are not in the position of gaining that necessary qualification by way of employment for 13 weeks during a period of 12 months. If they cannot find work what are they to do? We are penalizing them, that is what we are doing. We have 31,000 unemployed to-day in all age groups. They are the people who will suffer because of this amendment. We cannot look upon this as something unimportant. If I am wrong I would be the first to say to the Minister that I was sorry.

The hon. member who has just sat down accused the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) of not really knowing what he was talking about. But I suggest to the hon. member who has just sat down that he does not know what he is talking about because what he was talking about falls under Clause 3. It has nothing to do with Clause 2. We are debating Clause 2.

I wanted to get the perspective right.

The hon. member can raise that whole question under Clause 3—then he will get his reply, but Clause 2 has nothing to do with it. I want to tell the hon. member, in reply to the question he put to me about the deputation which saw me, that I am not prepared to say what the deputation said to me nor am I prepared to say what I said to the deputation. That was a deputation which interviewed the Minister and what happened there was between the Minister and the deputation. If a Minister should be forced to disclose to the Committee of the House what happened between himself and a deputation, it would be a highly dangerous thing for any Minister to interview any deputation and it would be a dangerous thing for a deputation to interview a Minister.

You have already told us partly what happened.

I beg your pardon, I have not. All I did was to refer to certain records of what had taken place at meetings of the board. I am not prepared to pursue that matter any further. In view of the Chairman’s ruling I am not prepared to take it any further.

May I just ask this question? Who gave us the information that the representations made to the Minister by the T.U.C. had been referred to the Unemployment Board?

I did. I said the representations which had been made to me had been referred to the Unemployment Board but I did not say what those representations were. I did not say what my reactions were to those representations. How could I.

That was a disclosure of what happened between you and the deputation.

It is not a disclosure at all. I just wish to deal shortly with the issue of benefits paid on illness which has been raised by several hon. members. I cannot take the matter very much further than the hon. member for Pretoria (West) has done. He gave a very full reply to the allegations and the submissions which have been made. I also gave a very full reply during the second reading debate. I do not wish to repeat all those arguments again but I think I can give the Committee a little further information. I said, as other hon. members on this side have said, that this Unemployment Insurance Act was framed to give relief only to contributors who were regular workers and who were prevented from working through illness. It was never intended that this Fund should provide a source of income for persons who had left the labour market on account of chronic illness. What we are doing in this amendment is to try to eliminate this kind of person because they constitute a very heavy drain on the Fund. May I give the Committee just a few examples. I have them here. I will not detain the Committee very long. The first example I have is of a person who suffered from chronic bronchitis, a chronic illness. He received six months’ benefits in 1959; in 1960 he received six months’ benefits; in 1961 he received six months’ benefits. He never worked during those years. In 1962 he received one month’s benefits. He was declared to be permanently unfitted for work. Do hon. members want to tell me that the object of the Fund is to support the worker who suffers from this chronic illness?

How many months’ credit did he have?

His credits were probably exhausted within the first few months during which he was drawing benefits. I gave an example during the second reading debate of how the amount which a contributor received from the Fund exceeded the amount of his contributions.

In this case the Minister has quoted, if this amendment is accepted, the contributor will not qualify for his six months.

That is not intended.

I have pointed out that during a period of four years that contributor never worked, he actually drew benefits for a period of about twenty months.

It is not an insurance Fund.

Is the Minister of Information prompting the Minister of Labour?

No, I am trying to get something into your thick head.

I am trying to illustrate the case. Let me take the second example. This is a case of chronic cardiac failure and chronic exzema. These are not hard cases; these are cases taken from the record. There are dozens of them. In 1957 this man received six months’ benefits; in 1958 six months’ benefits, in 1959 six months’ benefits; in 1960 six months’ benefits. He was declared permanently unfit for work. Must the Fund carry that type of person?

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

No, I am not prepared to answer any questions at the moment. I want to deal with this subject in the proper order. This example is a case of epilepsy. This man received six months’ benefits in 1958; five months’ benefits in 1959; six months’ benefits in 1960 and seven months’ benefits in 1961. He was also declared to be permanently unfit for work. I have another case here of a man who last worked on 31 January 1958 and he drew benefits for four periods of 26 weeks each. Those are examples. Can hon. members tell me conscientiously that the Fund was intended to help that type of contributor who is unemployable, who is out of the labour market? It is no use the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) saying the Department cannot give him work. He is not fit to work. He is knocking at the wrong door. There are other avenues for him under Social Welfare where he can be assisted. Hon. members know that. The point is just this: Must the Fund go on carrying what I call the chronic sick who cannot work? The Fund is simply for the man who is employable and has a temporary period of illness. I just want to make one further point.

May I ask a question which has a direct bearing on what the hon. the Minister has just said? Would the Minister be prepared to confine this amendment to those who are chronically ill?

The amendment is quire clear, it defines certain periods during which a man must work before he can receive benefits. That is a provision in the amendment. If he does not work for those periods then it is presumed that he does not want to work or that he has a chronic illness.

I wish to reply to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). She raised the question of pregnant women who are too ill to work. I should like to refer her to Section 39 (10) of the Act which provides that if she is too ill to work she can still draw certain benefits. I will read it to the hon. member—

She can apply under that Section.

Does that supersede the new Section (e) (b)?

No. This can remain. They can apply if they have been unemployed for a period of not less than three weeks by reason of certain illnesses. So those cases can be met. I do not propose to say any more. I think Clause 2 has been fully debated.

In the examples which the hon. the Minister has given us, the contributors only received those benefits because they had the necessary credits. It does seem unreasonable to me that a man who may have been a contributor for 15 years should not be entitled to the credits which he has built up when he becomes chronically ill. The Minister argues that because he is chronically sick he should not be entitled to the credits he has built up.

He has exhausted his credits.

He cannot get them if he has exhausted his credits. That is the whole point. The Act says that the benefits which may be paid to a contributor shall not exceed one week’s benefits for each completed four weeks employment as a contributor.

There are certain cases where it can be exempted.

The Minister has given us no examples of that. The point I am making is that on the face of it it seems unreasonable in the case of a man who has built up credits not being entitled to get them because of the proposed amendment.

Credits were not intended to constitute insurance against illness.

In terms of the Act they were, and the contributions have been made in that belief. That is the point. It is not a question of what the changed attitude of the Government is to-day. We are dealing with the Act as it is and the effects of the amendment upon the Act.

We are dealing with an unemployment Act not with an insurance Act against illness.

The provisions of the Act as it stands, make provision for insurance against illness. It is not a question of what the Government thinks those provisions should be; we are dealing with the actual provisions of the Act which the Minister now seeks to amend. There is nothing more that we can say, Mr. Chairman. We are opposing this clause because there is no way of amending it which will be acceptable to you as Chairman. We have no alternative but to vote against the clause as it stands.

Question put: That paragraph (d), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—36: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B. Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Ross, D. G.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Weiss, U. M.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

NOES—68: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Wet, C.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché,J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P, S.; Maree, W. A.; Meyer, T.; Muller, S.L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

Question accordingly negatived and the paragraph omitted.

The substitution of the new paragraph (d) was then put and the Committee divided:

AYES—68: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Wet, C.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, W. A.; Meyer, T.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

NOES—36: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J.W.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Ross, D. G.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H] Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Weiss, U. M.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Substitution of the new paragraph accordingly agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—68: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bootha, L. J.C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Wet, C.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, W. A.; Meyer, T.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van der Ahee, H.H.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

NOES—36: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell. M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Ross, D. G.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Weiss, U. M.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 3,

This clause seeks to amend Section 40 of the principal Act. Section 40 of the Act is in connection with the conditions relating to payment of benefits and the existing provision says—

Then follow paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), etc. The Minister by this Bill is introducing a further prohibition as paragraphs (1) and (m). Now if (m) is adopted, the paragraph will read—

I have dealt with this provision earlier this evening and it is not my intention to have a long debate on this issue. We would like to hear what the hon. the Minister has to say in justification of the insertion of these paragraphs (1) and (m) in Section 40 of the original Act. If the hon. the Minister will give us that information, it might have the effect of shortening the debate.

I can comply with the request of the hon. member. Clause 3 (a) adds a further proviso to Section 41 of the principal Act. It is in fact only added as a result of the new sub-section (4)bis to Section 38 which has already been dealt with under Clause 1. It provides the extension of the penalty period in cases where the contributor fails, if he is requested to do so, to sign the Register during the penalty period. Clause 3 (b) adds a new paragraph (1) to Section 40 of the principal Act. The payment of benefits during the period during which contributors have been placed on short-time—this is the short-time section—has since its inception been opposed by the Unemployment Insurance Board as the Board considers that such payments afford employers the opportunity to misuse the Fund. Most employers do not resort to short-time and it would be obviously unfair to subsidize employers in certain industries only. Another reason advanced by the Board is that the payment of benefits for short-time will aggravate conditions of under-employment because more workers would be maintained in employment than is economically warranted. The result is that the industry concerned, would become permanently subsidized and the wasteful use of labour would continue. I will give a few examples of that in a moment. The Act itself is not clear in this respect, but as a result of a legal opinion payments in cases of short-time have been made. This provision in the clause now restores the position in regard to short-time as it existed prior to the ruling of the law-advisers in 1958. The effect of that ruling by the law-advisers in 1958 was that employees who did not work for a week or more owing to short-time were entitled to benefits, although they were still in employment. The amemdnent restores the original position, viz. that a person in employment cannot draw benefits, even although he is working shorttime. But I would like to point out to hon. members that Clause 2 (b) empowers the Minister to suspend this provision in an emergency.

Mr. Chairman, as I have stated, it is only in certain industries where they have continually placed their employees on short-time. I will give two examples. A certain firm in Natal, in Pietermaritzburg, which is known to the Department of Labour, has since the operation of this ruling by the law-advisers, regularly placed its employees on short-time for periods of two weeks, whereas previously short-time was only introduced occasionally for a few days at a time. In other words, they have made a practice of it to place their workers on short-time for periods of two weeks at a time. The second case was where an urgent request was received by the Board during the past week from a Cape industrial centre that additional funds to the extent of R1,000 be made available immediately to meet the demands of the 240 workers of a firm who will shortly be placed on short-time for a period of two weeks. Hon. members will see that there are certain firms who made a practice of placing their employees on short-time. They draw benefits although they are not unemployed. This is the reason why this amendment has been introduced. It is to try and obviate this practice which obviously is undesirable, because, as I have said, the effect of it is that certain industries are subsidized.

Why do they do it?

They place their employees on short-time and they then draw unemployment benefits. The wages of the employees are made up by the Fund. That is why I say that these employers are subsidized.

Then we come to the new paragraph (m). This provision will prevent people who are no longer in the labour market from drawing benefits, by laying down this qualification of 13 weeks employment whether as a contributor or otherwise, and whether continuously or not, during the year preceding the application. This will eliminate the nonworker to a very large extent. He is either a non-worker or possibly cannot work due to chronic illness. He is not a worker in the sense that he should draw benefits from the Unemployment Insurance Fund.

This will prejudice a very large number of workers.

I will give a few examples of contributors who have left the labour market without the intention of ever working again. The first case is that of a man whose last employment was from 1947 to 1959. He received benefits for 1959, for 1960, 1961, 1962, obviously never intending to work again—he may not be able to, I do not know. Then another case: Last employment from 1942 to 1960, 18 years. He received benefits in 1960, 1961, 1962. He never worked during that period. Yet another case of a woman who failed to report to the prospective employer on the grounds that she could not find the employer. The next case is that of a woman who advised the prospective employer that she was inexperienced, but this was not borne out by her record of previous experience.

She did not want to work.

Yes. The next case is that of a woman who advised her employer that she was drawing benefits and this was more profitable to her than accepting any employment. The next one I have is of a person who after being accepted for employment advised the employer that she had decided not to work again. The next one was last employed in November 1956, and received benefits for 258 days and refused suitable employment which was offered. I have an example of a woman who on marriage ceased employment and had no intention of resuming employment, but she applied for and received benefits. Last employment from 1949 to 1958; received benefits in 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that the saving envisaged by these two new paragraphs (1) and (m) amounts to R2,400,000.

I am intervening in this debate because the Minister, in giving examples, has encouraged me. I should like to give an example as well. It is from a district that the hon. the Minister knows well, from Troyeville. I think I cannot do better than read the letter of an industrious, sober, thrifty workman who is penalized under this paragraph (m). The letter is quite brief. Part of it may not be completely relevant, but I am sure you will bear with me—

Then he comes to his unemployment—

He is not a man who cannot work. He is prepared to work, but as in the case quoted by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton), he is 67 years of age, and it is difficult for him to get employment. And because he cannot get employment, we have now reduced to 26 weeks the period in which he can receive relief. I think with some justification he feels that is a broken contract. If a workman has 155 weeks’ credit, it means that he has worked for 11½ years at least, and I feel that in this case the amendment has been unduly harsh. Now he has the right of appeal. But he wants more than the right of appeal. He asks for a fair deal under the Insurance Act. He is one of the original contributors and being an original contributor, we are asking, what we asked at the second reading, that these new provisions should be made applicable to new people coming in and not to the old workers. I think this is an exceedingly hard case and I think it requires very sympathetic treatment. There must be many more like that.

Will the hon. member give me the letter?

With pleasure, Sir.

I would like to put my objection to this clause in stronger language than the language used by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore). I want to say that the introduction of this clause constitutes the breaking of a faithful contract entered into with the insured. There you have a man who has built up credits for a long period of time, and in terms of this sub-section the credit that he has built up for himself will now be prejudiced. On what grounds is this done? On the ground of a few flimsy, isolated examples that the Minister gives us here out of the 94,600 odd claims paid by the Unemployment Insurance Fund in the course of a year. On the flimsy evidence of one or two or three isolated cases, this sub-section is being introduced.

I simply gave a few cases as a cross-section.

The fund pays out on an average benefits to some 93,000 or 94,000 contributors.

This is suggested by the Unemployment Insurance Board on which the workers are represented.

I don’t know if the hon. the Minister of Information thinks that it is his duty to assist the hon. Minister of Labour because he is continuously in difficulties. Probably he feels that he is bound by fellowship, as two English-speaking Ministers, to assist his colleague. I don’t know. If I were to quote what the hon. the Minister has said about his Government in respect of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, he will at once leave the House.

I think that the evidence that the hon. the Minister has quoted, these isolated examples, bear no relation whatsoever to the plain facts that by the introduction of this provision the contract is being broken by the hon. the Minister in respect of the insurance of 768,000 contributors to the fund, and whatever way hon. members may like to paint it, it is breaking faith with the workers of South Africa.

The other aspect in respect of which I wish to say a word and to seek some further enlightenment from the hon. the Minister is why he should say that beneficiaries to the fund who are getting short-time benefits under the existing provision are being sort of exploited by unscrupulous employers, that the employers are capitalizing the situation. The hon. the Minister did not give us any explanation of that. I asked him across the floor: How and why? I would like to ask the Minister does he want employers now, whose employees have been placed bona fide on short-time to sack those employees completely, or to reduce their staff say by 50 per cent in order to keep the other 50 per cent totally employed? Most honourable employers come to an agreement with their staff in the event of them finding themselves in the position of having to place their staff on short-time. Rather than to sack 50 per cent, they come to an agreement with their employees, and because they are workers and probably have common interests, the workers agree amongst themselves to accept a reduction in hours, and to work as a total staff on shorter time. How can the Minister say that is subsidizing an employer, when in fact the Minister is now going to compel employers to no longer adopt this attitude of having negotiations with their employees, but forcing the employers now to say: Well, I can’t keep them all, because the Minister is now withdrawing those benefits, and I now have to sack half of my employees so that I can keep at least my factory going and maintain the percentage of production for which I have orders. The rest will then have to go on the street and try to get their benefits as far as they are entitled to those benefits. What is going to be a greater demand on the fund? The 50 per cent of the employees who will now claim total benefits, or the total paid in respect of short-time benefits?

He can get employed again.

Yes. but if there is no employment to be found? It is typical of the short-sighted approach that this hon. Minister has adopted in respect of this matter, and every time we come back to this excuse, which the hon. the Minister of information repeated a few minutes ago, that the Unemployment Insurance Board has recommended it. Must I give the hon. the Minister examples of his predecessors who did not adopt the attitude of the hon. the Minister, but who in spite of the recommendations of the Board acted in the interests of the workers? But the Minister all the time shields behind the excuse that he has a recommendation from the Board. I challenge the Minister now to say that he has a total, unanimous recommendation of the Unemployment Insurance Board in respect of the provisions of this Bill as it now stands. The Minister is silent, because he has not got their unanimous support. The hon. Minister undertook to submit the Bill after the second reading to the Unemployment Insurance Board, and the Minister knows that the representatives of the workers on the Unemployment Insurance Board will not accept these provisions as they are because they have since been examined. The Minister quoted a sub-committee, but he failed to tell the House that the amendments introduced in 1961, which sought to take care of the very evils the Minister talks about, in regard to the misuse of the fund, arose originally in that sub-committee, as far as I recall, and I can quote to the hon. the Minister passages from speeches by his predecessor where he referred to the very sub-committee to which the Minister now refers, and I say that it does not paint a true picture in respect of the amendment that we are being asked to approve of. For these reasons we will vote against this clause as being absolutely opposed to the interests of the workers of South Africa.

We agree that this is a limitation which is not popular; as a matter of fact, no limitation is popular. This limitation which, as the hon. the Minister has said, envisages a saving of R2,400,000, will no doubt have awkward results. But let us also consider the facts in respect of this clause in their true light. This clause which provides that a person should be employed for 13 weeks during a year also emanates from the Unemployment Insurance Board. They also discussed it and considered the matter thoroughly and here are their own words—

As hon. members know this matter was again submitted to the Board the other day, just after the T.U.C. had raised their objections. What is significant, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that at the last meeting of the board the other day when this clause was discussed, 8 voted in favour of this clause and two (The T.U.C. representatives) voted against it, but they were against it because, as their representative said beforehand, they had a mandate to vote against all amendments. It is impossible to deliberate with people like that. Surely you cannot deliberate with people who have been instructed beforehand to oppose everything. The result is that the voting which took place does not mean a thing from the point of discussion. The fact remains that after all the hullabaloo that has been raised and all the criticism and agitation we have had from the T.U.C. and the United Party, the conservative trade union representatives on the board continued to support this clause.

Although I admit that this is a limitation the fact remains that this provision that a person should be in employment for 13 weeks in a year is more accommodating than the provisions operating in any other Western country. That should be realized. It is more accommodating than the legislation of Western Germany, of Canada, of Italy and of the Netherlands. I have a list here showing what limitations they impose. This provision remains more lenient than the corresponding provision in other countries. Reference has been made to breach of contract. As has repeatedly been stated, we are dealing here with an insurance fund, not a welfare fund. If you wish to talk about breach of contract, Sir, you should not only talk about it in relation to the limitation which is being imposed here, but I can refer to other forms of breach of contract, to use their language. When this legislation was originally placed on the Statute Book, it was laid down that people who belonged to approved pension fund schemes need not contribute to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and a multitude of platteland magisterial districts were excluded. The workers in those districts do not contribute. You will be interested to know, Sir, that since 1957 this Government has brought 90 magisterial districts in under the Act and has said that the workers in those magisterial districts and the employers and municipalities have to contribute to the Fund. But not only that. During this period we have also brought in 140 pension funds who were previously excluded; we cancelled that exclusion. They are compelled to contribute to the Fund. In that case you can also argue that as far as those 90 magisterial districts which have been brought in (we are considering an additional 14 at the moment) and those 140 pension funds which have been brought in, are concerned, there has also been a breach of contract. Let me tell you this, Sir, that in the case of everyone of those abjections were raised that they did not wish to come in under the Fund. In the case of everyone they strenuously objected to contributing to the Fund, the municipalities, the employers, everyone in those areas objected. Our attitude is that it is an insurance fund and although they maintain that there is no unemployment in their districts, they nevertheless owe a duty to their employees generally to contribute their share towards the insurance of the employees in general. It can also be argued that in that case there as been a breach of contract.

At 10.25 p.m. the Deputy-Chairman stated in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.