I move—

This Bill provides that, with one exception, the regulations set out in the Schedule to the War Measures Continuation Act of 1956 are to continue in force for a further period of not more than three years, i.e., up to and including 30 June 1965. The exception is the War Measure relating to Food Control, the need for which has fallen away and which will lapse when this Bill is passed.

When the War Measures Continuation Act was passed in 1959 it seemed that the Measures embodied in the Schedule to the 1956 Act could, without exception, be regarded as being of a temporary nature and that it would be improper to incorporate them in permanent legislation. Events have shown, however, that enabling authority for certain control measures, especially those relating to import and export control, commodity control and price control, should be permanently at the disposal of the department concerned and steps are now being taken by the Department of Commerce and Industries to prepare a Bill to provide for these matters. It is hoped to have the Bill ready for introduction during the 1963 Session, but in the meantime the period of validity of the existing regulations has to be extended. These regulations are those referred to under Items 4 and 5 of the Schedule to the 1956 Act.

The other regulations which are being continued in force are those referred to under Items 1, 2, 3 and 6 of the 1956 Act. Of these, Items 1, 2 and 6 all relate to the Custodian of Enemy Property.

Although considerable progress has been made, it has for various reasons not yet been found possible to make final arrangements for the disposal of the funds vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property. This is largely due to factors beyond the control of the Government. It remains the objective of the Government, however, to come to final arrangements regarding these funds as soon as possible. Accordingly it is deemed undesirable to introduce permanent legislation to govern this matter. On the other hand it is clear that the aforementioned objective will not be attained before 30 June 1962, and it is essential that the measures in question remain in operation for the time being.

It would perhaps be appropriate at this point to announce that the Government has decided to release to their former owners all the remaining German assets still vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property, after provision has been made for meeting valid claims, registered with the Custodian, by South African citizens or companies against the German State, or persons or companies in Germany (as it existed on 6 September 1939), in respect of loss or damage suffered as a result of the war, excluding losses arising from the 1948 currency reform.

This decision accords with the Government’s policy—publicly stated on more than one occasion—not to exact any reparations from Germany, and to restore to their previous owners all property belonging to German nationals or companies, which was vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property during the war, after satisfying the legitimate claims of South African nationals or companies.

In consonance with the spirit of this policy, various concessions have been made in recent years to former owners of vested property, including interest-free loans to companies of up to 75 per cent of their vested assets. The disposal of South African claims has now reached a stage where the final restoration of the remaining vested assets can be contemplated.

As a first step, 80 per cent of the vested assets of persons or companies in the Federal Republic of Germany will be returned. It is hoped, however, that all outstanding South African claims will be disposed of by 30 June 1963, when the balance of the vested assets, if any, will also be returned pro rata.

The initial release is likely to involve an amount of approximately R7.5 million, and having regard to South Africa’s foreign exchange position, these funds will—except where otherwise agreed to by the Treasury—require to be invested in the Republic in South African stocks and shares of all descriptions, or in fixed deposits with commercial banks, and will be subject after investment, to the existing exchange control regulations. However, individual private persons whose initial release of vested assets does not exceed R2,000 per person, will be permitted upon application to transfer the released sum freely to their country of residence, whilst individuals whose initial release of vested assets exceeds R2,000 will be permitted, if they can establish that they are in necessitous circumstances, or, in the case of original owners, are in excess of 65 years of age, to transfer upon application an amount of up to R2,000 of their returned property.

All applications should be addressed to the Custodian of Enemy Property, Private Bag 175, Pretoria.

The remaining Measure which is being extended is that referred to under Item 3 of the Schedule to the 1956 Act. This Measure provides for the payment of cost-of-living allowances to employees in commerce and industry and it is imperative that it should remain in force after 30 June 1962, as, in the absence of proper control regulations, employers would not be bound to pay such allowances to their employees. The scales according to which these allowances are paid are amended by proclamation from time to time in the light of the rise and fall in the cost-of-living and, until such time as a minimum consolidated wage can be determined for all employees in commerce and industry and the cost-of-living position becomes more stable, this temporary measure cannot be abolished.

In conclusion, I should perhaps mention that in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the 1956 Act, the State President can, by Proclamation, repeal any of the regulations referred to in the Schedule to that Act, and members may rest assured that the exercise of this power will be recommended to the State President immediately the need for any of the regulations now being extended falls away.

This Bill has gradually become what one might call a hardy tri-annual in this House, and this afternoon for the first time the hon. the Minister has been able to hold out some indication that it may cease to be brought in every three years in the not too distant future. The hon. the Minister has pointed out that the time has come when he is able to consider the question of closing down the activities of the department of the custodian of enemy property. He has made a specific statement in respect of German property. I take it that this applies to German subjects in the Federal Republic, and not to Germans in East Germany.

In the Federal Republic.

Of course there is another proclamation which deals with Finland, Hungary, Rumania and Japan, and I wonder if the hon. the Minister could give us any indication as to whether or not it has also been found possible to clear that up. I do not imagine that there can be very large sums involved in respect of Finland, Hungary or Rumania, or even to-day probably in regard to Japan, and as he hopes to be able to close down the department altogether, I assume that he hopes to clear up those too. The hon. the Minister has told us that it involves something like R7,500,000 in regard to German property. Has he any idea as to the total amount still held for which the Custodian is still responsible? I imagine the German amount is by far the biggest amount, but it would be interesting to know just exactly how much there is still to be settled. The hon. the Minister has told us that the question of price control will have to be put into permanent legislation, and then there will only remain the proclamation in regard to the cost-of-living allowances. The hon. the Minister referred again to that as being a temporary thing. Sir, is it a temporary thing? Nobody can imagine that wages and salaries are going to be cut down to what they were pre-war. In other words, whilst the cost-of-living allowance to most employees is a statutory payment, it is in fact a payment which in some form or other will have to be consolidated and incorporated, and sooner or later the Government will have to grasp this nettle and decide how that is to be brought about. The Minister talks about a statutory minimum wage for commercial, employees. Well, that is a very wide statement to make, and I think he would find great difficulty in making it effective. Nevertheless I would like the Minister’s assurance that his department and the Government are applying their minds to the question of how the statutory cost-of-living allowance can be incorporated to enable this particular proclamation to be done away with and yet safeguard the people who are benefiting under it at the present time

Clause 2 of the Bill deletes Item 7. Now three years ago we were told that the Government control over food and the nutrition department were going to be wound up. In other words, the deletion of this Item 7 now appears in the Bill as was foreshadowed three years ago, and one hopes therefore that on that analogy, when it comes to 1965, the necessity for coming to this House again for a renewal of this Act will have fallen away.

It is only necessary to reply to the few questions put by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson). He asked, in the first instance, what the total amount was which the Custodian of Enemy Property had in his possession at the moment. The amount was R9,396,966 on 31 December, and this R7,500,000 which I have mentioned is more or less 80 per cent of that amount. Of that, more than R4,000,000 has already been granted to the German companies to which the property belongs in the form of interest-free loans. The balance will also be granted and the interest-free loans will then be converted.

The position in regard to Japan is that an amount of R1,250,000 belonging to Japan is still being held, but, in terms of the peace treaty with Japan, this amount has been made available for the exclusive use of the South African Government, and Japan has abandoned all her claims to it. As far as Hungary and Rumania are concerned, we only have small amounts in our possession in respect of those countries, and it is not our policy to make any money available to communist countries. It is not a large amount. Some of our people also have claims against East Germany, for example. The possibility of recovering that is very, very slight. The policy is, therefore, not to pay out to other countries, and when we have paid Germany the full amount, after deducting the claims of South Africans, nothing will be left to account for.

Is the amount in respect of Japan included in the R9,000,000?

No, it is not included in it; I suppose probably on the assumption that it already belongs to us.

The hon. member also wanted to know what the position was in respect of the cost of living. Perhaps my colleague, the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs, will explain that later on. I just want to say that it is felt that, until such time as the employees are properly protected, we cannot abolish this measure. The question as to how that protection is to be afforded is something which is still not clear at the present moment. That is precisely why it is so necessary that we continue to afford this protection to the employees.

There are two matters which I wish to refer to. The first is on page 7, line 47, where the definition is given of “director”. I am merely mentioning this matter at this stage because, otherwise, it might be difficult for us to speak on it later if it is passed now. I want to draw attention to the fact that on this side of the House we object to the appointment of a director who is not a medical man. I want also to draw attention to words in line 66 on page 11 “inactive calcified foci”. I just want to say that this is a very serious matter and it should be seriously considered by the Minister’s medical officers in conjunction with the Department of Tuberculosis of the Department of Health, which holds very strong views on this particular item, and it may require modification at some later date.

I think I have explained my attitude in regard to this matter already, and, although the Bill does not provide that the director of the bureau should be a medical man, it is contained in the whole spirit and structure of the Bill that he should be a medical man. I may also point out that the post of the director is classified under the Civil Service Commission as a professional post, and I don’t think the Civil Service Commission would allow anybody else but a professional man to be appointed as director. I have already given the assurance that, as far as I myself am concerned, I will never consider appointing another man but a medical man to that particular post. There are also two deputy directors, one of whom must be, according to the Bill, a medical man, and he will take the place of the director should there be a vacancy or should the director be away. So I think the spirit can be observed that we shall appoint a medical man, and it is not necessary to convince us in that regard. As regards the other matter, mentioned on page 11, I cannot pronounce an opinion, but I will follow the advice of the hon. member, and I shall lay that matter before my medical experts for consideration.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

In view of what the hon. the Minister has said, concerning the director, I wish to move, as an amendment—

I feel that it is absolutely essential for the definition of director to be clearly understood, not by us here alone, because we have the Minister’s assurance as to what he would like to do, but also in future. The hon. the Minister has emphasized, more so than we have, that it is essential for the director to be a medical man, and for that reason I want it enshrined in this Bill that the director shall be a medical man. I remember some years ago it was felt that an experiment should be made by appointing a non-medical man as superintendent of a hospital, and it was proved to be an utter failure. I feel that if the Minister’s intentions are that this bureau should work in harmony, not only with the doctors and the miners that come up for examination, but also the other people who are working with the director, particularly in the bureau, it is essential to have the assurance that the director shall be a medical man.

I want to support my colleague and to point out to the Minister that I am sure it is an oversight on his part, and that I accept his assurance. There are so many directions subsequent in this Bill which I would have to speak to because they cut right across medical practice and medical ethics and medical procedure and give rights over bodies of human beings, medical rights and medical privileges, to people in respect of examination, etc., which could not for one moment have been contemplated, and must have been overlooked by the Minister’s Department. If this had been carefully read by any practising doctor, I think these faults would have been found at once. I want also to point out that in Clause 3 (1) (b) of the Bill there is a definite provision that one of the deputy directors shall not be a medical man.

It does not say that.

I am sorry, it says “one of whom shall be a medical practitioner”, so the other one need not be a medical practitioner. In other words, there is an option there. And there is also an option in respect of the director. While I accept the hon. Minister’s assurance without any hesitation, it will give so much trouble in practice if a lay-director should be appointed, and it would lead to an untenable position for the profession, that I feel we should, if possible, find some way of inserting that particular amendment in the Act.

I hope the hon. the Minister will accept this amendment. He has given the assurance that he would in no circumstances appoint anyone other than a medical man. So we have no disagreement with the hon. the Minister. Sir, this is a principle of such importance that, if it is to be changed, we feel that it is right that it should be changed by Parliament and not by the Minister of the day. If some future Minister may wish to appoint a person who is not a medical man, the hon. the Minister’s assurance would not bind him in any way whatsoever. If, on the other hand, there is a provision in the Act that the Director must be a medical man, it would be necessary to come back to Parliament if there should ever be an intention to appoint a man who is not a medical man, and Parliament would have to decide. I hope the Minister, in those circumstances, will agree to accept the amendment, which is a reasonable one, and it is entirely in accord with his own views on this question.

I appreciate the attitude of hon. members and I do not want to be difficult either. I do believe however, that they should accept my word and not insist at this stage on any change. Let us leave the position as it is and if it does not work properly we can perhaps change it at a later stage.

Do you want to appoint a chiropractor?

I do not know whether the hon. member wants to be considered. I am really faced with a practical difficulty as to how to get all the amendments which are moved through the House during this Session. I think hon. members must accept it that for many years in any case the directors will be medical men and that we will not appoint a lay person.

I am not satisfied with the explanation that the hon. the Minister has given us. During the Committee Stage we might find very important provisions which have to be amended, and because it is inconvenient to the hon. the Minister at the moment, because of his departure from South Africa, I don’t think we “should be prevented from doing so. I am very sorry that this Bill was not brought before us earlier, but if the only objection is that the Minister has not got time to amend it properly, then that surely is not a valid objection. However much I would like to meet the hon, the Minister. I think we must amend this here to-day, otherwise it is useless to go on with the Committee Stage of this Bill. If that is going to be the explanation which we are going to receive all along the line; that there are practical difficulties which prevent him from accepting amendments, where and when are we going to amend the Bill? Are we going to be faced with the same position all along that it is inconvenient. Must we leave the Bill as it is? I cannot accept that, and I hope that the hon. the Minister now will give further consideration to this matter and see whether we cannot amend the Bill as we go along and have it ready as soon as possible. We on this side will not obstruct the passage of this Bill. We want to hurry it through, but where alterations are necessary, I think we have every right to state our case and surely where the Minister agrees with us. the Bill should be amended.

The Minister has said that he agrees with the views expressed by this side of the House. He has asked us to leave the Bill as it is and see how it works. While this Minister is Minister of Mines it will work because he says he will appoint a medical man as director. But if his successor wishes to appoint somebody other than a medical man as a director he will be able to do so. That Minister will not have to amend the Act because he may decide to change the principle of appointing a medical man; he may appoint somebody else. Obviously that Minister will not have to amend the Act and we cannot do anything to amend it. The only time we can assure that this position is maintained is by moving an amendment at this stage. If, instead of saying “Let us see how it works and I will amend it later” the Minister were to say “I assure you I will amend it in the Other Place” we would accept that. If the Minister says that he cannot accept the amendment for practical reasons I want to point out, as the hon. member for Rosetten-ville (Dr. Fisher) has pointed out, that we are hoping for other amendments to be accepted in this Committee Stage; so the Bill will possibly have to be repreinted. We can assure the Minister that we want to expedite matters as much as possible so that we will not be responsible if it is not passed before the Minister’s departure.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister please to accept this because if he does not he will, on medical grounds alone, he faced with another five or six amendments which are contingent and which he will have just as much difficulty in rejecting. It is true that in this instance he says he will appoint a medical man as director. There are instructions to directors here which are completely inconsistent with his being anything but a doctor. I will be forced to move further amendments if this is not settled now.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that hon. members on the Opposition side have time and again had the assurance from the Minister …

We do not doubt that.

If they say they do not doubt it and they accept the word of the Minister, they say later on that there may be another Minister. It is not only the Minister who decides on this matter. We were given the assurance during the second reading debate and we know the position is that this Bill which has been submitted to us is the result of very thorough investigation and study which we all appreciate. That also applies to the clause which deals with the composition of the board and the appointment of the director. Hon. members opposite must not think that they are the only people who represent mine workers. We also represent mine workers and we are more concerned about the interests of the mine workers than hon. members opposite. We will not hesitate for one moment to ask and to apply for the Act to be amended, once it becomes law, if this clause does not operate effectively. If we are not satisfied and if the mine workers who we represent are not satisfied with the operation of this legislation and with the director appointed, we will not hesitate for one moment to suggest that the law be amended. Nor is that anything strange; it is not strange at all. Why don’t we pass this clause in view of the fact that we have the assurance of the Minister, an assurance which is accepted by the Opposition. They need not be afraid; it makes no difference who is Minister of Mines. If this method of appointing a director does not work properly and does not give satisfaction we will see to it that the law is changed.

I want to make an appeal to my colleagues on the other side. I agree with them that it should be specified in the Act that the director should be a medically qualified person. However, if that is going to delay this Bill I will be obliged to vote against the amendment. That is why I want to make an appeal to them and ask them that whatever amendments we wish to suggest we should submit to the Minister and leave it to the Minister to introduce a whole series of amendments next year in the light of what we have been discussing here this afternoon. We will also have the opportunity during the course of the year of ascertaining what amendments should be effected. The Minister will then be able to submit to the House all those amendments in an amending Bill next session. I think that will be the best way of disposing of this matter otherwise it may mean that this legislation does not go through this Session. That is why I am asking my hon. colleagues to agree to it that we only submit the amendments to the hon. the Minister and that he comes with amending legislation next session.

I just want to point out to the Minister that he is already getting into difficulties due to his refusal to accept the amendment because in Clause 3 (2) (a) he is giving the director powers to instruct doctors and how they should carry out medical examinations, obviously something which he is not competent to do. I do not propose to stress the point but I just want to show that this is the start of the difficulties which await him and also to show how loosely this Bill has been drafted.

Clause 3, as printed, put and agreed to.

Arising out of the refusal of the Minister to accept the amendment we find ourselves in further difficulties here. We find that if we leave the clause as it stands, namely that a non-medical man can be a director, he will be able to enter or to interfere with any examinations that take place in any institutions. I do not know how he is going to get the medical men to co-operate with him. Because according to this clause this man may “attend any medical examination of such a person at such a place; and with the consent of any such person, examine him medically at such a place; and inspect any instrument …” How you can expect a non-medical man to do all that I do not know. And you must remember, Sir, that we are dealing with women as well as men here. There is provision here for women. If we do not amend this we will henceforth have to object wherever the director is given power to do something because it will otherwise mean that we will be allowing non medical people to attend medical examinations. I think a big mistake has been made and we have to make up our minds at this stage whether we cannot start amending the various clauses. Otherwise it means that we must just put everything aside, go on with some other work and give the Minister a chance of going through the Bill again. That is what it means. We are going to have this over and over again. I am telling you, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to obstruct the proceedings. I promise we will not obstruct, but we are forced to put these questions before you, Sir. We expect a reasonable answer from the Minister why this Bill does not provide that medical men should be in charge of these various examinations. It is no good the Minister telling us that he will see to it that a medical man is appointed as director.

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

I am speaking to the clause, Mr. Chairman.

No, the hon. member is talking about a medical man.

The director, Sir. “The director or any medical practitioner …” are the first words of this clause.

The hon. member is saying that the director should be a medical man, and that is not in this clause.

In that case, I will move the following amendment—

That will make sure that a medical man will be in charge of those various medical examinations.

I have already appealed to my colleagues on that side of the House not to be petty and small-men. Had they done their homework properly, they would have discovered for themselves that this whole matter is just a hypothetical case. If you read Clause 4 it says—

1. attend any medical examination of such a person at such a place; and
2. with the consent of any such person, examine him medically at such a place.

I ask the hon. member for Durban (Central) whether anybody who is not a medical man can perform those duties. He cannot medically examine anybody if he is not a medical man and that is a service which he should perform. For that reason the Minister cannot appoint anybody but a medical man as a director of this bureau.

I should like to put a point to the hon. the Minister. Let me read Clause 4, leaving out certain words: “The Director … may … (b) with the consent of any such person examine him medically at such a place”. This provision allows the director even if he is not a medical man to conduct a medical operation. The Minister agrees with us in principle. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider seriously to make an appropriate amendment in the Other Place; it will not delay matters. I think we are all absolutely at one that the director should be a medical man.

Order! That point has been disposed of.

What I want to point out, Sir, are the difficulties which arise from that decision; I am not reflecting on the decision which has been accepted. But it does give rise to very grave difficulties. Strictly speaking, Sir, we should insert a qualification into this and a host of other clauses. Naturally we want to avoid delay because we are all anxious to see this Bill on the Statute Book as soon as possible.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out briefly that if this amendment is accepted as suggested, if I understand it correctly, it will mean that if the director is a medical man—which he will be—then the director will not have the power to perform these duties. If this amendment is accepted, the director, if he is a medical man, will be deprived of that right. I think that makes the position even worse. I think hon. members must accept it that the director will be a medical man. But just say he is not, the fact remains that in terms of this clause the nonmedical director will appoint a medical man to perform these duties. There can not be any doubt whatsoever, therefore, that a nonmedical director will perform such duties as arranging medical examinations.

Sir, this amendment is designed to try to overcome the difficulty which arises because the director is not necessarily a medical man. I cannot agree with my two colleagues who are splitting hairs and who are really speaking against their professional consciences to some extent. I am not defending the privileges of doctors, by no means. What I hope to do by what I am saying now is to defend the private lives of the individuals being examined. These people trust the doctors. They trust them with confidential knowledge. They tell certain things to us and we discover other things in our examinations, things which the patients themselves often do not know about. In terms of Clause 4 (2) documents must be placed at the disposal of the director. Under the Bill the director may not be a medical man. This is trespassing on the private rights of the individual and it is crashing through the doctor/patient relationship. It will make us expose things without the consent of the patient. This director can go in while the man is being examined. It is not as the hon. member for Geduld (Dr. Jurgens) says that only a doctor can examine him. I do not want to discuss that for the moment but I think he is wrong. The fact is that while a doctor, any doctor, or a doctor instructed by the director is examining somebody—and as my colleague says it might be a woman—the director can go in. He can stand there while the man or woman is being examined. That is a gross breach of the rights of the individual.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear to me that in terms of this clause nobody other than a medical man will ever be asked to perform these duties. I have already said that the way this Bill has been drafted indicates to me that the director must be a medical man. It is clear to me from the clause that that must be the case. I cannot imagine a director who is not a medical man doing those duties. I want to be helpful, however, and I want to ask hon. members to be helpful. If it will help the position I want to say this to them: When we have disposed of this Bill I will consider, in consultation with my expert advisers, bringing about the necessary changes in the Other Place; or if it cannot be done, I will consider introducing legislation at a later stage. I will consider, in the light of what may still happen, whether that can be done. If there are no insurmountable difficulties—those I foresee at the moment can perhaps be overcome—I will try to consider it in the Other Place.

Dr. FISHER: I want to say to the Minister that we are grateful for the attitude which he has adopted; I am sure we will get satisfaction.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

In Clause 7, I want to delete paragraph (a) of sub-section (6). I feel that in the establishment of a certification committee it is absolutely unfair to debar people who have become insolvent or who have made arrangements with their creditors. I do not know why that should be inserted. I have seen it in many Bills which have come before this House, but I cannot understand why that clause is inserted. We find people who give a lot of their time to public work and then find themselves in financial difficulties, and they may have to make arrangements with their creditors. What happens to a perfectly decent, honest man who meets with an accident? He may be knocked over and find difficulty in meeting his financial commitments, and he makes arrangements with his creditors. Is that a disgrace? Should that debar him from serving on one of these committees? He is not a thief or a forger, but a perfectly honest man who finds himself in financial difficulties, and I cannot see why such a clause should be included, not only in this Bill but in other Bills as well, and I feel that the Minister should consider the advisability of having it removed.

Do you not think that if you have a member on the certifying committee who is in financial difficulties he will be open to bribes?

It need not be a person who is insolvent or in financial difficulties only who is tempted to accept bribes. I do not think that holds good at all, and I do not think we can say that a person who has been serving on this Board loyally for years should be removed if he finds himself in financial difficulties. I think it is rather disgraceful to think that people like that may be looked upon with suspicion, and that it may be said that because they find themselves in financial difficulties they may be open to bribery and corruption. Therefore I move the amendment standing in my name—

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that this particular clause teems with problems relating to the chairmanship, giving powers of subpoena of the chairman of the Committee to subpoena doctors and to insist on their answering questions. I think it should be carefully revised in association with the Minister’s medical advisers.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

This clause reads as follows, inter alia—

That gives me the impression that the cardiorespiratory functions are only tested after it has been found that he suffers from pneumoconiosis. The Minister has already indicated that cardio-respiratory tests will be carried out and that they will form part of the examination in order to determine whether the mine-worker suffers from pneumoconiosis. Consequently it appears to be somewhat vague. It creates the impression that the cardio-respiratory tests will only be carried out. after it has been ascertained on other grounds that he is suffering from pneumoconiosis. I do not know how this clause can be changed but I feel that the impression that the cardio-respiratory tests will not be used in determining whether he is suffering from pneumoconiosis, should be removed. I should like the Minister to put that right.

In regard to Clause 9 (2), here we have a case where if the miner dies and he had not been certified as suffering from pneumoconiosis before his death, but it is subsequently found that he was suffering from pneumoconiosis, his widow would be entitled to a pension if in the opinion of the Committee the impairment of his cardio-respiratory functions was not less than 20 per cent. Previously the position was that on the death of a miner, if at a post mortem it was found that he had the slightest trace of dust in his lungs, the widow became entitled to the payment of R960. Now, however, we are providing that it must be established that there was not less than 20 per cent impairment of his lungs before his widow is entitled to a pension. I suggest that that will be an injustice to certain widows in comparison with those who received benefits under the old Act. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the words “by not less than 20 per cent” be deleted. In other words, as soon as it is established on the death of a miner that pneumoconiosis was a cause of his death, then the widow will be entitled to receive a pension. For those reasons I would like to move—

The clause will then read—

I would like the Minister to give his favourable consideration to this amendment in order to obviate any injustices which widows may have to suffer.

I am sorry but I cannot accept the amendment, not because of lack of sympathy but because I do not think it is necessary. Medical men tell us that an impairment of the cardio-respiratory function of 1 per cent up to 20 per cent is practically what you find in a normal person. Most of us sitting in this House already suffer from a 1 per cent to 20 per cent impairment. That was why I already said in a previous debate that where the comparable stage under the old set-up was 1 per cent to 33 per cent, we had now reduced it to 1 per cent to 20 per cent, in other words, the mine workers qualify for the next stage much sooner. Most of the mine workers who are in the first stage to-day will fall under the new first stage under the new set-up. I wish to add that in future their dependants will immediately be entitled to a pension. In other words the fact that we have reduced it from 33 per cent to 20 per cent will have practical benefits. The granting of a pension to that widow will be of great benefit to her. I think this Bill provides for greater benefits to that class of persons whom the hon. member has mentioned, than in the past.

I just want to point out to the Minister that the lung functions of this person would have been examined during his lifetime and had an impairment of his lung functions been discovered of over 20 per cent he would have been certified in the first stage. But that was not done. It is difficult to leave that to the people who examine them after their death without applying an actual lung function test; they simply have to judge whether he suffered from a 20 per cent impairment. They would be inclined to find that he had been tested and that his lung function was under 20 per cent, because had it been over 20 per cent he would have been certified. I should like the Minister to discuss this point with his advisers, because we know that in spite of all the clinical tests you find more signs of silicosis after death than can be determined by these clinical tests.

I think the Minister would be well advised to accept the suggestion made by the hon. member for Geduld (Dr. Jurgens) in support of my amendment because the hon. member has had extensive experience of miners. I think he is talking from experience when he says that there are so many of these cases where you get the position that you just cannot define a degree of up to 20 per cent impairment. No matter what pathological tests are carried out during a man’s lifetime, his lung function may show very little trace of impairment, but on post mortem examination you do find impairment, which unfortunately may not be as much as 20 per cent. Although the Minister may be correct when he says that a person is in a fairly normal condition when you have between 1 per cent and 20 per cent impairment of your lungs, it is not scientifically proved correct. As the hon. member for Geduld says, you are able to carry out a post mortem examination when the condition of the lungs can be examined much more satisfactorily than during a man’s lifetime. I would like the Minister to give reconsideration to this matter, so that we do not cause undue hardship to a number of widows.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

I want to ask the Minister whether he will consider also sending the report containing the findings of the Committee to the doctor of the mine worker. This Bill provides that the Bureau can ask the doctor of the mine worker for a report on his health but there is nothing to indicate that the Bureau in turn should give information to the doctor. I think it will greatly assist the doctor of the mine worker if he received information from the Bureau in regard to its findings. That will guide him in the treatment of the patient. That is why I should like to see the Bureau not only reporting to the owner of the mine but to the doctor as well.

As the hon. the Minister knows, it has been my desire to have this liaison established between the Bureau and the panel doctor We have discussed that during several debates now and I think the time to do something about it is now. The Minister must please realize that the panel doctors are the people who look after the miners. The Bureau has nothing to do with the treatment of the miner. All they do is to see whether he is fit to go underground, but the panel doctors are the people who have to see to keeping these people fit, and they cannot do that unless they have a comprehensive and detailed report from the Bureau. For those reasons I wish to support the hon. member for Geduld.

I have listened attentively to the two suggestions. I know that the Bureau has previously considered the idea but the Bureau has encountered certain practical difficulties in submitting reports to the doctors, and they do not want to lay that down as policy. That is why I want to ask that it should not be made obligatory for the Bureau to do so but that it should be left to them to do so voluntarily and that the Bureau as a matter of policy and where necessary, can send those reports. I am sure the Bureau will do so where they think it will be in the interests of the patient, particularly under the new set-up where the patient is examined as a patient in more than one respect. But I do not think we should make it obligatory on the Bureau.

Clause put and agreed to

On Clause 13,

I rise to say that I welcome the fact that we are creating a board of review, and I am sure this provision will give satisfaction to all hon. members in this House. I would like in respect of this clause to say a special word in regard to the very great interest shown in the phthisis sufferer, and the efforts made on their behalf by the hon. member for Roset-tenville (Dr. Fisher). I believe that he can feel very satisfied that he has at least had a very fair share in having this provision included in our statutes and I want to congratulate him.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 15,

I am disturbed about the time limit in paragraph (1) of this clause in regard to the review of cases. There is a limitation. Review is only possible where this has been requested so within 60 days of the date of the finding. I think that is reasonable in so far as the man himself is concerned, because there is no point in a review because he can have a further examination in terms of another provision 180 days after the original examination. But it is quite different in relation to the dependants of a deceased person. There may be quite a delay. The person may be ill and dying and may not even be aware of it. His dependants may not know and if they did not ask for a review within 60 days after the date on which the finding was expressed, they would find themselves without a remedy. As far as the courts of law are concerned, whenever there is a provision of this sort, the court has an inherent right to deal with hard cases. I do not believe that that would apply in the case of the reviewing authority. One does not want to delay this matter, but I raise this matter with the hon. the Minister and ask him to go into it, because I believe it is only right and proper, where the dependants can show that they did not know of the decision, and it is for that reason that they did not apply in time, that the reviewing authority in its discretion should grant an extension of the period. Perhaps the Minister would consult his advisers and move an amendment in the Other Place. Otherwise I hope the point will be noted for the future, because I believe that the reviewing authority should have a clear discretion to allow an extension of the period in a proper case.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 16 put and agreed to.

On Clause 17,

This provision relates to the finality of the finding of the Committee, the finding of a joint meeting of the Committee and the reviewing authority, subject to the provisions of Clauses 16 and 17, this decision shall be final and no court of law shall have authority to set it aside. I would just like to be clear. I think the position is that after the elapse of the period provided, namely 180 days the Board itself can review such a finding, which could again be taken on review. I want to be assured that the Board itself has the authority to alter a finding of the reviewing authority after 180 days. If the Board came to one conclusion and the reviewing authority overruled it, … [Interjection.] I am referring to the Committee against whose finding there is an appeal to the reviewing authority. The decision of that reviewing authority is final and cannot be varied except on the ground that the Committee exceeded its powers or acted irregularly. I believe that is the position, but I would like to be assured that the Committee on a subsequent occasion, after the lapse of the period of time laid down in the Act, will be able to review the finding of the review committee.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 22,

I want to ask the Minister whether he will delete the words “likely” in line 28 to “that” in line 32. I cannot move it because this is an agreed measure. If these words were deleted it would mean that the periodical examination and the cancellation of certificates will be limited to those people who become physically disabled for reasons other than pneumoconiosis. The reason why I want these words deleted is the fact that they include pneumoconiosis, because it reads that if the director has reason to believe that the performance by the person concerned of work in a dustry atmosphere is likely to endanger his own health, if the directors find that the person will probably contract pneumoconiosis or tuberculosis the director may deprive him of his certificate to work underground. If you read Clauses 71 and 72 you will see that any person is only certified as suffering from pneumoconiosis when he is 20 per cent disabled. Assuming that he suffers a 19 per cent disability when he is examined it is obvious that the following year and the year thereafter he will at least be 20 per cent disabled. In other words we are giving the director the right, when the miner is 19 per cent this year and will surely be 20 per cent the following year and when he will be certified, simply to certify everybody from one per cent to 19 per cent because it is at that stage that it is assumed that he will probably suffer from pneumoconiosis to the extent of 20 per cent and over, and it is only when he is 20 per cent that he receives benefits. If he is put out of the mine at this stage because they are very sure he will very probably suffer from over 20 per cent pneumoconiosis next year they can simply put him out. In other words we are giving the Bureau the right to thwart the entire Act in future. Everybody who is a mine worker suffering less than 20 per cent can now be put out of the mine under this clause and not a single person will receive benefits. If the director were to carry out this clause to the letter he would say in all his examinations where the man is 19 per cent that he should be put out of the mine because he will probably contract pneumoconiosis. I cannot move an amendment because this is an agreed measure, and only the Minister is aware of the extent to which this clause and the way I have interpreted it formed a substantial part of the agreed measure. If it did not form a substantial part of it I hope the Minister will see his way clear to delete these words as suggested by me. But if the Minister says that it did indeed form a substantial part of the agreed measure between the interested bodies, the Chamber of Mines and the Mine workers’ Union, I feel very sorry for the Minister but even more sorry for the mine workers because the entire Bill centres around this. I cannot do it because I accept this as an agreed meassure; only the Minister can judge whether he can do it without committing a breach of the very crux of the agreement. If the Minister says he cannot do so because it formed a substantial part of the agreement it is a very serious matter and I trust the Minister will tell us in his reply that we cannot leave the matter at that and that it will be reviewed next year. That is what I am pleading for. I am asking for those words to be deleted and if they are not deleted I want to point out with what great circumspection this House should in future treat agreed measures.

It is not precisely clear which words the hon. member suggests should be deleted.

In line 28 from “likely” to the word “that” in line 32. The Bureau will have the right to cancel a person’s certificate for any reasons except pneumoconiosis. If we retain those words, I contend—and nobody can deny it—that it will be possible to put every mine worker out of the mine without any compensation. This is something very dangerous. If that is not the object, why are these words there? I ask in all seriousness for the deletion of those words and if they cannot be deleted I say that I am seriously convinced that that is their object.

I think my hon. friend is unnecessarily worried. The object of the Bureau is not to harm mine workers but to protect them. This provision in regard to which he has expressed his concern already appears in the existing Act; it is an old provision and we do not know of any serious difficulties, which my hon. friend foresees having arisen under the old Act nor do I see any reason why they should arise. This provision has really been inserted to protect the mine worker. When the Bureau is of the opinion that his health will be seriously affected if he continues to work in the mine and that he may contract tuberculosis or pneumoconiosis, only then will his certificate be cancelled in his own interests and in the interests of his co-workers. The object is to protect him and not to harm him. It has been applied with great discretion and great care in the past and I can assure my hon. friend that in future too, in the interests of the worker, it will be applied with care and discretion.

I accept what the hon. the Minister has said but what I do not accept is where he says that that has been the position under the old Act. It could not operate like that under the old Act because under the old Act the mine worker was certified as suffering from pneumoconiosis from 0 per cent to 20 per cent. That was why I said that the clause should be read together with Clauses 71 and 72; there you will see that when he reaches 20 per cent he no longer qualifies. That is the point. He did receive benefits under the existing Act and the Bureau could not cheat him, but the Bureau can cheat him in future. If he reaches 19 per cent in future the Bureau can put him out of the mine but the Bureau could not do it under the old Act because he had qualified; he qualified up to 20 per cent, as first degree, which is not the position to-day. I only wish to have clarity on the point.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 31,

Sir, it will be found that this clause is a very difficult one to administer in practice. It may lead to difficulties because it again breaks across the confidence between the doctors and their patients. It does more; it forces a doctor to notify a disease without the consent of the patient when that disease is not a notifiable disease. The principle underlying notifiable diseases is that such diseases shall be a threat to the health of the neighbours or to the health of the community as a whole. Nobody by any stretch of imagination could say that pneumoconiosis is infectious. I am not discussing tuberculosis now because that it is notifiable in any case as an infectious disease. But here we are dealing with a disease which is an industrial disease and which is not a threat to the health of the community as a whole, and yet the doctor is ordered to notify the director of the disease. Firstly, it is going to be difficult to make the doctors appreciate the necessity of that, the older doctors at any rate, because we as doctors appreciate the importance of protecting the community and we do not think in terms of the community being affected by such a disease. That is the first objection. The second point is that if a doctor is faced with a notifiable disease, he can say to the patient, “Look here, you have smallpox and I am going to notify the Department of Health”. There can be no objection to that. There is no ethical or legal objection to it; in fact there is a legal obligation on the doctor to notify the disease because that person is a danger to the community. One might therefore describe the doctor’s duty in this regard as a duty to the community. But here we are dealing with something quite different. Take a man who is living in South West Africa and who is suffering from pneumoconiosis. He has worked on a controlled mine and to-day he has quite a good job. If we now say to him, “We are going to tell the Bureau that you may be suffering from pneumoconiosis”, he is going to say to us, “You can’t do that; I don’t want any interference with my job; I don’t want my employer to know that I have something wrong with me. My employer is one of these neurasthenics who thinks that anybody coughing is going to give him tuberculosis or something of that nature; I do not give you my consent to inform the Bureau”. What is the doctor’s duty at this stage? That is where the difficulty will arise. The difficulty will arise in that type of case and it will arise from ignorance of the law on the part of the doctor. Either this provision must be dropped or some way must be found to notify the doctors as to what they are to do; some way must be found for the Universities to teach the students and some way must be found to incorporate the whole thing in the Department of Health. I think the only way in which the difficulty could be overcome perhaps would be to ask the Department of Health to issue notices, or something of that nature, when they issue their ordinary notices with regard to notifiable diseases. Sir, this is an objectionable clause and it will lead to great difficulties.

This clause is not a new one. It is exactly the same as the old section, and the old section never caused any trouble. I cannot agree with the hon. member as far his fears are concerned.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 32,

There is the same objection to this clause, except that it is a little less objectionable because the widow can at least object, but it also gives the director the power to order doctors to do post-mortems. That is a power which is usually not vested in people other than magistrates; and since the magistrate is a local authority who knows who habitually does or does not do postmortems, I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should, perhaps, use the mechanism of the magistrates who would employ the doctors whom they know usually does post-mortems. It is no good the hon. the Minister telling me, as he has just told me, that this provision was also contained in the old Act. If it was in the old Act, it was probably not opposed.

I just want to know whether the Minister has considered the possibility of making it obligatory for the district surgeon of the area to do the post-mortem? I think if we did that and relieved the practising doctor of that onus, then it would cover the position. Will he make a note of that and see whether he cannot employ the district surgeon of the area to do the post-mortems? I think that our objection would then fall away.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 48,

I wish to ask the hon. the Minister to give us an assurance that the representatives in terms of Clause 48 (2) (b) will indeed be the representatives of those people who work in the dusty sections of the mine and that the unions will not have the right to nominate other people to serve on the General Council for Pneumoconiosis Compensation.

In following up the remarks of the hon. member for Geduld (Dr. Jurgens) I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he classifies the underground officials as employees who also work in a dusty atmosphere and whether he will give the assurance to this Committee that the underground officials’ association as such, and their members, will receive recognition and representation on this General Council for Pneumoconiosis Compensation. I do not know if it was the intention of the hon. member for Geduld to exclude members of this body, but it is a wrong conception that they are not also employees of the mines where work is performed in a dusty atmosphere. I would like to get some clear assurance from the hon. the Minister that this organization will be included for consideration as members of the General Council.

Sub-section (7) provides that—

I do not know why members of Parliament, Senators and M.P.C.s should be grouped with insolvent persons. What I am surprised to find is that an ex-criminal who may have served a term of imprisonment and even a murderer who has served a life sentence is allowed to serve on this council. On the other hand, a man who has made an arrangement with his creditors is not permitted to serve on this council. I do not understand why this distinction is being made here and not in other clauses. I would like the Minister to tell me why he does not bar people who have served a prison sentence or who were sentenced to a fine exceeding, say, R100. I would like to hear the Minister’s views on that.

As far as the requests made by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) and Geduld (Dr. Jurgens) are concerned, I merely wish to say that the Minister determines the basis of the representation on this council: that must still be determined, but the idea is not that the representation should be on the basis of the trade unions. The trade unions as such will not really be represented. The representation will be in proportion to the numerical strength of the trade unions which have to be considered under this legislation. If a large number of the members of the particular trade union to which the hon. member referred, worked in a dusty atmosphere, that would be taken into account. The representation will be on a proportional basis according to the number of members of a trade union working in a dusty atmosphere and which are affected by this legislation.

The position in regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) is simply this: This provision that nobody who is insolvent or who has come to a compromise with his creditors may be nominated to the Council, is a provision which appears in many of our laws as far as I know and there is a very good reason for that. The provision is simply repeated in this legislation; it is customary to have this provision.

Can the Minister tell me why a former criminal is not excluded?

Order! That does not form part of the Clause.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 62,

Sub-section (2) of this clause provides—

If there is a danger of you losing your money I do not think it is such a wonderful thing to invest with the Public Debt Commissioners. I should like these funds to be invested as profitably as possible to the benefit of the fund and not with an investing institute where you run the risk of suffering a loss. I do not know why this provision has been inserted. I should like to see the moneys of the fund invested in the most profitable way possible to the fund.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 64,

I would like the hon. the Minister to consider the question of putting a medical man, a health officer, of experience on his committee. When the Pneumoconiosis and Tuberculosis Committee was investigating pneumoconiosis in 1954 we found that there were many other factors besides dust and ventilation which entered into the picture. It is true that these are the chief problems faced by the mining engineers, and they deserve great credit for what they have accomplished in this regard. But we found that there were also other problems such as the miner coming up from the heat below and being exposed to draughts on the way to change-rooms and sanitation. Those are things which the trained medical eye can pick up fairly easily and can consider, if added to the risk of pneumoconiosis. I think the hon. the Minister should consider, together with his advisers, the question of including in the pneumoconiosis risk committee a man who has those qualifications.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 71,

This clause provides for the new basis of certification of pneumoconiosis sufferers. During the second reading debate we, on this side of the House, said that we were dissatisfied with the new basis of certification. The first stage now is from 15 per cent to 50 per cent, the second stage from 50 per cent to 75 per cent and the third stage from 75 per cent onwards. We showed that it is medically accepted that where a miner’s health has been impaired to the degree of 75 per cent, he can be regarded for all practical purposes as “technically dead”, as of no further value to the industry as such, and he certainly becomes a burden to his family. We feel that the percentage of 75 is too high, and that it should at least be reduced to 65 per cent. Once it is certified that a miner has contracted pneumoconiosis to the extent of 65 per cent, he should receive the fullest possible benefits in terms of this Act. Sir, I do not think it is further necessary to enlarge upon the reason for this. The subject was dealt with very comprehensively and, I think, effectively, by this side of the House during the second reading debate, and in view of that I would like to move the following amendment—

The effect of this amendment will be that a pneumoconiosis sufferer will now be entitled to receive the fullest compensation when it has been certified that his health has been affected to the extent of 65 per cent.

I would like to know from the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) whether there are any technical grounds for this amendment of his. Is there any scientific reason for suggesting 65 per cent instead of 75 per cent or is it mere conjecture on his part? On what does he base his opinion? If he has no idea as to why he moves this amendment, then I think it is just a stupid suggestion he is making here. I think we should wait to see what the actual position is in the future. I think the figure of 65 per cent suggested by him is just an arbitrary figure.

You are getting a bit above yourself calling people stupid.

I think it is a stupid suggestion to say that it should be changed from 75 per cent to 65 per cent unless there are some scientific data supporting that suggestion.

I am rather surprised at the attitude of the hon. member for Geduld (Dr. Jurgens). I would like to know from him whether he has any scientific basis for saying that 65 per cent is not the correct figure. Sir, when this 75 per cent figure was laid down, it was established on the basis of the old fourth stage, or otherwise we on this side of the House have not received the correct information from the sources that came to this decision. We want this figure reduced to 65 per cent for a specific purpose, and we are not foolish and we are not stupid and we are not insincere when we ask for this. During the second reading debate some of us on this side of the House made it quite clear that when a person is put into the fourth stage, which is the stage which is now equivalent to above 75 per cent, by that time he has not many years to live. If the hon. member for Geduld thinks that I am wrong, he must get up and tell me. We ask for the fourth stage to be altered so that persons who draw fourth stage benefits will be allowed the privilege of receiving benefits for a longer period. It was no use these people in the fourth stage getting benefits when they only had a year or two to live. As I said in this House, without any exaggeration, one of my patients had the privilege of receiving only two cheques in his fourth stage before he was dead. It is for that reason that we say that the fourth stage to-day is on the same level as the 75 per cent proposed by the hon. the Minister. It is because we want the miner to be able to draw benefits for an extra period that we ask that 65 per cent be substituted for 75 per cent. I want to tell the hon. member for Geduld that if he had taken the trouble to read the report of the 1959 Commission he would have seen that 75 per cent incapacitation virtually means that the man is in the fourth stage of pneumoconiosis, and it is for that reason that we on this side of the House, without exception, ask for 65 per cent to be introduced instead of 75 per cent. I was hoping that some hon. member from the other side who spoke on these lines would have been here to support us to-day.

I have already explained my problem in connection with this question of the lowering from 75 per cent to 65 per cent at the second reading but I wish to emphasize it again. In practice, when a person reaches the fourth stage he can no longer work. I am referring to the existing fourth stage.

The third stage.

We are talking about 75 per cent, the last stage. That person is a sick man; I do not dispute that but it was tantamount to a more or less 85 per cent impairment of his ability to breath. Under this Bill it is now reduced to 75 per cent. Instead of 85 per cent as it is at the moment, it is now being reduced to 75 per cent. If we have to reduce it still further to 65 per cent I should like to know from the hon. member for Rosettenville whether he wishes all those workers to be certified as being unable to continue to work and that they should leave their jobs. I am convinced that when a mine worker has lost 65 per cent, of his ability to breath he has sufficient spirit left in him not to want to leave his work; he wants to continue to work. That is why I cannot possibly support this amendment, although we feel sorry for these people.

The actual position is that when it is found that a mine worker has lost 50 per cent of his ability to breath he is no longer allowed to work in a dusty part of the mine; in that event he is already no longer allowed to work underground; he has to work above ground. If he has lost 75 per cent or more of that ability he can continue to work if he wishes to do so but after 50 per cent he is no longer allowed to work in a dusty part of the mine. In that case he has to work above ground or somewhere else. The Minister’s advisers told us that they had found in the past that in the fourth stage mine workers suffered from 85 per cent impairment of their lung functions and that was why they recommended that 75 per cent should be stipulated, which is 10 per cent less. The mine worker therefore benefits to the tune of 10 per cent. I agree that we do not have sufficient data on this matter. That was why I said that the hon. member for Springs did not have sufficient data of a scientific nature or any data in connection with the lung function tests to say that this or that percentage was the correct percentage. I should rather see that we leave it as it is for a year and see what happens and then the Minister can come back within a year’s time and say: 75 per cent is too high or 50 per cent is too high, let us make the first stage from 15 per cent to 30 per cent or from 25 per cent or whatever it may be according to the data. I feel, however, that this is a reasonable basis for the time being and after a year’s experience the Minister can tell us what the experience has been.

I agree with the hon. member for Odendaalsrus (Dr. Meyer). I think we need concern ourselves with the problem of finding work for those people who are going to be put out of the mines. First of all, they will already be working on the mine surface, but if they are not working on the mine, we must take this into consideration with the provisions that are made later on in the Bill whereby the Minister is encouraging the mines to teach second trades; to give the people who are unfit for work underground the privilege of learning another trade or assisting them to get an entry into commerce and industry. So there we have already the picture in front of us of a man who works until he has the 50 per cent disability. Then he is found to be unfit to work underground, and he is probably being given a job on the surface, but when he reaches the 65 per cent, as I see it, he is no longer fit to work on a mine property, and then he should be given a job which perhaps he can just do quietly, a couple of hours a day, an overseer’s job perhaps, a caretaker’s job or something of that kind. Because those people cannot do ordinary work.

We should not forget that we are in a responsible position whether we are on the Government side or on the Opposition side. It is a very popular plea and one which I should very much like to support to ask that certification should take place at 65 per cent in respect of the last stage instead of 75 per cent as far as the ability to breath is concerned; but we do not know what the financial implications will be. We do not have the facts and details at our disposal. I said during the course of the second reading debate that we were all anxious to see the mine worker leaving his underground work, the dusty atmosphere in which he works, at an earlier stage, and work in a different atmosphere. But in that case you must place him in the financial position to do so. Otherwise I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Odendaalsrus that we will not be doing the mine worker a favour by certifying him earlier and forcing him to leave his work. The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) has repeatedly said that while the mine worker worked underground he should be trained to do other work which he can then do when he can no longer work underground and when he is certified. The hon. member must remember, however, that you must also take the labour market into account. After 20 or 25 years’ service underground the man has been trained to do other work; he leaves the mine and seeks other employment but their is no demand for his labour. The only thing you can do for this man is perhaps to find him sheltered employment through the Department of Labour. There may not be a demand for his labour and he may in any case not be able to do anything. I know that we are all very sympathetic towards people like that and that we should all like to take the mine worker away from his underground work earlier, but I do not think the solution lies in the suggestion of the hon. member. I want to repeat what I said during the second reading debate namely that I think he should receive greater benefits not so much in the fourth stage but in the third stage—in this case the second last stage. He should receive greater benefits and it will rest with the mine worker himself to decide whether with a view to the benefits which he has received, he can give up his employment and try to make a living elsewhere in the knowledge that he is in receipt of a substantial pension which will see him through. But if we allow him to enter the last stage and give him the maximum compensation in that stage you force him to enter the last stage. That is how I can see this position. I repeat that it is very popular to say that the mine worker should come out earlier but the responsibility also rests upon us to look at this matter in the right perspective.

Under the present Act, future beneficiaries would receive the lump sum payment of R960, and this clause augments the pension in the last two stages. Now in principle, as I said at the second reading, I am in favour of the spreading of this one-sum payment over the last two stages. But one snag does arise, and I want to give one example, a short calculation, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister how he is going to deal with such cases. I take the case of the man who dies two years after he receives his pension. For two years he would receive an additional R10 a month out of the R960 that has been spread, and that amounts to R240. His widow remarries after two years. During the course of those two years her pension is increased by R4.50 a month, and during that period, according to my calculation, she will receive R108 extra. So in the two years of his life he will have received R240, she in the two years before she remarries will have received R108, and it seems to me that there is a considerable loss as far as that family is concerned. It is bound to lead in cases like that to dissatisfaction, and there are many of them. The Minister said that he was starting off on new seas. This is one of the difficulties he is going to encounter some time, and I want to ask him at this stage to consider that point.

In order to be consequential and having moved the amendment to Clause 71, it is natural that I should move a similar amendment to Clause 72, and I therefore move—

I am sorry but I am unable to accept the amendment as in substance it is similar to an amendment previously negatived by the Committee.

Sir, may I address you on that, with all respect. Clause 72 refers to benefits to be provided for persons who are found for the first time, to suffer from pneumoconiosis; and Clause 71 refers to benefits awarded under the 1956 Act, that is to present beneficiaries. The category under Clause 72 is a different category from that under Clause 71.

Yes, but I considered the amendment in that light, and I am afraid I cannot put this amendment.

I also want to support the hon. member for Benoni who has indicated to the hon. the Minister that certain categories of pneumoconiosis pensioners will definitely suffer under this new basis in comparison with the old basis. I would like the hon. the Minister to confine himself to the second category, that is the 50 per cent to 75 per cent category. In his reply to the second reading debate, the hon. the Minister took my argument and applied it to the first stage only, that is the stage 20 per cent to 50 per cent. I did not refer to that stage of pensioner at all. My argument was based on the category 50 per cent to 75 per cent, where I tried to indicate that that category would only get an increase of R10 per month. They would go up from R54 per month at present, to R64, that is R10 per month extra, or R120 per year, and therefore it would take that category of pensioner eight years to redeem the lump sum payment of R960 that he is now losing. Therefore it is only after eight years that the second category of pensioner will receive any benefit under this Bill. But the hon. the Minister, I think, confused my argument when he applied those figures to the first category only, and I would like him to give me an answer showing where I am wrong, if I am at all wrong, in this mathematical calculation, as far as the second category is concerned. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has been able to accept the argument advanced by this side of the House that as far as the third category of pensioners is concerned, an increase should be granted to them and that he has accepted our view that they are entitled to at least R10 per month extra in the third category where they are already receiving the attendants allowance. However, I would like the hon. the Minister to go into this matter once again, and clearly and positively indicate to us where any benefit is received by the second category, that is the 50 to 75 per cent group, in terms of this new arrangement.

I would like the hon. the Minister to tell me whether in sub-section (5) (a) a child which happens to become permanently disabled after a miner has received his pension, whether that child will be entitled to a pension. It is not clear from this sub-section.

Arising from the remarks of the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) in regard to class 50 to 75 and his question as to the benefits which they receive, I just want to say that the reply is exactly that which I gave in a previous debate, namely that this new class 50 to 75 is practically the same as the old class 66 to 85. In other words, the worker now reaches the pensionable stage much earlier than he did in the past, namely 50 to 75 as compared with the old 66-85 and because he reaches that stage earlier he enjoys the benefits of that pension earlier in his life. What he has lost in respect of the R960 he receives back in a much shorter period. As far as the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) is concerned, I cannot lay my hands on it at the moment but I think we will come to a later clause where provision is indeed made for the case raised by him.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 89,

The hon. the Minister chose not to answer the point that I made under a previous clause, but the same position arises here, and quite definitely the widows should receive a certain amount of consideration. Under the present Act a man was entitled to a lump sum payment of R960. In the past that R960 was used for such things as deposits on houses, purchasing something to carry on a business, and in many cases was simply squandered—that I accept. Now it is proposed to spread the R960 over the last two stages and to increase the pensions. The clause says that if the man can prove to the satisfaction of the committee that he can utilize the sum beneficially, to the benefit of himself and his family at that time, he can get a lump sum. This clause limits him to one-half of his pension for a period not exceeding 30 months. Again I want to give a calculation and I hope the hon. Minister won’t give the remarks the same cavalier treatment that he did when I discussed this on the previous clause. If a man gets his R480 over the 30 months and he dies after 12 months, his widow gets an increase in pension, but what I want to know is whether the hon. Minister intends under the new Act to recover the balance from the widow or not.

Is the hon. Minister not going to reply to the question put by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross)? He asked whether the widow was going to be asked to repay amounts under certain circumstances where a death occurred. The hon. the Minister ignored the question.

The only reply I can give now is what I said already before that I cannot lay my hand on the clause in question, but I think we will come to that clause and then I will give attention to the hon. member’s question. I cannot do so now.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 102,

I want to say a few words on this question of research. Naturally one welcomes any research which will be helpful to the miners, but we also want some statistics. As I mentioned yesterday, the Minister should make an effort to give to the country, and to the world for that matter, statistics as to the life history of these men who have worked all this time. The statistics would be of immense value to this House in judging as to whether these compensations are correct or not. The present compensation is not based on any real scientific data, but is based on a compromise. That is the best we can do at the moment. But if we could know how long these men are likely to live, it would be of great value to us. This disease is different from most industrial diseases. On the whole it shortens a man’s life. He is compensated to some extent for his suffering, but of course if you shorten his life by a couple of years, it is not really possible to compensate him for that. One can look after his widow, but compensation is difficult. But these statistics should be very reliable and they could be reliable, because the Department knows exactly what happens to these people, it knows how long they draw their compensation, it knows at what stage they move perhaps in their life from the second to the third grade, it knows in general how much work they can do, and therefore it is of vital importance that they should be reliable. They correspond to follow-ups in a hospital and if by chance the hon. the Minister could refute my statement, which is very unlikely, that no man who has worked for any length of time in a mine lives out his full span of life. This was confirmed by the hon. member for Krugersdorp, just think of what value that would be for recruiting miners. Just think how much it would help if those figures were put before us, and equally just think how much it would help us, if we could have reliable statistics, properly worked out by a statistician, to tell us how much, if at all, of a man’s life is shortened. We know to some extent from the lung tests and from the death certificates how much a man suffers. We know that up to a point. But we don’t know how long he lives, and those statistics could be found with great exactitude I think it is the duty of the Minister’s Department to have those figures worked out and to supply them to the public and to the scientific world generally.

I find that in terms of Clause 102 the Minister may in his discretion require the council to recover from the owner of a mine such sums as the Minister may deem necessary for the medical treatment of persons suffering from pneumoconiosis or any other related disease. I asked the Minister yesterday already whether he would consider, in the case of mine workers who contract pneumoconiosis and receive compensation asking the mines to pay their contributions into the Mine-workers’ Sick Fund. I think that in those cases where people lose their health in the mines, it is only right that the mines should be responsible for providing the medical services which they may require and for the medicines when a doctor treats them while they are suffering from the disease. I should like to appeal to the Minister to see to it that that does indeed happen in the future.

I should first of all like to have an opportunity of going into that matter because I do not know at this stage what the financial implications will be. I undertake to go into the matter.

As far as the remarks made by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) are concerned, I wish to say that I agree with him that statistics are very valuable. If we want to conduct more research in this regard we must have reliable statistics. As hon. members know the Bureau is not a research institute; fire C.S.I.R. is the research institute and the P.R.U. in Johannesburg. Both the C.S.I.R. and the Pneumoconiosis Research Unity require statistics in order to carry out their research. We badly need statistics so as to be able to see how this Bill, when it becomes law, will work. I can assure the hon. member that I will do everything I can to improve the statistical services of the C.S.I.R. and the P.R.U. and when we go back to Pretoria I will have discussions with the Bureau to see by what means it will be possible to obtain the best statistical services for the purposes of research so that the Government and the whole nation can be informed as to the whole situation in regard to pneumoconiosis.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 135,

In connection with this clause I should like to put very briefly to the hon. the Minister representations which arrived very late. These representations are in regard to the asbestos industry. I want to tell the Minister that the advisory committee of that industry is very disturbed. They feel, Sir, firstly that they were not consenting parties to the legislation. The hon. the Minister did not directly say that they were but I must say that I gathered the general impression from his speech that the mining industry as a whole and not only the Chamber had been a consenting party and that this Bill was an agreed measure. In the earlier part of the discussions this side of the House was told that this was an agreed measure between the various interests concerned. It is also clear from correspondence that the asbestos industry, while it has not objected to the principle, has raised certain questions. Although some time has elapsed they have not received a reply. I would like to say to the hon. the Minister that I do hope that in the administration of the Act and in the discussions with the asbestos industry it will be possible to reach an agreement. We know, Sir, that this measure is one which is not going to remain unaltered on the Statute Book. We hope it will be flexible. We all like to see the best law we possibly can have on the Statute Book. I must say that personally I was under the impression that all the various mining industries had been consulted. It comes as a surprise to me that a very important industry was in fact not a consenting party to this legislation. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to explain the matter to the satisfaction of the body concerned. I express again the hope that in getting down to the operation of the scheme in so far as that industry is concerned, it will be possible to meet, as far as it is consistent with public interests, the representations which have been put to the hon. the Minister.

I may just say that my Department has been in touch with that industry and they have also brought certain problems to my notice. They were in touch with my Department in connection with this legislation and we tried to meet them as far as possible. Only last week we received certain written representations from them to which we reacted immediately. Perhaps they have not as yet received the reply. But the hon. member can rest assured that we are doing out utmost to give that industry which we know is often in difficulties, the best treatment possible.

Thank you very much.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has made his position perfectly clear in regard to this issue. I would like to make two points. I think we have debated it as fully as is necessary. However, I think it is necessary to emphasize to the hon. the Minister that his idea of our reason for our amendment is quite incorrect. It would be ridiculous for this party to say to its voters: “Do not get your identity card; go and get yourself identified by other means.” Obviously a voter who has an identity card, the system having been adopted at an election, is going to have a much smoother passage than the one who has to get some other form of identification. Therefore, I can assure the hon. the Minister that there is no idea of trying to sabotage the identity card as such nor is there any idea in this amendment of trying to work against the identity card itself. We are merely trying to make provision for the person who, through no fault of her or his own, finds himself in a position where he cannot vote because he cannot produce his identity card. Whether you like the population register or not, we as a party, like any other party, would naturally have to make use of it and would encourage voters to be sure that they had their card available. In view of the hon. the Minister’s attitude I would ask him to go this far if no further: Will he make arrangements for the office of the population register and its sub-offices or its representatives, who is the magistrate and who has a copy of the register for his area, to have the power to issue a certificate to a person which can be presented in lieu of an identity card at an election. In other words, a person who, for a genuine reason—such as that mentioned by the hon. member for Green Point where a fire has destroyed his possessions—has lost his identity card should be able to go to an office of the population registrar and say: “I have lost my card; will you issue me with a temporary certificate.” The Minister could not then claim that there was any intention whatsoever to subvert the population register or the identity card. But he would at least ensure that a genuine case was able to go to his own office and get a form of identification which was acceptable. As the Bill stands now there is only one way of getting an identity card and that is to have photographs taken, sending them to Pretoria and getting them back. It means everyone who has lost his identity card within, say, three weeks of an election will be excluded. Whereas if there were an office in the town some form of identity could be issued to that person by the Minister’s own office. If he is indeed adamant that he will not consider any other form of identity, I appeal to him to accept an amendment in the Other Place in terms of which provision will be made for such alternative identification which will be acceptable.

I feel that I still owe the hon. member a reply for this reason that he seems to accept that I am not simply stubborn in refusing to allow anything else except the identity card. Let me put it this way: When an election is in the offing the voters know about it. It may happen that a voter has thrown his identity card away or lost it or that there was a fire as the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) said. All those things are possible. In that case my contention is that the service is so fast at the Population Registrar’s Office that he will be able to get his card timeously.

How long does it take?

It does not take such a long time. When I walked in there it took them exactly ten seconds to show me my card.

But you are a Minister.

I am not saying that it will take ten seconds. I say it is possible to get it; that is the first point. But hon. members have the second assurance that the use of the identity card will not come into operation before the Government is convinced of it that no person who is legally entitled to vote will be disenfranchised. That is an assurance. Provision is already made in the Electoral Act for the identity card to be used so as to draw attention to the importance of the identity card. That is the only reason. Hon. members need not worry at this stage what will happen at the next election. Notice will be given long before then and nobody will be disenfranchised as a result of it. We want to give that assurance. I cannot say at this stage whether the suggestion that it should be done in the local offices and that it will be easy to make copies will be accepted. Hon. members should bear this in mind, however, that this is a knife which cuts both ways. It will do as much damage to my party as it will to the party opposite. That is why this is not a question of getting the better of somebody else; we want to do what is best. I think hon. members must find consolidation in the idea that we will come with that amendment when we want to, or with another amendment, to make sure that people will not lose their vote in this way.

Amendment in paragraph (a), proposed by the Minister of the Interior, put and agreed to.

Amendment in line 45, proposed by Mr. Durrant, put and the Committee divided:

I move—

I am aware that the same principle was discussed last night by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) and other hon. members. They discussed the matter very thoroughly and I do not wish to repeat their arguments.

Order! I am unable to accept the amendment, as it is similar in substance to an amendment already negatived by the Committee.

May I just point out that the principle was rejected in regard to postal votes, absent voters, and here we are dealing with certain concessions in regard to persons who come to the polling booth to vote.

Order! The import of the amendment is precisely the same, and I am sorry but I cannot accept it.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

I move the amendment standing in my name—

1. to the clause:
2. by the insertion in sub-section (1) after the word “applying” of the words “proves his identity to the satisfaction of the presiding officer or” and.

I just want to give a brief explanation. Last night the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), when discussing Clauses 25 and 35, appealed to me, seeing that in Clause 38 I am prepared to accept other proof, also to do so in those two clauses. I clearly said that the two things were not comparable. The amendment I am now proposing deals with Section 80 of the Act, which has absolutely nothing to do with the identity card, and this is really an attempt to help the persons to whom objection was raised by putting their names on a list which is sworn to by the parties. Then there is only one way open to the voter who turns up and whose name is on that list, and that is to make a sworn statement before the presiding officer to the effect that he is in fact that person. If there are many of these cases, it may be difficult for the officer to take down all these sworn statements. Therefore I now suggest that if he wants to make a sworn statement he can do so, but the presiding officer can also accept other proof of identity which he deems sufficient. This is really a concession I am making, as the result of representations made by hon. members opposite. I just want to make it clear that there is a clear difference. The identity card does not enter into the matter here. The only thing that matters is that the person against whom a statement was made to the effect that he should not vote can prove his identity to the presiding officer.

We welcome the amendment, but I would take the Minister up on one point, without lengthening the debate. The earlier provisions of the Bill will make it compulsory that the identity card by itself will be proof of identity. Section 80, which we are amending here, deals with the circumstances under which a ballot paper may be refused by the presiding officer … Those circumstances can be in the event of anybody objecting to the issue of a ballot paper to a voter. Therefore when the identity card itself becomes the sole criterion whether or not the voter will get his ballot paper, the objection must obviously be against the person producing the identity card. That is why I say that the principle we discussed in the earlier stage is similar to this principle, because if there is objection to the voter who produces the identity card, it means that the identity card itself is brought into question as a means of identity. The Minister now proposes to make the identity card the sole criterion for deciding the identity of a voter.

I just want to make it clear that we stated that we were opposed to the use of this card, but our standpoint was rejected. But in regard to these voters, I think the strongest case can be made out that if other voters have to show their identity card, these people who have got lost must definitely show theirs, because they are people whom one party says are lost and cannot be traced, and now these people turn up to vote, and I would have thought that they should do the same as the other people. In view of the fact that out standpoint in respect of voters in general was neglected, I suggest that these voters should definitely have to show their identity cards.

This clause deals with a voter who still does not have an identity card. Hon. members should bear in mind that it will still take an appreciable time before the identity cards will be used. Now it may happen that an election is held and people raise objections, and then the only means of identification in terms of Section 80 is a sworn statement. Now it has happened in the past that as many as 600 objections are lodged, and instead of being able to do his work the presiding officer must take down all those sworn statements. All that the concession now being made by the Minister means is that apart from the sworn statement there can also be additional means of identification, particularly whilst the identification card is not yet compulsory. Such a person can show his motor licence, or bring two witnesses to identify him.

If the identity card is in operation, will it still be possible to object to the issue of a ballot?

Oh yes. If the identity card comes into operation, it will still be possible to hand in sworn statements to the effect that one voter is gone and the other is in England and will not be able to be there on voting day, and then he turns up, but then he has his identity card to prove his identity.

I can follow the point that until such time as the identity card is introduced this can take place, but we are now laying it down for ever, after the Government has introduced the other provisions, and I feel …

Quite probably it will then be amended, but this is a better method whilst the identity card is not required yet.

I am glad the hon. the Minister understands the point.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 61,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 62,

I move—

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The Committee thereupon reverted to Clauses 1 and 16, standing over.

Clause 1 put and agreed to.

Clause 16 put, upon which an amendment had been moved by Mr. Durrant: In line 6, after “may” to insert “provided that adequate procedure is introduced for the checking and elimination of any duplicate registration on all voters’ lists throughout the Republic”.

I asked that Clause 16 should stand over, because I wanted to consider the implications of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman). The position is briefly this, that actually it makes no difference to the provisions of Section 29, which it seeks to amend, and for this reason, that if I insert the amendment in Section 29 it will read as follows. My amendment is to change it to “may”. His amendment will have the result that it will read that the Chief Electoral Officer may, and then follow the words “provided an effective procedure is introduced for controlling and eliminating any duplicate registrations on all voters’ rolls in the Republic”. But now the section reads further that the various voters’ rolls may be compared, and the words which then follow have precisely the same meaning as what the hon. member now proposes, “in order to ensure that nobody is registered more than once in the same electoral division or in more than one division”. That is precisely the same. The hon. member asks that effective procedure should be introduced to eliminate duplicate registrations, whilst the section in the principal Act reads that the object is to ensure that nobody should be registered more than once in the same division or in more than one division. It is clearly just a repetition of the same words, and because it would be clumsy I must ask the hon. member rather to withdraw his amendment, because the assurance has clearly been given that the central index will not be abolished until such time as there are other methods which are more effective in eliminating duplicate registrations.

The hon. the Minister says there is no difference between the amendment moved by us and the original Act, but the Act provides that the electoral officer must compare the voters’ rolls with the object of eliminating duplications, and as the result of this amendment it will no longer be necessary for him to make those comparisons.I agree with the Minister that the wording of this amendment possibly does not achieve the object we have in mind, to make it obligatory to compare the lists until such time as another method is available. I am inclined to agree that as it reads now it is a repetition of words, and the choice still lies with the Chief Electoral Officer. He is no longer compelled to do so, but the proviso is not binding in regard to the abolition of the central index. The Minister agrees with us that the central index is necessary until such time as there is an effective procedure for making comparisons, and I wonder whether the Minister will not consider introducing an amendment in the Other Place which will state it clearly, because he has to amend the clause in any case. I just want him to put the point clearly that the abolition will come into effect only when the new method is in operation.

I shall consider it.

After the assurance we have now received, I will withdraw my amendment.

With leave of the Committee, the amendment was withdrawn.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Title of the Bill put and agreed to.