Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate yesterday we indicated to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we would today move certain amendments to this Bill, in particular, certain amendments to this clause. The reasons that were given for these amendments were that we were not prepared to grant the Government the power to allow the Abattoir Commission to expropriate land from a private individual and then to pass that land over to another private individual for commercial purposes. We know that we have the Expropriation Act which allows the Government, local authorities and certain statutory bodies to expropriate when it is in the public interest. But we do not believe that the powers which are being asked for in this particular clause should be granted to any statutory body such as the Abattoir Commission. Following upon that debate, I now move as an amendment—

; and in line 44, to omit “other person” and to substitute “person other than an exporter or wholesale distributor of meat”.

The whole object of this amendment is in fact … May I have the attention of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture for a minute?

The Deputy Minister is in charge.

No, I require the attention of the Minister for a moment, if I may have it.

Oh, come on!

I beg your pardon, Sir. Could we have a little bit of consideration … [Interjections.] Could we not have some manners from members on the other side? What a shocking display! [Interjections.]

Order!

If they will stop making a noise, Sir, I will speak responsibly with the hon. Minister, who, I know, has the courtesy to deal courteously with us on this side. Yesterday the hon. member for Green Point pleaded with the other side to accept that land so expropriated, when it is in the interests of an abattoir or if it is necessary for the continued existence or for the establishment of an abattoir, should not be handed over to an individual or a company in freehold. He asked that if such land was to be handed over, it should be handed over in leasehold, and that it should be done on tender only.

Sir, I want to quote from Hansard what was said by the hon. member for Green Point at that time; he said—

The Minister of Agriculture interjected to say—

Whereupon the hon. member for Green Point indicated that he would not press his argument any further but that he would leave the matter in the hands of the hon. the Minister. I hope the hon. the Minister has considered this amendment and that he or his Deputy, who is handling the Bill, will indicate this afternoon that they intend to accept the amendment which I have moved.

I feel that I must, however, motivate this particular amendment and explain it for the benefit of this Committee. The first part of the amendment, the amendment in lines 13 and 14, is designed to limit the persons on behalf of whom the Abattoir Commission may expropriate. As the clause stands at the moment, the commission may expropriate for its own benefit or for the benefit of any other person. We wish to amend that to read “for the benefit of itself or a local authority or a person referred to in section 30”. Sir, a person referred to in section 30 is a person who has received a certificate from the hon. the Minister of Agriculture to the effect that he may establish an abattoir— a person who has permission to establish an abattoir—and as far as the establishment of an abattoir by such a person is concerned, I wish to repeat, we have no objection to it at all. We wish, however, to limit this to those persons who are involved as exporters or as wholesale distributors of meat. Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister, when he introduced this measure, made it quite clear that these were the sort of persons he wishes to help. He made it clear that he did not anticipate the assumption of very wide powers under this particular clause, but I submit that as the clause is printed now it does give extremely wide powers, which I do not believe the hon. the Deputy Minister wants, because when he introduced this measure he said the following—

Sir, this is what we are trying to achieve in terms of the amendment which I have now moved; we are trying to carry out the wishes of the hon. the Deputy Minister himself. The amendment, incidentally, in lines 20 and 21, is merely consequential upon this one particular amendment, so I will pass on to the amendment in line 19, namely after “abattoir” to insert “for export or wholesale distribution”, where once again we are now endeavouring to limit the reasons why or the purposes for which land may be expropriated; in other words, to limit it to land which is “required for the handling, treatment, storage, packing, cooling, freezing or processing of meat or products of animals slaughtered at any abattoir for export or for wholesale distribution”.

Sir, in subclause 3 of the proposed new section 31A it is provided that if the commission expropriates land on behalf of any other person, this land can be transferred in freehold into the name of that particular person, and in fact the Registrar of Deeds is authorized to transfer such land into the name of such person. We feel that such a transfer of land, if it is for the benefit of the local authority or of the commission or of the person who owns the abattoir, should be allowed, and therefore we wish, by this amendment, to hand over such land to the commission, the local authority concerned or the person who has been authorized to establish an abattoir. The amendment in line 44 is also merely consequential upon this amendment, but, Sir, the most important part of this whole amendment is the proposed new section 31A(3)(b), which I feel should be read so that the members of this Committee will know what it is all about. It reads—

Sir, here is the crux of the whole matter. Where you have expropriated land for the benefit of an individual or a company, a commercial enterprise, which is there not in the public interest but which is there for one object only, and that is to make money, then we believe that it would be utterly wrong for the commission to give that land in freehold because there would be no hold whatsoever over the person or the company concerned; next year they could change their minds and say, “We are not going to carry on with the wholesale distribution of meat; we want to establish some other kind of factory.” This would be entirely wrong; it would be unfair. We feel that this should be done by lease and we feel further that the land should not be expropriated with the object of leasing it to a particular individual or to a particular enterprise. Once having expropriated the land and having made the land available for lease, that lease should be put out to public tender because, as I said yesterday in discussing another matter, not only must justice be done but it must also be seen to be done. Let us make sure that there will be no scandal attached to this; the only way I believe this can be done is to put the lease out to public tender once the land has been expropriated.

Mr. Chairman, in the course of the Second Reading yesterday the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated to me that he was convinced that certain amendments would be necessary. I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister would perhaps clarify the position now before we go further and enter into a lengthy debate, which will be unnecessary if the indication which he gave us yesterday is going to be fulfilled. If the hon. the Deputy Minister would deal with the matter at this stage, it might curtail the debate.

It is very clear that the whole problem in regard to this Bill concerns expropriation for the benefit of outside parties, i.e. of private persons. As I said yesterday, I feel that I can to a large extent meet the objection of the Opposition if we introduce an amendment in line 19 by inserting, after “abattoir”, the words “of which the commission is the owner”. I wonder whether this will be sufficient to satisfy the Opposition. I do feel that I should make it clear again that while we are in general agreement that expropriation must be handled very carefully, this concerns a specific matter, namely the abattoirs and matters related to abattoirs. So we cannot cast the net too wide. We are concerned here with meat, with the handling of meat. I think that this amendment can certainly meet the objection. Accordingly I move as an amendment—

I am sorry to say that the amendment does not meet our objections at all. What it indicates now is merely that the expropriation for the benefit of a private person can take place only when it is in relation to an abattoir owned by the commission. But that still leaves open in this clause the position—and I read from the commencement—“The commission may, with the approval of and on the conditions determined by the Minister, for its own benefit or for the benefit of any other person expropriate land” for certain purposes, and then in line 19 “slaughtered at any abattoir which is the property of or is owned by the commission” as it is to be amended. So it makes no difference whatsover.

The commission is the owner.

With respect, the hon. the Deputy Minister has still in this amendment not met the objection. What does it mean now? Those premises of which the commission is the owner refers to the abattoirs—“slaughtered at any abattoir which is the property of the commission”. Now, what ground has been expropriated? It may be ground adjacent to the abattoir of which the commission need not remain the owner, because it does not say so in this amendment. So the commission may expropriate for itself or “for the benefit of any other person”. If the Deputy Minister means that he does not want the expropriated land to be owned by any individual, but that it remains the property of the commission, then his amendment does not say that. It does not achieve that end. The words which must be deleted are “or for the benefit of any other person”. In other words, the proposed section 31A would then read—

What it boils down to, is that the provision that the commission can expropriate “for any other person” must be deleted.

I think we have now reached the stage where we are possibly going to land in a drafting problem across the floor of the Committee. I want to put simpe questions to the hon. the Deputy Minister who is handling this Bill. The first simple question is whether he and the Government intend proceeding with the right to expropriate land which will become the property of a third person; in other words, the commission will be able to expropriate land which will then become the property of another person. In other words, will subsection (3) still apply? This subsection reads—

If the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to continue with this, then we are opposed to this. However, if the hon. the Deputy Minister’s intention is that land which may be expropriated must be adjacent to or in connection with a commission-owned abattoir and that that land must remain the property of the commission for its ancillary use or purposes, then we are with him. The position is, however, that the amendment does not meet that position. If we may depart from the purely legal language in this matter, let us look at the factual position as to whether the department will commit itself to the expropriation of land in connection with an abattoir owned by the commission and that the land so expropriated will remain the property of the commission. If that simple question is answered in the affirmative, then we are with the hon. the Deputy Minister. He can then get the legal advisers to redraft this provision and it could then be dealt with in the Other Place. I think I can say so on behalf of this side of the Committee.

May I just put the questions simply again? Do we have the assurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister that what he is aiming at is the right to expropriate land adjacent or near to or in proximity of a commission-owned abattoir? That is question number one. The second is whether the land so expropriated will become the property and remain the property of the commission …

For its own use.

… for its use or for letting or …

Leasing.

… leasing for the purposes of these ancillary undertakings connected with the meat industry. If the hon. the Deputy Minister says that is what he wants and he agrees on those three points, then it is just a matter for the legal draftsmen to get busy drafting such an amendment which can then be dealt with in the Other Place and there will be no need for us to debate the legal language across the floor of the Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I have been asked by the hon. member for Green Point what the object of this amendment is. It is obvious that we should like to make the process of slaughtering livestock and the marketing of meat operate very smoothly and that we want to make the Abattoir Commission function efficiently in such an abattoir. I fully agree with him that this procedure, as proposed in the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District as it reads at the moment, ultimately does not make sense. Consequently I am glad that the hon. member for Green Point agrees with me that such an amendment results in a large number of consequential changes which are unfortunately not accommodated by the amendment. The object of the amendment is to make things function smoothly. It is still an open question whether we are going to lease it or in what other way it is going to be dealt with. We are investigating whether we can do this and whether we shall then be able to meet the requirements that exist.

Why do you say that?

Because we are now changing it into an abattoir belonging to the commission, we thought that it would be sufficient and that the hon. members would be content. For that reason I want to express my appreciation for the fact that the hon. members are really trying to co-operate. As the hon. member for Green Point said, it is in fact no easy matter to effect these amendments in the legislation as it stands. For that reason I want to undertake that we shall go into the matter, together with the law advisers and the Abattoir Commission, in order to see whether we can meet their requirement by having the premises leased. If we can do it that way, I shall change it accordingly in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for the assurances he has given us. I want to make it quite clear that our approach in the Second Reading was that we believe that we stand by any steps which are necessary to modernize, develop and to make the abattoirs more efficient in this country. The only point which we have raised and which remains with us is the point of the deprivation of a private person of the property, property which belongs to him, for the benefit of another private individual and not for the benefit of the commission or a public body such as a municipality. We have the assurance from the hon. the Minister that so far as the Government is concerned, that is what they want to achieve with the amendments which still have to be drafted. Unfortunately the hon. the Leader of the House is not here, but this is again an instance of the problems we run into when legislation comes in such quick succession that there is not the time to investigate it properly between the one stage and the next. We in this House this afternoon have to leave this matter for adjustment in the Other Place only because we had the Second Reading finished last night at seven o’clock, and are now already busy with the Committee Stage. That is not the fault of the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister; it is a fault on the Order Paper which we have before us. I think that on the assurances which have been given by the hon. the Deputy Minister, we are satisfied that there will be a protection of the rights of private persons and that any expropriated property will be utilized by the commission, that it will remain under their control and that there will be no posibility of preferential treatment to a certain individual at the cost of another.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make the position very clear. We really do have a problem with leasing. I stated yesterday that we could easily encounter the problem that the Abattoir Commission owns an abattoir, that it has the land available in the vicinity of the abattoir and now wants to lease it, but that there are no entrepreneurs who are willing to invest money there and to spend a large amount of money there, because it takes place on a leasehold basis. That is a problem which we could encounter. I foresee that it is possible that such objections may arise. I should very much like the hon. members to understand very clearly that we are concerned with a practical matter here. For that reason I cannot give an absolute assurance that we shall deal with it in the way that the hon. member for Green Point has now advocated here. However, we shall give serious consideration to his proposal, because we believe that he wants to cooperate in this matter. In this regard, however, we shall have to learn from practices, and the best people will have to assist us in framing a definition.

Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that in proposing this amendment to this Committee, the hon. the Deputy Minister meant that when it was necessary to expropriate for the handling, the treatment, the storage, the packing and the subsequent processes, it would only be done in certain cases. I want the hon. the Minister to understand me perfectly well; we do not want to quarrel about this matter later on. In terms of the hon. the Minister’s amendment these powers of expropriation granted to the commission will only apply in cases where the commission itself is the owner of that abattoir. Are we quite clear on this? In other words, if the amendment moved by the hon. gentleman is accepted, if we are prepared to accept his amendment, it obviously means that the commission cannot expropriate in cases where such an abattoir belongs to someone else, or if the commission wants to expropriate for the purposes of paragraph (b). Let us be quite clear on that point. In that case we are prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. gentleman and also to accept the undertaking he has given, that proper consideration will be given to the proposal of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, i.e. that when it is possible, the land or property which is expropriated should rather be left in the hands of the commission and leased. In other words, if the hon. the Minister’s advisers advise him accordingly, he must also introduce that amendment in the Other Place. If that is the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attitude, we are prepared to accept his amendment and also to take his word for it that it is in fact his intention to amend it in the Other Place under those circumstances.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has put forward an amendment which we have not had the opportunity of studying. I agree with the hon. member for Newton Park that if his interpretation is right the hon. the Deputy Minister will give us the assurance that his interpretation is right … [Interjections.]

He has not given that assurance.

If he will give us the assurance that the interpretation of the hon. member for Newton Park is correct, we shall accept it. However, having received this amendment a couple of minutes ago, I have my doubts as to exactly what this amendment means or what its effect will be …

I mentioned it in my speech.

Yes, I know the hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned it in his speech, but what he said in his speech was not the interpretation which the hon. member for Newton Park now places on it. This is why we want clarity. Before we accept this amendment, we want clarity on exactly what the hon. the Deputy Minister means by this amendment. [Interjections.] The noisy gentlemen on my left can participate in the debate. If they have any courage and if they know anything about this matter at all, let them participate in the debate instead of sitting here making noises and disrupting what is a serious debate. What exactly has the hon. the Deputy Minister put forward? He has suggested that when the commission expropriates in terms of paragraph (b), i.e. expropriates land which is required “for the handling, treatment, storage, packing, cooling, freezing, sale, distribution or processing of meat”, the commission may only do that in respect of abattoirs the commission itself owns. In other words, it cannot be done for an abattoir which is owned by a local authority or by a person authorized by the Minister in terms of section 30.

That is right.

So far, so good, but where do we go from there? After the land has been expropriated for an abattoir owned by the commission, what happens to it? I submit that in that case the provisions of subsection (3) come into effect and that that land can still be passed on to a private individual, which he may hold in freehold; he will have full rights to that land. That is the crux of our objection; it is stated in subsection (3), it is implicit therein, that the land will be handed over to a third party. As far as the limits which are proposed in the amendment are concerned, namely that depending on circumstances it is limited to certain people such as the local authority, the owner of an abattoir or the holder of a certificate that has been granted in terms of section 30, we have no objection to this measure. We have no objection to subsection (3) either, as it stands. But when it comes to a private individual who is operating for his own economic benefit, although it is associated with the abattoir and although the continued existence of the abattoir is dependent upon those subsidiary services, which we accept, it is something completely different. We are prepared to meet the hon. the Deputy Minister with this compromise solution which I have suggested this afternoon. If he will add that, then I can say that we can accept his amendment. The case made by my friend for Newton Park is to the effect that it limits all this expropriation to the commission. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that there is a doubt as to whether the commission may lease land …

Whether it is practical.

I was going to refer the hon. the Deputy Minister to what I believe is an empowering clause whereby the commission is empowered to lease land. In terms of section 4 the commission is empowered to let land out to other individuals and it was on this basis together with the object of the commission in section 3 of the Act that we have based our amendment. However, it appears that at least we are ad idem on the whole question of where we are trying to go. I am sorry that we were unable to sort this matter out before. We on this side of the House did attempt by negotiation with the department to arrive at some compromise solution on this matter. Unfortunately we have been unable to do so before coming to this House, but the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated his bona fides and I hope he will give us the assurance now that the hon. member for Newton Park has asked for. In anticipation that the hon. the Deputy Minister will give us that assurance, with the permission of this Committee I withdraw my amendment.

Amendments proposed by Mr. W. T. Webber, with leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

In the Second Reading debate I already made it clear that we on this side of the House were originally opposed to the imposition of this levy, but subsequently we got the hon. gentlemen on that side to the point of restricting the levy to certain amounts. In the Second Reading debate the hon. the Deputy Minister made out a case for the fact that increased costs are indeed involved in the work the commission is doing, and we are prepared to accept that their work has increased considerably since six or seven years ago. We can understand that the commission now needs additional revenue; we are not opposed to that, but what we are, in fact, opposed to here is that completely unlimited power is being given to the commission, precisely what we had a quarrel with hon. members on that side of the House about six years ago. They now come along and want the same position, and can therefore not expect to get this clause through the House without our again making our standpoint clear in respect of this matter. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to accept this amendment of ours. If it has taken six years for the Abattoir Commission to come back to the House and make out a case for increased revenue, and we on this side of the House are prepared to increase their revenue by not more than 100%, it will most certainly be possible for them to carry on for a few years before it would be necessary for them to return. It is therefore not necessary to do this each year. We also hope that they will not immediately demand from the producer the maximum we are now proposing, but that they will initially increase it by say 33⅓%. They could then increase this to the maximum in the course of time. Thereafter they would again have to come back to this House so that we could make the change.

There are many good reasons why we feel that this House should give the decision. Here is a service which the livestock farmer in South Africa furnishes to the local authority, the public and every consumer. He is the only person who pays for that. It is actually unfair that he alone should pay for this.

Initially he did not have to pay anything.

Correct. Initially this amount had to come from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. But, Sir, since the matter cannot be changed now, I say that the livestock farmer has the right to urge that in this case the minimum should be claimed from him.

What about slaughtering fees?

I knew that argument would crop up now. The hon. the Minister asks: “What about slaughtering fees?” and “What now of the Meat Board levy?” The farmer can go and negotiate all those matters with the Meat Board. We can express criticism about that here in the House of Assembly, which has, in fact, happened before. He can also go and discuss the question of slaughtering fees with the local authority. That is also a service which those people again furnish him with. The levy he pays to the Meat Board, is for the sake of the stability of the price of his product. If he sends his livestock to the local abattoir and they have to be slaughtered, that local authority is furnishing him with a service. As long as it is fair, the farmer is not unwilling to pay it. But it is not comparable to this levy. Because we are not complaining about this levy, do hon. members on that side want to say: “Because you say nothing about the slaughtering fees and the Meat Board levy, you agree that it may be sky-high”? That is absolute nonsense, Sir! That is not the standpoint of this side of the House. We have the fullest right, in the discussion of the hon. the Minister’s Vote, to come and speak to him about the increased levy being paid to the Meat Board. We can make representations to him to persuade the local authorities not to set such high slaughtering fees. The opportunity is there. But the hon. the Minister and the commission now want the right to levy any amount. That is what the clause amounts to. The commission may, with the approval of the Minister, from time to time impose a levy in respect of every animal slaughtered at an abattoir. Sir, he can ask R2 or R10. I do not say that he is going to do so; but with the power the hon. gentleman is requesting here, he would, in fact, be able to do so. It is our standpoint that the amount must be kept as low as possible and within limits. It is surely not unfair of this side of the House to ask the Deputy Minister that if he finds that it is necessary for him to change this amount after a few years, he should again return to this House to do so. Even in the normal omnibus legislation at the end of a session, such a provision can be inserted. Special legislation is not even necessary, therefore, to obtain an increase of that amount; as I have said, it can even be included in that omnibus legislation, if it becomes apparent after a few years that it must be an increase of this amount. That is why we request the hon. the Minister to give consideration to this so that he can protect the agriculturalist in this respect, because the agriculturalist is the person who must carry the whole burden in this respect in order to keep the commission going.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Newton Park says he wants a maximum amount laid down by this House, but that is not actually what he wants. What he actually wants is that that amount should come out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

We said so originally.

Sir, I now want to tell you what the hon. member reminds me of. He reminds me of one of my voters who told me the other day that he actually has two prices he wants for maize this year. If he cannot get the first price, he will be satisfied with the second. That is now what this hon. member wants to do. In respect of the really extensive costs he says the farmer may go and negotiate, in the first place the Meat Board in the case of the levy which it collects, and then with the municipality in the case of the slaughtering fees that are levied. But, Sir, no matter how much the farmer negotiates, those extensive costs cannot be reduced to the level of this small amount. How can the farmer reduce it to such an extent that it will be no more than this small amount? In the second place the hon. member says that those more extensive levies are collected in respect of services that are furnished, and therefore they can be collected from the farmer, but this small amount, he says, is something else. Sir, what is this Abattoir Commission doing other than furnishing a service? Now I want to refer again to what happened in the case of the City Deep abattoir. Is the saving brought about there not a service that was furnished to the whole meat industry and not only to the cattle farmers? It is a service that was furnished to everyone.

To the consumer as well?

Yes, to the consumer as well, because for whom are those animals slaughtered? For the farmer or for the consumer? Why does the hon. member not say, then, that the slaughtering fees should be paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund? After all, the animals are not slaughtered for the farmer. He slaughters his cattle on his own farm. He does not need an abattoir for slaughtering his cattle. It is the consumer who needs those facilities. But, Sir, the hon. member is not concerned about those large amounts, and therefore I cannot understand his reasoning.

The hon. member says that a change in this amount, which must be paid, can be brought about in the omnibus Act at the end of a session. But if the Minister were to go too far and allow the Abattoir Commission to demand an excessive levy, the hon. member can surely in terms of the half-hour adjournment rule, initiate a tremendous debate; then he could obtain all the farmers’ votes. But the Minister would surely never do such a thing. Only if it were a United Party Minister sitting here would we be needing such an Act. But in this case it is not necessary to have such an Act because, after all, it is our Minister, our farmers’ Minister, and therefore we are telling him he may continue. After all, we would stop him if he wanted to impose too high a levy. If the Minister were a United Party man, however, he would have been an irresponsible person, and what would we then have been able to do with him? Therefore, Sir, it is not necessary for a maximum amount to be fixed. On the contrary, if that amount of 12 cents were to be written into the Act now, the commission would be encouraged to ask 12 cents, or whatever the amount may be that you lay down.

Not more than 12 cents.

What is more, the Act did not initially make provision for a maximum; it was left to the discretion of the Minister. It was later changed and it was then stated that there should be a maximum of 6 cents for cattle and another amount for sheep and goats. Now we are coming back and changing it again to give the discretion to the Minister. This surely goes to prove that the Act, in its initial form, was correct in leaving it to the Minister’s discretion and not fixing a maximum. This is precisely what is happening now, and therefore I cannot see why it is necessary to prescribe a maximum here, because the hon. member concedes that that amount would perhaps be insufficient again in two or three years’ time and that the Minister would then have to come to this House again with a Bill to change the amount, and therefore it is much more practical to leave the levy in the hands of the Minister. He can then change it when it becomes necessary. After all, he looks after the interests of the farmer. Why, then, would he lay down an excessive levy? Besides, the levies of all the boards are increased with the approval of the Minister, and there has never been any complaint about that. Why would there now specifically, in the case of the Abattoir Commission, be a reason to complain that the Minister is acting irresponsibly? If this clause is passed as it stands, this levy is brought into line with the levies of other marketing councils; it works well in practice, and I therefore do not foresee any problems as far as this matter is concerned.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg began by saying that all the other boards impose their own levies, but he forgot that they do so not only with the approval of the Minister, but also under the supervision of the Marketing Council. In other words, there are two supervisory authorities; the one is the Marketing Council and the other is the Minister. But here we are dealing with something quite different; we are dealing with a statutory board, i.e. the Abattoir Commission. Yesteday we were opposed to the principle that the levy could arbitrarily be changed in season and out of season, during the Parliamentary session or out of session, and this is still what we are objecting to today. What objection can there be to our proposal that any change in the levy by the commission should first be approved by this House? Neither the hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, nor the hon. the Minister can tell me what their objection to that is. The hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and all of us surely foresee that in the course of time the Abattoir Commission will play a big role. I predict that they will also handle the storage of large quantities of meat in times of surpluses, and if that were to happen we do not expect the commission still to impose the same levy as that which the Meat Board imposes. In other words, with the development and unfolding of this scheme, the time will come when the Meat Board as such will possibly impose a lower levy and the commission a much higher levy, but then we always still want the relevant Minister to have to come to this House to tell us for what purposes the levy is being imposed. We want the levy to carry the stamp of approval of this House. Does the hon. the Minister or the Deputy Minister want to tell me that they want the commission to be in a position to change the levy arbitrarily? Why must any board be saddled with the responsibility of doing something for which all the farmers in the country can criticize it, while the matter can be submitted to the House and be settled here? Everyone would then be satisfied and the board would then not be accused of changing the levy arbitrarily in season and out of season. Sir, I want to lodge a plea with the hon. the Deputy Minister to the effect that he should please accept this amendment. Let us please not argue about this small thing too. It is surely essential to make it possible for any statutory body to be called to account for itself at some or other stage, and the time to do so is when it wants to change the levy, not when it has already done so.

The hon. member for East London City, if I understood him correctly, made the point here that he is satisfied with the system adopted in the case of marketing councils, because the National Marketing Council advises the Minister about the increase of levies. Have I understood the hon. member correctly?

Yes.

The hon. member is therefore satisfied with the system that is adopted by the existing marketing councils, on condition that the National Marketing Council exercises so-called supervision over the Minister. That is actually what the hon. member is implying. He is implying that the marketing council, appointed by the Minister, supervises the Minister to ensure that he does not go too far with the imposition of levies. [Interjection.] That is what the hon. member is implying. The facts of the matter are these: The Marketing Act provides that the Minister must approve or reject any levy proposed by a marketing council, in that case on the recommendation of the National Marketing Council. In this case a recommendation again comes to the Minister to the effect that the levy should either be increased or decreased. But here the hon. member does not want to trust the hon. the Minister with the same power as he has under the Marketing Act in the case of the control boards. But, Sir, the Minister does, after all, appoint the members of the marketing council. In other words, according to the hon. member’s argument, he proceeds from the supposition that the marketing council, which is appointed by the Minister, is his boss. I am completely convinced that it is only an O.B. general who can argue in that way. The hon. member for East London City must now take his seat again and think about this matter. If he wants to, I shall explain the facts to him in the lobby in a moment. Then he will perhaps have a better insight into the matter. Sir, I wholeheartedly support this clause because it is no deviation from the principle that it is only the Minister who must approve levies. It is only the Minister who approves them. And I want to ask the hon. member for East London City: Would the Minister approve an excessive levy just to anger the farmers?

Just to anger Uncle Jan.

After all, we are not as stupid as the U.P., which did such things. The Minister would never approve an excessive levy in a month of Sundays. The reason for that is that we have a responsible Minister and because a responsible National Government is in power. That is why I wholeheartedly support this clause.

Sir, I am surprised that the hon. member for Newton Park has come along with this amendment. If we analyse this matter properly, we find the following. I have here an account of settlement of ten oxen that were sold on the Cape Town market. Apart from the railage, the slaughter fees were R10-10, municipal fees R16, levy R12-40, fodder R2, telegram 33c, the Meast Board’s insurance R1-81, commission by the agent R47-44 and the levy of the Abattoir Commission 60c. Therefore, from total abattoir costs of R90-65, the commission drew an amount of 60c, and that is what this whole debate is about. I want to say again that I do not want to argue, but I am honestly surprised at the United Party taking so strong a stand on this point. I must concede to the view of hon. members that as far as this is concerned, the Minister’s approval is sufficient guarantee not to let this 60c increase too much. I honestly feel it is taking the matter too far if we allege, as the hon. member for Newton Park alleged, that for the sake of the farmer it is necessary, from time to time—it may be five years, it may be six years or it may be three years—for us to come along here to argue each time in the House about this small amount, which I want to concede will increase, but it will not change much in proportion to the other costs. If it were a matter of principle, I would have yielded. The previous point was a matter of principle, as far as I am concerned, but here it is not a question of a principle. All the other boards have this power. This authorization for the levying of this amount I want to bring into line with the position that obtains in the other boards. I honestly feel we are wasting a bit of time if we become so serious about such a trifle. I feel that the Minister and the responsible board are sufficient guarantee that these costs will not be excessive. Now I want to put a final question. When the Abattoir Commission is already making use of its funds and foresees that it is going to get into difficulties, that they are not going to come out with their revenue, i.e. that its revenue and expenditure will not tally, and we then come along here, as the United Party asks us to do, with a law amendment to put this matter right, would they oppose it even if there are legitimate reasons why the costs have gone up and why they have to ask for an increase?

Not if it is reasonable.

I really think they would support it, as they do, in fact, support it now. Why then insist that we should come back every time? After all, there is no objection to that in principle. No, I am very sorry. Under the circumstances, since we have the co-operation of the Opposition, I should have liked to accept this amendment, but for practical reasons—that much the hon. members will concede to me—I cannot do so.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister tried to do quite a bit of play-acting here. He was actually trying to be melodramatic in order to show that the person who sent ten oxen to market only paid 60c. However, the hon. gentleman must not speak of X who sent ten oxen. That hon. gentleman must take into consideration the whole amount that is paid in the case of 5 million or more sheep that are slaughtered at our controlled markets. He should also do so in the case of the one or two million head of large stock that are slaughtered, and then he would see that it is not a small amount which the Abattoir Commission collects in this way.

The hon. the Deputy Minister tells us, however, that no principle is at stake here. I want to ask him what has consequently happened to the principle adhered to by ex-Minister Uys in 1967 when he accepted in this House that a maximum should be fixed? If no matter of principle was at stake then, what is at stake now? Are we on this side of the House so unreasonable that when the commission comes to us with a case of its expenditure having been increased, we would not grant an increase in its revenue? The hon. the Deputy Minister asks us whether we would support an increase in the future if the committee were to approach us for an increase. Of course we would, if a case could be made out to justify why the commission should obtain increased revenue from the livestock producer. Today, by way of our amendment, we are giving the guarantee that we are prepared to do this. That is why we are prepared to raise the ceiling a little, because then the commission could have a little leeway. The hon. the Deputy Minister asks me whether we would like to see the commission landing in financial difficulties because its revenue is less than its expenditure. Of course we do not want to see this happen, and that is why we are prepared to help. We also know, however, that the South African farmer is increasingly, and to a much greater extent than in the past, being faced with increased production costs. What we are doing now is to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that we are not prepared to accept his amendment, because it would perhaps not mean, as far as the farmer is concerned, an increase of 6 to 12 cents in the levy that can be imposed by the commission, since the hon. the Deputy Minister can then fix any amount. Does he want to create the impression in the outside world that because the expenditure of the commission could increase to such an extent in the future, he needs unlimited power when it comes to the imposition of this levy?

The hon. gentleman is creating the impression that we are fighting here over a trifling matter. It is not a trifling matter when it affects the entire slaughter-stock industry in South Africa. The hon. the Deputy Minister could have made out an even better case if he had had the slaughtering account of a person who sold one or two oxen.

The relationship nevertheless remains exactly the same.

We on this side say it is not unreasonable either that if the hon. the Deputy Minister and the commission feel that increased revenue is necessary recourse should be had to the House, because we would not be unreasonable, as we were not unreasonable in 1967. If that increase appears to be justified, we would consider it in the light of the circumstances prevailing then. We say that this is the maximum increase we are prepared to accept, and we are not going to leave it to the commission to levy any amount, because this could greatly increase the production costs of the farmer. Here we have a service in respect of which it is justified to protect the interests of the farmer. The hon. member for Lichtenburg is not prepared to protect the interests of the farmer; he rather ensures …

That is not true.

… that a carte blanche is given to the commission to levy an amount which they might regard as necessary in the future for the execution of their duties.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Newton Park has here written fixed amounts into his amendment. The proviso stipulates that the levy cannot be more than 12c per head for cattle, horses, mules and donkeys, not more than 6c per head for calves and pigs and not more than 3c per head for sheep and goats. Since the hon. member now wants a fixed amount to be written into the legislation here, can he tell the hon. House what the basis was for his determination of this amount? Did the hon. member have accounts in front of him? Did he study the revenue and expenditure accounts of the Abattoir Commission in order to fix this amount? The hon. member must answer me on this.

That is the information given to us and it is more or less what will be necessary.

The hon. member has now been guessing again. I want to ask the hon. member:“Who says the amounts should be 12c and 3c, who says that those limits of his are correct, particularly since he did not check them properly? Can hon. members see how ridiculous the argument of the Opposition members is? They want us to go and write a fixed amount into legislation, though the amount can change from time to time. The hon. member says this is a new principle, but it is not a new principle, because it is done in the case of all control boards. I cannot see what the argument of the hon. members is. One moment they have the utmost confidence in the fact that the Abattoir Commission can own land and can expropriate land, as long as it does not transfer the land to a private person, but now they do not even want to trust the commission with the imposition of a levy on slaughter-stock. We cannot accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Newton Park, has made it quite clear that this is a matter of principle as far as we are concerned. It is interesting to read what this hon. Minister’s predecessor had to say on this matter (Hansard of 1967, col. 7303)—

We have not made any propaganda amongst the farmers. We are debating this measure purely on its merits and on what we believe to be in the best interests of the farmers. I quote further:

This brings me to another point, namely the people who are using the abattoirs and who will pay for them. Hon. members know that as the years go by the cost of providing clean, hygienic food to the public of South Africa is going up by leaps and bounds. One of the biggest factors for the escalating of the costs is the question of hygiene. This applies to all “bederfbare Produkte”, perishable products. This happens in the case of milk and all dairy products. It happens in the case of meat as well. Now it seems to me an extraordinary thing that while this is the case, the man who is footing the bill at the present stage is the farmer. He is called upon to foot the bill and it is because of the fact that this is happening that we on this side of the House are wary of giving the commission a free hand to charge what it will in these particular matters. We believe that the right place to exercise some control over everyone’s interest as far as these matters are concerned, is this honourable House. That is why we are taking this stand; it is a matter of principle and not a case of making propaganda or playing politics. We believe we have a sensible case. I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that when in future levies are imposed—I believe he already has this in mind—he should think of sharing the cost and the burden of providing hygienic food to the public of South Africa, so that the total cost is not borne by the farming community. I do not say this because I want to make propaganda amongst the farmers. I believe that since this is an economic necessity it should be attended to. We on this side of the House believe that is is absolutely essential that every possible measure should be taken to see that, bearing in mind the composition of the population in South Africa, cheap food should be made available wherever possible. We believe that no money should be wasted and that there should be no doubtful use of our resources. At the same time, we feel that the burden of providing that food cheaply and hygienically to the consumer should be borne by all sectors of the community.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member says they would like to see cheap food reaching the consumer. If that is the case, he ought to support the clause so that the private person could get hold of the land through the Abattoir Commission in a reasonable way and not in an unreasonable way. They were not in favour of that. The Minister is now meeting them half way, but is still going to do the same thing.

But he opposed it himself. You just do not know it.

No, I know exactly what he did. The hon. member for Newton Park said that the Deputy Minister stood up anl did some play-acting. The data the Deputy Minister furnished are quite correct; if it applies to ten carcasses, it also applies to 100 carcasses and to a million carcasses; it applies to all the carcasses slaughtered in the country. But it was the hon. member for Newton Park who stood up here and tried to play-act like a clown.

Where do you get that?

Yes …

Dirkie Uys agreed with me seven years ago.

The revenue which the Abattoir Commission obtained in 1970-’71 from all the levies on cattle, sheep, pigs, donkeys, mules, etc., …

And also from the United Party men!

Yes, probably from a few United Party men as well. In 1970-’71 that revenue was R239 000. In 1971-’72 it was R279 000. Hon. members should remember well …

That is a small beginning.

It is the amount. 1,2 million head of cattle were slaughtered. Hon. members must work out for themselves what the value of those carcasses are at R80 per carcass. It is over R100 million. But then there are the costs the farmer has in having 1,2 million head of cattle slaughtered. The slaughtering fees and abattoir fees amount to a minimum of R2,5 million. The Meat Board’s levy is an additional R1,5 million, which amounts to a total of R4 million. Hon. members are not worried about that.

That is not under discussion.

Hon. members are not worried about that. They say the farmer should negotiate about it.

We cannot discuss that.

Yes, hon. members say the farmer himself must negotiate about that. But an amount of R239 000 is involved here. Hon. members say there is going to be an increase in the funds needed to furnish a service not only to the farmer, but also to the consumer and everyone else in extending the abattoirs, co-ordinating them, streamlining them, modernizing them, etc. The hon. member for East London City went as far as to say they are going to take over a function of the Meat Board. In other words, the levy must be increased even more than that small amount of R239 000. We are now only comparing cattle—I am not even speaking about sheep, goats, etc. The total cost is R4 million. Now the hon. member says that the Meat Board can increase its levy of R1,5 million on cattle only with the Minister’s approval, while the House of Assembly must give approval for the small amount of R239 000. The large amount can be approved solely by the Minister, but the small amount must be approved by the House of Assembly. I now want to ask what their line of reasoning is. Then hon. members opposite still say that we do not try to do something for the farmers. I now want to tell that hon. member that he is insulting the farmer; that is why they will never obtain a farmer’s vote. A person who comes to light with such reasoning, and then stands up like a hero and says: “I am fighting for the farmers,” is insulting any farmer. We cannot accept that amendment of the hon. member. The attitude of the hon. member and the other United Party members on that side of the House annoys our farmers, and we are not going to put up with that in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Newton Park is wide of the mark because if there has ever been a Minister and a Government that have been close to the farmers, it is this Minister and this Government. Some of our older members know of the benefits we reaped under the United Party Government of the time. The hon. member alleges that the Minister should not have the power to use his own discretion in the fixing and levying of abattoir fees. Suppose Parliament adjourns in June, but the Abattoir Commission’s costs increase in the meantime because the number of sheep slaughtered per week, perhaps 20 000, decreases to 15 000 per week and those costs must be increased, but this can only be done when Parliament begins its session again in January. Seven months are lost before this Parliament can decide about what the hon. member wants. By the time Parliament again convenes in January or February, that Abattoir Commission can already have a deficit of R15 000 or R20 000. Who must then pay that deficit? The farmers who market in the future? Or must the payment be retrospective in nature in respect of persons who have already marketed? The hon. member cannot do any good thinking about these things. He has never thought about these aspects, because he is not a practical farmer. He has only been farming for a short while and therefore does not yet have sufficient experience of this matter to express himself about the practical implementation of this measure. If I will not be ruled out of order, I want to tell the hon. member that it is now high time he represented a farming constituency so that he could get abreast of matters involving farming interests.

Mr. Chairman, if one listens to the allegation of the hon. member for Prieska to the effect that the hon. member for Newton Park is not the son of a farmer one could almost say that farmers come only from Prieska. In addition the hon. member for Lichtenburg said that because it is a National Party Government the Minister is their Minister, as if to say he is not also the Minister of this side of the House and the country as a whole. I want to tell the hon. member for Lichtenburg that they do not know how to speak to the hon. the Minister. We know how to speak to him, and therefore we have his sympathy. The hon. member for Prieska asked how the Abattoir Commission must get its money if it has a deficit as a result of a decrease in the slaughtering. Does the hon. member not know—or does he know so little about boards—that each board builds up a reserve and that all boards have large reserves? [Interjections.] It is no use the hon. member screaming now; I sat quite still when he spoke. If the board has build up a reserve, it can eliminate deficits from time to time. It is to the principle involved here that we object, to the principle of arbitrarily, in season and out of season, changing the board’s levies. I have already said this previously and I am now saying it again for the hon. member’s information. We are opposed to the principle of the matter. I have already said that I foresee that in future the Abattoir Commission will need a great deal more money than this insignificant small amount mentioned here. This amendment is only there because we want to throw light on the principle that this hon. House must be taken into consideration when changes in levies take place. I foresee that this will happen in future, and I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister also sees it in that light. We have all been working together for years on this body, and we have given it our approval. This commission must continue with its work. We say that there should be many abattoirs, and that the commission must carry out many extensions and furnish many services. It must also furnish hygienic products in this era of pollution; everyone is making a fuss about it at present. As a result of this the commission will in future need much greater levies than this insignificant little amount. By what means, then, does one do it other than by the means our amendment proposes, i.e. by prescribing a maximum levy? When the maximum is exceeded, we come to the House and speak about that again. If the maximum is too low, we can triple it, or even increase it fivefold as the activities and functions of the Abattoir Commission extend themselves. Is there an hon. member on that side who thinks that the commission will continue with its functions on this small scale? How, then, must it obtain its revenue? Is the livestock suddenly going to increase to such an extent? This will not be so rapid an increase. After all, there is only one way to ensure sufficient revenue, and that is eventually to increase those levies considerably. I am sure that in his heart of hearts the hon. the Deputy Minister is sympathetic to our standpoint that it is necessary to come to this House repeatedly to bring about an increase of the levy. We do not have any objection to the board building up a reserve fund either. No board can operate properly without a reserve fund. But then the methods must be discussed and approved in this House. That is all our standpoint entails. It is no use continuing to argue that the amount is so small in comparison with the slaughtering and administration costs of the whole industry. That argument does not hold good. It does not affect the principle of the matter.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and W. M. Sutton.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux and G. P. van den Berg.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, clause 3, of course, is the whole body of this particular measure and makes provision for a new agricultural reference board. Here for the first time we are making provision that an agricultural control board need not necessarily make a decision itself on an application for a licence; the control board can divest itself of the power which it has to grant a licence or a permit to do certain things with an agricultural product and pass on that power to the new Agricultural Reference Board. Sir, in the proposed new section 7C(2) we find that where members of a control board, because they have vested interests, have recused themselves from participation in the proceedings of the control board, particularly where they are trying to come to a decision on an application for a licence or a permit, and the remaining members are then too few in numbers to constitute a quorum for a meeting of the control board, in other words, that the control board is no longer properly constituted and therefore cannot take a decision, then—and I now quote from the proposed new section—

As I have said, it then divests itself of all its powers in regard to this matter and passes those powers over to the Agricultural Reference Board, which will then come to a decision on behalf of the board on this particular application. Sir, we believe that this is a tremendous step forward and that it is therefore something to be recommended and to be accepted by this House. But, Sir, we believe that once again the Minister has not really taken his courage in both hands. He has not really gone as far as he should perhaps have gone in this particular respect. As I pointed out yesterday, we are not always satisfied that the members of a control board who have a vested interest always recuse themselves. I believe this is something which should have been taken care of in this legislation as well, but unfortunately that is something we cannot discuss now. I believe also that the hon. the Minister should have gone further and in some way or other should have indicated that the board must come to a decision within a specified time. That we will be able to discuss a little later when we come to another provision in the Bill. But the provision we are dealing with right now, and where I have an argument with the hon. the Minister, is because I believe that he did not go far enough in that he has retained these words, that the control board may refer the matter in question to the Reference Board. I believe that this should be mandatory for the board, that if it is unable for some reason to come to a decision, it should be compelled within a specified period to refer this matter to the Agricultural Reference Board which is now being created. We asked the question during the Second Reading debate what was meant or envisaged by the Minister by the inclusion of the words “if so directed by the Minister”, but unfortunately we did not get a reply. We do not really know what he is after. I believe that those words are completely unnecessary or would be completely unnecessary if we were to make this measure mandatory and make it imperative for the control board to refer this matter to the Agricultural Reference Board when it is unable to raise a quorum. For that reason I now move as an amendment—

The clause will then read to the effect that the control board shall refer the matter in question to the Reference Board for a decision by it. I believe that this can only be in the best interest not only of the agricultural sector but also of the consumers in this country. In fact, I believe it can only be in the best interest of all persons because we have had too many hold-ups at certain levels. There have been bottlenecks, and this is one of the bottlenecks there have been where, as I tried to point out yesterday, we even had monopolistic tendencies developing because of the bottleneck at this particular point, where either a board will not make a decision or cannot make a decision. I believe that if we were to accept the provisions of this Bill today, the establishment of the Agricultural Reference Board—which we accept and welcome as a very good idea on the part of the Minister and of the department—and if we would only accept this amendment now to make it mandatory on the board that it shall refer the matter to the Reference Board, so that it will not be able to sit on the applications and hold-up a decision, I believe that we will be going a step further which will be in the interest both of the producers as well as the consumers.

Sir, I do not think this amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District is acceptable to us. We are very proud and very jealous of the autonomy of our control boards and we do not want to tamper with it unnecessarily. The Minister has the last say in anything the control boards do. But where it concerns the registration and appointment of agents, and so forth, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District was guilty of gross exaggeration. He said, “the board divests itself of all its powers”. Sir, that is not so. It is only with regard, to specific matters that he passes these powers on to the Reference Board. Then the hon. member says he cannot understand the meaning of the words “if so directed by the Minister”. These words only refer to these specific powers and it remains at the discretion of the Minister whether he wants to pass on those powers to the board, and he may say, “No, go ahead and appoint these people even though you do not have a quorum; you are still qualified to do this work”, or he may say the matter has to be referred to the Reference Board. I think the legislation is quite clear. I do not think there is any doubt that we must trust the control boards to handle this matter correctly where they, after all, know what the position is. They know when they do not have a quorum and nobody else knows what happens in the inner sanctums of the control boards. They may be relied upon to take these steps when they find they do not have a quorum.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down has, in his remark that nobody knows what goes on in the inner chambers of the board, completely borne out the argument which I raised yesterday. This is the whole crux of the matter that nobody knows what goes on.

And will not know in the future.

That is quite right. That is exactly what I said. Nobody will know in the future, because I believe that this legislation does not go far enough. Unfortunately I cannot discuss that particular point now; it is beyond the scope of this clause. I accept that and therefore I cannot take it any further.

However, I believe there is one way in which the hon. the Deputy Minister can help aggrieved parties, parties who are interested in the distribution or the processing of agricultural products, who are tied to these control boards and who have to apply to them for permits. The one way in which the hon. the Deputy Minister can help these parties is by accepting this amendment which we have moved. I believe that this will ease the situation, that it will make it a lot easier for the public to get answers from the boards. I believe that that hon. member on the other side is right. I agree with him that we are proud of the work which is done by these control boards. I believe that the control boards do an excellent job of work to a point. I believe that the powers and the functions of the control boards have been extended beyond the powers and functions which were originally designed for them and that they are today controlling the processing, the manufacture and the distribution of their particular products. They are now infringing into the commercial sphere where, because of their control and because of the manner in which it is carried out, we are developing monopolistic conditions.

Nobody today can have a baker’s licence without a certificate from the Wheat Industry Control Board. Why is there this monopoly in that particular sphere? Similarly, as far as the meat industry is concerned, nobody can have a butcher’s licence, whether it is in the public interest or not, whether there is one butchery or ten butcheries in a small town, unless the Livestock and Meat Industry Control Board decides that he ought to have such a licence. Nobody else can decide on such issue.

This has nothing to do with this clause.

Perhaps I am ranging a bit wide, but I am trying to build a case why I believe that we have to compel these boards to make a decision and we have to compel them, if they are unable to make a decision, to pass it on to this new board which we are creating. This new board has to function and I believe it is in the interest of this new board, which I believe will serve a wonderful purpose, that the boards should be compelled to refer these matters to the new board, the Agricultural Reference Board. As this is written at the moment you can have the situation where nothing will be referred to the Agricultural Reference Board. It will never get off the ground, because it will never have any work to do since each of the control boards will sit jealously guarding its own rights and it will say that the Act does not say that it has to refer the matter to the reference board and therefore it will not. If the onus is left on the board, the board alone will decide whether it shall refer the matter or not. I believe that this is wrong. I believe that we should take that onus away from the boards and that the onus should be on the Minister to amend this legislation so that the boards shall refer such matters to the Agricultural Reference Board if they cannot make a decision themselves.

Mr. Chairman, I feel the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District is correct when he says that not all that many matters will be referred to the Reference Board. That is exactly what we do not want to happen, and I cannot see why he wants something else. It sometimes happens with a board that the members of such board have something to do with the matter under discussion. They then have to recuse themselves and the board is then left without a quorum. I cannot see why the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District should have the idea that the Reference Board should take over the work of the boards. I simply cannot believe that that is the intention of the board. For that reason I think that the hon. member for Humansdorp is quite correct. It is only when stagnation takes place, when the board—for a specific reason—simply cannot continue, that something like this may happen. We are now establishing the Reference Board to solve problems of this nature. In short, the hon. member’s amendment amounts to the substitution for “may” of “shall” … “kan” and “moet” in the Afrikaans version. I want to put only one question to the hon. member. If a board meets, let us assume it meets to consider some application or other, and it is short of a quorum because the members who are involved in the matter under discussion have recused themselves and the amendment moved by the hon. member is accepted, this matter has to be referred to the Reference Board. If all the members are present, they will, in fact, have a quorum to be able to decide. Why does he now expect us to write into the legislation a measure to compel the boards, also under those circumstances, to refer the matter to the Reference Board? I think that is where the minor misunderstanding arises. Our intention is not to have the work of the board taken over by the Reference Board, and for that reason I feel that the law advisers have quite rightly used those specific words.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for his explanation. I still have not heard what is envisaged by “if so directed by the Minister”, under what circumstances exactly the hon. the Minister will …

I told you that.

Yes, but I do not believe that that is the whole story.

You are just suspicious.

No, I am not being suspicious here; I am looking for further reasons. I accept that as one reason, but I am looking for more reasons why the hon. the Minister should take action and direct the board. If the hon. the Minister asks us today to give him the power at any time to direct the board to do it, why does he not want to write it into the legislation that a board “shall” refer an application? Why does he not want to do that? I believe there must be other reasons.

How do you accommodate …

How do I accommodate what?

I gave you the example.

The hon. the Minister gave me the example where there are insufficient members to form a quorum. I want to come back to the hon. the Deputy Minister with another question. How many applications for permits and licences are outstanding at the moment awaiting decision by the various control boards?

On account of insufficient members to form a quorum?

No, on any account. I do not know on what account, and this is the whole point. Nobody knows on what account and why, but the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. the Minister knows. The hon. member for Wynberg referred a case to the hon. the Minister a little while ago, the case of the Dairy Board, which for three years had messed around and had not given a decision on an application. I have the papers, or rather an application form, for a wholesale dairy product distribution licence on my desk right now. For three years this dairy board has sat there without making a decision for some or other reason. The reason might be the reason advanced by the hon. the Deputy Minister, namely that when the board came to sit, certain members recused themselves and then the board could not sit without a quorum. I do not know, because I do not know what happens at these board meetings. The whole point is if this goes on and on there is no justice done to the applicant and no justice done to the public who is waiting for another distributor. Then there is no justice to the producer who is looking for another outlet for his products.

No competition.

There is no competition for those who have the permits at the time, and this is where monopolistic conditions come in. I believe it is in the best interest of all parties that this should be done; I believe that it is in the interest of justice that this should be done. If the board cannot come to a decision, even if the reason why it cannot come to a decision is because it has not a quorum, it should be referred to the Agricultural Reference Board. This is the referee, the board which is going to decide on this matter. Where a board is sitting and for some reason or another it cannot make a decision, it should be sent down to the referee, to the Agricultural Reference Board and let them take action. I really cannot understand what objection the Government has to accepting this amendment. It is taking away from the hon. the Minister the power to direct a board to refer a particular case, but what it is giving the Minister is the power to say to all the boards in all cases that, if they do not come to a decision, they must refer that case to the Reference Board. I cannot see the difference. What it is doing, is that it is tying every one of these control boards to making a decision or passing the matter on and letting someone else make the decision on their behalf. The hon. member for Humansdorp referred to the fact that I had said that a board would divest itself of all its powers. When he quoted me he only went halfway because I said it would divest itself of its powers in respect of a particular application. That is in effect what it does; it hands over to the Reference Board—the hon. the Deputy Minister is nodding his head to indicate that he agrees with me—its powers to deal with that particular matter. The Reference Board as such has no powers except those passed over to it.

Yes.

Thank you, the hon. member accepts that.

I cannot really see any objection to this amendment. I think it is a good amendment which is in the best interests of all parties concerned.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District is conjuring up spectres. He insinuates that we cannot always trust the control boards with regard to the things that happen in their offices. He also insinuates that “there is no justice to the public or the producer”. To my mind he is sowing the seeds of suspicion here. These control boards have been doing good work through all these years. I think that our control boards have a good record. I think the Minister has sufficient confidence in the control boards to leave this matter to the control boards themselves and their members to decide whether to pass on a matter or refer it to the Agricultural Reference Board. These control boards consist of people who have honest intentions with the industry they are serving on those boards. There are also producers on those control boards. They will not allow their industry to be prejudiced by unnecessary delays. Neither do I think that we, with our democratic system in this country, will allow the Minister to act in an autocratic way, and always say: “You have to!” We are not dealing with children here; we have adults serving on these control boards, experienced people, businessmen and men who know the industry. To my mind the hon. member is merely conjuring up a whole lot of spectres. He looks very innocent, but he is sowing the seeds of suspicion here when he tells us that he has a suspicion that justice does not always prevail in the dark rooms of the control boards. I feel very strongly that we have a good case here, and that we should retain it as it is laid down in the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, as we have already said, this legislation deals with social pensions and for the most part it is a consolidation measure comprising a part of the Aged Persons Act of 1967 with regard to pensions, the War Veterans’ Pensions Act of 1968, the Blind Persons Act, the Disability Grants Act, and of course a number of amendments with regard to these measures. We have already said that we on this side of the House welcome this measure. It facilitates and, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said, it simplifies the administration of these measures by the department as well as any future amendments which may possibly have to be made with regard to this measure in the future. In future the Minister and his department will therefore deal with the administration of all social pensions under this legislation. Since it is not only a consolidation measure, it also gives us on this side of the House the opportunity of raising a few matters with the Deputy Minister.

When the debate was adjourned yesterday, I was raising two matters with the hon. the Deputy Minister. The first was that the hon. the Deputy Minister should, in terms of this legislation and in consultation with the hon. the Minister of Finance, consider the possibility of exempting war veterans who served in the Zulu Uprising in 1906, in the 1914-’20 First World War, and who in 1914-'15 were protesting citizens, in exactly the same way as the people who served in the Anglo-Boer War, from the means test. These people are nearing the end of their lifespan, and very few of them will reach the 100 years’ mark which the hon. member for Germiston mentioned. This may be an opportunity for the Government now to make a special concession in this case with regard to these war veterans. In the second place, I recommended, and it was merely a thought, that the hon. the Deputy Minister should consider appointing postmasters as assistant district pension officials, in consultation of course with his colleague the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. In addition he should also consider whether the Post Office, especially in the urban areas in South Africa, cannot serve as an information bureau for pensioners. The Post Office is surely one of those places which is regularly visited by elderly people. They will then be able to obtain information there in regard to concessions and amendments which are made from time to time. I believe that notices can be put up in post offices. When elderly people go to collect their pensions at post offices, pamphlets could possibly be given to them together with their pensions if certain amendments are made with regard to this legislation. I believe that there are thousands of pensioners today who either did not previously qualify and who do qualify now as a result of concessions, or pensioners who are receiving pensions but who are, as a result of concessions entitled to more money but are in many cases unaware of the fact. We all know that when the basic pension of elderly people is increased, it is automatically paid out to them, but with regard to concessions to pensioners, especially with regard to the means test, they have to make application. We know that the press and the radio does much in this regard to convey information to elderly people, but in many cases they have to rely on someone telling them about it by chance. To me it seems an inadequate arrangement and I believe that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs can do a great deal to help the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and the hon. the Deputy Minister in this regard. Many elderly people hear only by chance about concessions which are made from time to time. If they do not hear about it, they have to do without the extra money which they could have received. Except for the Post Office, the hon. the Minister could possibly also consider police stations as possible information centres for elderly people. Yesterday I said that if elderly people living in the vicinity of Johannesburg wanted to make application or obtain information with regard to various concessions which are made from time to time, they have to travel from the suburban areas to the centre of Johannesburg to get to the office of this department. We know that it is very difficult for old people to get about. Sometimes they have to travel by bus and have to walk for blocks to reach the office. But they go to the Post Office regularly, for it is situated in their immediate vicinity.

Clause 4 of this amendment Bill provides that application must be made to a district pension officer. As I have already said, he is—especially in urban areas—not easily accessible to elderly people. In this regard the Post Office could solve this problem for us. Clause 12 provides that the hon. the Minister may appoint district pension officers. In this regard I want to say that a postmaster may also be able to solve many problems for us if we could appoint him as assistant district pension officer.

Clause 17(1) deals with regulations. Here there are only three minor matters which I would like to raise with the hon. the Deputy Minister. In the first place, under paragraph (b), the maximum amount payable to old-age pensioners, or social pensioners as they will now be called, is deter-minded by the Minister. Perhaps this is the opportunity this afternoon, in the discussion of this Bill, to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to use his influence with the Minister of Finance. I know there is very little time left before tomorrow, but the hon. the Deputy Minister could perhaps, under the powers granted to him by this legislation, discuss the possibility of an increase with the Minister of Finance. Last week we heard that the Post Office had increased the telephone rental by 50%. Perhaps it is not asking too much that the Deputy Minister talk to the Minister of Finance about a possible 50% increase to pensioners. It is not much, Sir. It will only bring about an increase from R41 to R62 per month.

In the second place, provision is made in paragraph (f) for regulations to be made in respect of the means test. In this regard I want to tell the Deputy Minister that I know it is very difficult for him, in terms of Government policy and the present legislation, to abolish the means test completely. We know he cannot do it, for the system does not allow it. I only want to tell him that he must give further thought to the possibility of considering the approach of this side of the House, namely that we introduce a contributory pension scheme in South Africa.

What did you give them?

To my mind the elderly people were far better off under the United Party Government than they are today. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must return to the measure.

In the third place I want to plead with the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider extra concessions with regard to the maximum pension payable to that group of pensioners who have no other assets of income than the basic pension which is paid to them. They are solely dependent on the maximum pension with regard to an income.

Then I want to conclude by saying that we are with this legislation repealing the War Veterans’ Pensions Act of 1968 today. The hon. member for Umbilo has already referred to it. You know, Sir, the war veterans in South Africa do not like to be referred to as social pensioners. The old people who served, whether in the Anglo-Boer War, the Zulu Uprising of 1906, the Rebellion, the First World War or the Second World War, feel that, to a certain degree they are entitled to a pension. After all, special reference is made to them in the Act, and the definition of veterans pensions is still included in this legislation. As it is in the main only a consolidating measure, we on this side of the House have no objection to it, and we will support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Turffontein who has just resumed his seat, tried yesterday and again a moment ago to make a good deal of political capital out of the position of our elderly people. We are of course accustomed to that. He mentioned two matters which move me to say this. The one matter, which he has just repeated, concerned the means test which has to be abolished. He also expressed his amazement last night when the hon. member for Germiston told how the elderly people in his constituency had already been educated and conditioned in this connection, how they had already obtained information so that they knew exactly where they had to go, armed with all the documentation which they may require, and that they were being assisted in a very pleasant manner by a friendly department. The hon. member expressed his amazement that that could be so. He felt that that was probably not possible; possibly there were no such people in the constituency of the hon. member for Germiston, or perhaps they were unaware of the provision which is being made for our elderly people, for he, the hon. member for Turffontein, and his colleague, the hon. member for Umbilo, were, as it were, being inundated with letters, etc., in which these people pleaded for assistance, and possibly for enlightenment and guidance.

Do you want to see the letters?

I can only say to the hon. member that as far as my constituency is concerned—and if he likes he can accuse me of making a little political capital of this—my voters are also being given proper information. They are told exactly what documentation they require, whether for a war veterans’ pension, a disability allowance, an old-age pension, or a blind persons’ pension. They are told what they will require when they go to the district pension officer, and if they are unable to go to the pension officer, they can come to me and I shall help them, just as a friendly clerk of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions would help them if they were to go to him. This would then have the same value when they arrived at that office with their applicants. I can also tell him that an application for a pension, of whatever nature, is never finally rejected. The pensioner may perhaps miss out at the first attempt, but he can ask repeatedly for his pension to be reconsidered. If a person is dissatisfied with his pension or at the fact that he does not receive a pension, he is even free to appeal to the Minister. Actually, the application for a pension is, in the general sense of the word, not merely a privilege which our elderly people, our sick people and others have; it has become an absolute right, and from time to time they can go further with it. Their attempts will never be frastrated.

We are dealing here with a consolidation of four Acts, and it is really unnecessary to say this, but we support it even more whole heartedly than hon. members opposite who have already spoken, because, in the words of the hon. the Deputy Minister, it makes matters so much more convenient. In regard to this subject I just want to refer to one Government Gazette which was recently issued, namely Government Gazette No. 3797 of 9th March of this year. If we turn to page 3, we find that virtually two pages are devoted to one and the same purpose. The regulations which are amended and which appear here, are all quite identical, but now they have to be published in four different Government Notices because they fall under four different Acts. So we find that Government Notices 326, 327, 328 and 329 take up so much unnecessary space and paper. It is unnecessary to stress this further, but if hon. members would only refer to this Government Gazette, they would realize that by means of this consolidating legislation, time, money and, inter alia, also printing costs, are being saved. Possibly this money could, at a later stage, be utilized for some other purpose. I want to say that this House could also continue to set the standard for more streamlined departments. Since the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions has adopted such a commendable course, I think it would be appropriate if there could also be a constant check on the operation of other Government departments in order to ascertain to what extent they could be made more streamlined.

Mr. Speaker, so much has been said and there has been so much repetition already, but there is just one minor matter which I should like to stress here and in respect of which the department may possibly be of assistance. I refer to the protection which these pensioners are being afforded. In terms of subsections (2) and (3) of clause 9, protection is being granted in respect of the monies which a pensioner receives if there should perhaps be proceedings for civil imprisonment against that pensioner, or if the estate of that pensioner is being sequestrated. There are many pensioners who do not realize this and who perhaps pay out of the goodness of their hearts instead of protecting themselves, and one would like to see this provision brought to their attention.

There is another minor matter which I want to raise. It is not actually stated in this Bill, but a number of pensioners have already been discussing it. Hostile people, or people who perhaps do not know any better or perhaps do not want to know any better, are sometimes inclined to throw a bit of a scare into our pensioners by telling them that if they save some of their money, the department will arrive at the conclusion that they do not need the pension, and will cancel their pension. I have had occasion to put out a number of such little fires. I believe that the same thing has also happened to other hon. members. How those pensioners manage to save, I do not always understand, but if they do in fact succeed in doing so, it is an indication that we have thrifty people. We must appreciate those thrifty people, and if they want to save, the correct information must be brought to their attention so that they can save as much as possible of their pensions for the day when they may perhaps need it rather badly, for example for a short holiday.

Sir, our elderly people are very sensitive and one must deal with them very carefully. In this respect I agree that a man who was a war veteran, does not want to drop that designation, but he need not do so. In fact, the Bill has been drafted in such a way that provision is made for veterans’ pensions, old-age pensions and so on and the war veteran is still able to carry that fine label round his neck, even though the consolidated designation is now going to be “social pension”.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat accused my colleague, the hon. member for Turffontein, of wanting to make political propaganda here. Sir, when a member stands up in this House and champions the cause of our elderly people, of underprivileged people and of people who are entitled to pensions, then I think that it is quite wrong to say that that member is making political propaganda. I shall tell you what political propaganda is, Mr. Speaker.

Order! That is not relevant now.

No, Sir, it is in connection with pensions.

Order!

I am referring here to people who, during election campaigns, say to the elderly people, “If you do not vote for the Nationalist Party, we are going to take your pensions away.” That is wrong, and it happens a great deal.

Where is that stated in the Bill?

Sir, yesterday the hon. member for Germiston came forward with a very good proposal, namely that a person who has attained the age of 100 years, should receive some acknowledgment or other from the State. I want to give him my wholehearted support. If we could persuade the Government to accept that principle, we should also try to persuade the Government to make a small advance payment to those who are approaching the age 100 years in case they do not make the grade.

Who will pay it back if they do not attain the age of 100 years?

Sir, I would like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Turffontein said here in connection with the war veterans. Sir, this is a consolidation measure, and certain improvements are also being effected to the Pensions Act, but we are very disappointed that the definition of “war veteran” remains exactly the same as in the old Act. This means that our Bantu who fought for South Africa in wars in the past, are not regarded as war veterans. Sir, that is really a great injustice, because these are people who served South Africa well. Many of these people are old and sickly today, and are in rather a bad way. I think it is the duty of the State to look after those people. We cannot insist strongly enough in this House that the Government should display gratitude towards those people.

Sir, there is another point which is important in this connection, and that is that our method of warfare has changed completely. Today we have to deal with a kind of warfare which we were previously unacquainted with, namely terrorist activities. People fighting these terrorists elsewhere and who are experts in this field, tell us that in order to fight terrorists, one must in the first place have the goodwill and co-operation of the local people on one’s borders, and in our case the people living in those areas are all Bantu. In the second place, Sir, I do not think that we can do better than to train these Bantu to oppose terrorism on our borders. They are extremely suited to this kind of work, because they can pursue the terrorists.

What has this to do with pensions?

I want to say to the Government that we should encourage these people to help us in our fight against the terrorists, and in that case we should not discriminate against them. [Interjection.] Sir, it seems to me that I am not very popular with the Deputy Minister in making a suggestion of this kind, but I leave the matter at that. We have often discussed this matter before, and I am convinced that we shall eventually convince the Government.

Another matter concerning which I want to heartily support previous speakers, is the question of the means test as applied to the war veterans of the Zulu Rebellion in 1906 and the war veterans of the First World War. I think that the time has arrived for us to look after these people. Their numbers are decreasing year after year; they are getting old; they are needy; many of them are ill and they need help. I think the time has arrived for us to do away with the means test in the case of these people, just as in the case of the war veterans of the Boer War.

Then there is just one other thing. Yesterday mention was made in this House of the sympathetic attitude of the department and I would be guilty of dereliction of duty if I did not add my small contribution. In the smaller centres in our country in particular, where there are officials of the department to whom people must go for help and to obtain information, one always finds the most deeply sympathetic treatment on the part of the officials. I think that we must stress in this House that we express our appreciation for this towards the department and also towards the officials whose doors are always open to us. We always get sympathetic treatment from them and we appreciate this very much. Now, as I have already said, this is a consolidating Bill. It is just a pity that these few matters which could have been corrected have not been corrected now, but, as I have already said, we shall persist in this until it has been rectified.

Previous speakers have emphasized the need for further information to be passed on to people who may qualify for certain benefits under this Bill, but I want to deal with an aspect which has not yet been mentioned and which deals with all races. I am aware of the provisions of clause 19 which excludes Coloureds, but I assume that this is an umbrella Bill which gives the Minister power to delegate to other Ministers, and I raise this matter because it is a question common to Whites, Bantu and Indians.

If one studies the Bill one finds in clause 1, the definition clause, that a blind person is defined as anyone over the age of 19 year who has been registed as a blind person under any law. Then we have the disabled person being defined as any person who has attained the age of 16 years and is, owing to physical or mental disability, unfit to obtain from any service, employment or profession the means needed to enable him to provide adequately for his maintenance. Sir, I was struck most forcibly recently by an article which appeared in one of the daily newspapers in Durban. It was from a correspondent and the letter was addressed to the editor. It was headed “Sickening sights in Durban streets” and it said—

Then there is another case which this correspondent witnessed shortly afterwards concerning another disabled person. He went on to say in his letter—

Sir, I suggest that it is incidents such as these which could blur the image of our social welfare services in South Africa, I think undeservedly, but the fact remains that they could very well create the wrong impression. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he gives this mater his serious consideration. I would like him to give me the assurance that he will take every step possible to see that those who are maimed, crippled or blind and who are unable to support themselves are at least given the opportunity to know that in fact there are means by which they can be assisted in terms of this particular Bill. Many of them, I am sure, if they were to know it, would be able to qualify for a blind person’s pension and many others who suffer from serious disabilities would qualify in some way for a disability pension. I think one can safely say that people of all races are found in the streets of our cities and towns every day and every night of the year and many of them appear to be dependent on the compassion of passers-by. I believe that no one would like to be in the position to capitalize on infirmity in order to exist. I want to plead with the hon. the Deputy Minister—I believe that he has the power in terms of this Bill to delegate certain powers to other Ministers— to use every effort to try to get the fact across that assistance is available. I want to ask him too that he will satisfy himself that it is adequate assistance, because I believe that anybody who is enjoying this assistance should not be allowed to beg. I am not suggesting that there should be intensified police action or that these cases should be swept under the mat to get them out of sight; I am suggesting that we should use every means at our disposal to try to assist them and to see that they are given some help and, if possible, that they are placed in institutions where they can be cared for and not left to roam the streets of our cities. I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he is able to give some assurance that he will look into these matters because I believe them to be a source of concern to the citizens of South Africa and one which creates a wrong impression in the minds of many of our visitors to South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, in the first pace I am rising to express my great appreciation of the fact that the Opposition support this Bill and in the second place to convey my thanks too for all the speakers who participated in this debate for the very positive and constructive manner in which this debate has been conducted. Quite a number of practical suggestions were made, to which consideration will be given. I shall try to reply, to their satisfaction, to everything hon. members have asked me.

The hon. member for Umbilo referred to the proviso in the definition of war veteran in clause 1 of the Bill. You, Mr. Speaker, ruled that the hon. member could not discuss that matter, and I do not know whether you are going to do the same to me, but by your leave I should like to furnish the hon. member with a brief explanation, since I know what the hon. member actually intended saying. The hon. member for North Rand finally succeeded in saying it this afternoon. It concerns the position of Bantu war veterans. As the hon. member for North Rand correctly stated, this Bill was taken over precisely from the principal Act of 1968, and it does in fact exclude Bantu war veterans. The position is that provisions in our law affecting the Bantu war veteran have been transferred in their entirety to homeland legislation. Pensions are one of the matters transferred to the respective homelands in terms of the Bantu Homelands Constitution Act, 1971. Our estimate is that approximately 92% of the possible Bantu war veterans are already in the homelands, and that the rest are citizens of some homeland or other. As hon. members will know, this Bill which is now before the House cannot apply in the homelands because they have the power to pass legislation on pensions. Nothing which we pilot through here may be applicable to homelands.

That is nonsense.

It is not nonsense.

We can give them pensions.

As a result of this situation we will not interfere with something which has been transferred to the legislative assemblies of the homelands. If they want to introduce pensions, they can do so. If we were to try to introduce pensions for even a limited number of war veterans, it is very possible that we would in this way be placing a subsequent financial burden on the homelands. They will have to pay out that money. The position is that we can do nothing about the position of Bantu war veterans. They were not given pensions in the past either. In future this matter will be vested completely and exclusively in possible legislation which the homelands are able to pass themselves.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? Could the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us whether he will support the homelands governments financially, through his department, if they should ask for an amount of money for this purpose?

I have absolutely nothing to do with the matter. I cannot take money from the one department and give it to the legislative assembly of a homeland.

Do you recommend that?

I cannot recommend it either. If I cannot do it, I cannot recommend it either.

Apologize for asking such a stupid question.

The other point to which the hon. member for Umbilo referred, is that certain benefits are no longer applicable in terms of the provisions of clause 3. I cannot see how any of the benefits could have been removed. Earlier, not under this Bill therefore, the residence qualifications were 15 out of the 20 years preceding the application for the pension. For war veterans it was five out of the 10 years preceding such application. Now the figure throughout has been made five years preceding the application, and an additional concession has been made in as much that a person who has permanent residence in South Africa also qualifies. For that reason I cannot see how the hon. member could have been correct when he said that we had removed certain benefits.

I only referred to it because you put the war veteran’s pension on the same basis as the others. The war veteran pensioner has no longer an advantage, whereas he had it previously.

I cannot see how the hon. member can say that there was a special advantage. What is the difference between the provision of five years which we now have, and the provision of five years out of ten, as it was previously.

Previously the old-age pensioner and the other social pensioner had to wait longer. Now it is the same.

It is quite correct that the war veteran pensioner had a shorter period than the ordinary old-age pensioner, but we have now placed it on the same basis. We have, in other words, given the old-age pensioner an advantage which he did not previously have, but we have not deprived the war veteran pensioner of anything. The period is still five years.

I merely indicated that there were no longer such advantages in being a war veteran pensioner.

That is quite correct, and I concede to the hon. member that the advantage which a war veteran had over an ordinary old-age pensioner no longer exists, for we have now evened out the advantage. Nevertheless we have removed nothing from the position of the war veteran. In other words, we have given the old-age pensioner something, and taken nothing away from the others.

Both the hon. member for Umbilo as well as the hon. member for Turffontein referred to a notification to the public of the various advantages which a person may obtain on application. In the past we made pamphlets available, but we found that before all the pamphlets were distributed further changes had been made to the pension scheme. It was quite an impossible task to distribute pamphlets furnishing certain figures because they became obsolete so quickly. I am in full agreement with one of the suggestions made here, namely that notices could be put up on the walls of post offices in which brief particulars were furnished of what the advantages were to which each person was entitled. We shall give that matter our attention.

Then I want to express my thanks to the hon. member for Germiston in particular. In the first place I want to say thank you very much for a very well deserved compliment which he paid the officials of this department. It is truly one of the departments in which our relations with our elderly people via the official have to be sound. I say with great pride and humility, for it is not I who am responsible for this but those officials themselves, that they are filled with edealism for this task and that this department is doing tremendously good work, and work which requires tremendous self-sacrifice, with enormous patience. I am very grateful that the hon. member for Germiston took the trouble to bring that aspect of the department’s work to the attention of the House.

He also asked us to treat the centenarians in some special way. I am in full agreement with him, and we shall go into the question of what we can do to benefit them a little. Quite probably we will abolish the means test in their case. That point will still be looked into, and we will see whether there is anything we can give those people. He also asked us to request the post office to make their best people available when payments are made to our “senior citizens”, as the Americans call them—I find that a very fine concept. I shall definitely take that suggestion further. We shall inform the various post offices that it is actually a great honour for us to be able to make a payment to our senior citizens, and that we should like the officers who are appointed for that purpose to render service of the same standard as that rendered by the officials of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions itself.

Then, the hon. member for Turffontein as well as the hon. member for North Rand requested that certain of the war veterans be exempted from the means test. I just want to say that, as far as the Anglo-Boer war is concerned—the hon. member referred to people who were citizens during the Anglo-Boer war—there are of course very few veterans of that war left. One should not forget that the reason why there is no means test for them, as far as I could ascertain, is that those citizens fought for three years without any compensation. In regard to all the other wars we find that the soldiers received a measure of compensation. They did receive something, certain benefits when they returned from the war. But the men who were in the field for us for three years, sacrificed all they had. For that reason we abolished the means test as far as they are concerned. I do not know what the position is in respect of the Zulu Rebellion. I have an idea that those people are also being compensated, but I shall go into the question of the position in their case. If they are not receiving compensation, we shall consider abolishing the means test as far as they are concerned. We know that the men who fought in the First World War have been compensated, and enjoyed certain advantages when they returned. I shall also go into the position of the citizens of the 1914 uprising. We shall review the entire matter in the light of these proposals and suggestions which were made, and we shall quite probably effect a measure of relief.

The hon. member for Turffontein also requested that postmasters be appointed as district officers. Unfortunately, I am afraid that this is not very practical. One must have control over one’s own officials; one must have control over him as person, and also over his position. If we were to appoint a postmaster as one of our officers, it would mean that there would be dual control, which in practice would be completely unpractical. I concede to the hon. member for Turffontein that in a big city like Johannesburg one should like to appoint more district pension officers, and we shall give this matter our attention.

The hon. member for Turffontein also put the usual type of questions to us. He asked for more pensions; very well, tomorrow is Budget day. Someone told him to make a political issue of this to a certain extent, and I do not take it amiss of him for doing so. Apart from that he made quite a good and positive contribution. I therefore do not blame him for asking for more money for the pensioners at the very last moment before the Budget Debate. I cannot tell him whether they are going to receive anything, for unfortunately I cannot foresee what will happen tomorrow. The hon. member also asked for an amendment of the means test, and said that he wanted a contributory pension scheme. This is a matter which we debated in the House two or three weeks ago, and he knows very well what our standpoint in that regard is. He asked for additional concessions to people who have no additional income. As far as this matter is concerned, I want to admit quite candidly to the hon. member that this is something which I am also concerned about. The department will go into this matter very thoroughly. The whole idea of an old-age pension is that it should be a supplementary amount. One will probably have to review the entire matter in respect of people who have absolutely no income at all. Whether we shall succeed in this matter, is not for me to say, but the sympathetic attitude and the goodwill is there.

The hon. member for Innesdal mentioned the fact that we should make more knowledge and information available to our people so that there will be protection against civil proceedings and insolvencies. This is another good suggestion and it would be a good thing if one could consolidate all these particulars and display them on a poster which could be put up in a post office or a similar place. We shall consider this suggestion. I am sorry to have to tell the hon. member for North Rand that his contribution was the least positive of all. He began politicking, while all the other hon. members made positive suggestions in regard to what we should do. I made notes of what he said, and apart from the fact that he mentioned the Bantu war veterans —a question which I have already replied to—the hon. member said virtually nothing further. He simply referred to and affirmed what previous speakers had said. I think he was simply trying to while away the time, and I therefore do not blame him for that. With this, I think, I have replied to all the questions.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill with which I shall deal here this afternoon, concerns the control of aliens in South Africa. In the main the object of this Bill is to strengthen and render more effective the existing measures by which the residence of aliens in the Republic is regulated and controlled. The first Act which is to be amended by this Bill is the Aliens Act, 1937, which regulates the temporary and permanent residence of aliens in South Africa.

I shall start by dealing with clause 1 of the Bill, the tenor of which is that no person shall employ any alien or conduct any business with him or harbour him if he is not in possession of a valid permit allowing him to be in the Republic, to accept employment here or to conduct business here. The permit which an alien must have in order that his presence in the Republic may be lawful, is either a permanent residence permit, commonly known as an immigration permit which is issued to aliens whose applications for permanent residence in the Republic have been approved by the Immigrants Selection Board, or a temporary residence permit, known as a temporary permit for aliens which is issued to aliens who are only paying a temporary visit to the Republic.

It must be added that distinguished visitors, such as diplomatic staff and their families, and certain citizens of certain countries, such as the United Kingdom, are exempt or may be exempted from the provisions of the Aliens Act.

It happens virtually every day, notwithstanding strict measures of control, that aliens enter the Republic unlawfully at unguarded places along the border and then live here with their relatives and friends and are even concealed by them, enter into their employment, or are taken up by them in their businesses. It is difficult to trace these persons, and if they are in fact traced and called upon to leave the country or if they are removed, one finds that in some cases they return to the Republic in the same unlawful manner. What is more, sentences of imprisonment do not have any beneficial effect on these persons, for having served their terms of imprisonment and having been removed from the country, they simply return to the Republic at a later stage. It also happens that many persons who come to the Republic for a holiday visit, for instance, start working here without having obtained the necessary prior approval for changing the purpose of their visit. It often happens that persons who do not have the slightest hope of ever having their applications for permanent residence in the Republic approved by the Immigrants Selection Board, because of their deficient education for example, or whose applications for permanent residence in the Republic were rejected, sometimes repeatedly, by the said board, enter the Republic temporarily on the pretext of paying a visit to their relatives in the Republic whilst their real reason is to live permanently with the said relatives and to work for them here. In such cases it is sometimes only with a great deal of trouble and unpleasantness, and sometimes only after such persons have been prosecuted amid sordid publicity and unfounded criticism in the Press at times, that one can get rid of these persons, in most cases long after the validity of their temporary permits as aliens have expired

It is in the light of these circumstances that it is being proposed to insert in the Aliens Act, 1937, a new section 5ter, which provides that no person shall employ or continue to employ any alien, conduct any business with him, or harbour him if he is not in possession of an immigration permit or a temporary permit for aliens to sojourn in the Republic, or if the period of validity of such temporary permit in his possession has lapsed. The proposed new section goes on to provide that no person shall employ or continue to employ any alien or conduct any business with him in conflict with the conditions subject to which the temporary permit for aliens was issued to such alien, for instance, in a case where an alien was only admitted for a holiday visit. If any person acts in conflict with the said provisions, he shall be guilty of an offence. The effect of this proposed new provision in the Aliens Act, 1937, is that employers, before employing any aliens, will have to satisfy themselves that such aliens are in possession of immigration permits or temporary permits for aliens to sojourn in the Republic, that the validity of such temporary permits have not expired, and that the conditions of the temporary permit authorize the holder of such permit to take up employment. The same applies to persons wishing to enter into business with aliens or who provide aliens with accommodation. They will have to satisfy themselves that such aliens are in possession of valid permits. However, it is not being proposed to impose on hotel managers a similar obligation in regard to providing aliens with accommodation—hence the provision in clause 5ter(4)—since the imposition of such an obligation would mean, for instance, that hotel managers would not be in a position to provide the thousands of tourists and other visitors to this country with accommodation before it has been determined that the tourists are in possession of temporary permits for aliens to sojourn in the Republic and that the validity of such permits have not expired. In terms of section 10 of the Aliens Registration Act, 1939, it is already incumbent upon hotel managers to keep registers in respect of all persons provided with accommodation on their premises, and such registers must be signed by the persons concerned. However, other persons will have to determine whether aliens are in possession of valid temporary permits for aliens before providing them with accommodation. The provisions of the proposed new section 5ter of the Aliens Act will, in addition, not be applicable in the case of aliens exempted from the provisions of section 7 and 7bis of the Act, such as distinguished persons and certain citizens of certain countries.

Subsections (6) and (7) of the proposed new section 5ter are aimed at making it easier to prove the offence created by subsection (5) of the said section 5ter, and at making provision for convictions under alternative provisions of the section if proved by the facts of the case.

In explaining clause 2 of the Bill, I should like to refer hon. members to the provisions of section 5(1) of the Aliens Act, 1937. This section provides that any alien who has complied with all requirements prescribed by regulation may be issued, on application, with a temporary permit for aliens; in other words, the alien concerned applies for the said permit, upon which it is then issued to him.

In terms of the power conferred on him by section of the said Aliens Act, 1937, the Minister of the Interior has exempted certain citizens of certain countries, such as the United Kingdom, from the control by way of temporary permits for aliens in terms of which the temporary sojourn and taking up of employment in the Republic by other aliens are controlled and restricted. In terms of section 7bis(3) the said Minister (or any officer authorized thereto by him) has the power to withdraw the said exemptions granted to an individual or a class of persons. Consequently it does happen from time to time that the exemption granted to the said aliens from the requirement of being in possession of a temporary permit for aliens, is withdrawn in respect of individuals in cases where it is deemed in the public interest that their temporary sojourn in the Republic be controlled and restricted by way of a temporary permit for aliens.

In a recent legal opinion the State law advisers drew attention to the fact that in terms of section 5(1) of the said Aliens Act, 1937, temporary permits for aliens could only be issued to aliens if they applied for them. Aliens whose exemption from the requirement of being in possession of a temporary permit for aliens has been withdrawn, are therefore in a position to make it difficult for action to be taken against them by simply refraining from applying for the said permits.

I should like to refer in passing to the provisions of section 5bis of the Aliens Act. This section provides that any alien who does not apply of his own accord for a temporary permit for aliens, may be called upon by a passport control officer to apply for such permit, and if he fails to do so, he shall be guilty of an offence and may be removed from the Republic.

The provisions of the said section 5bis of the Aliens Act are mainly employed for taking action against such aliens as may have entered the Republic unlawfully, usually at unguarded places along the border. This section is not suitable for taking action against aliens whose exemption from the provisions of the Aliens Act has been withdrawn.

It is in the light of these circumstances that provision is being made in clause 2 of the Bill for the addition of a new subsection to section 7bis of the Aliens Act, in terms of which it is provided that the Minister of the Interior, or any officer authorized thereto by him, may, without a prior application, issue a temporary permit for aliens to any alien whose exemption from the requirement of being in possession of a temporary permit for aliens has been withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker, the last section of the Aliens Act which is to be amended by this Bill, is section 10, which makes provision for the penalties that may be imposed for the contravention of the provisions of the Aliens Act. The said section of the Aliens Act provides that any person convicted of an offence under that Act shall be liable to a fine not exceeding R200 or in default of the payment of the fine to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months. These penalties, which do not make provision for the imposition of imprisonment in addition to a fine, are not considered to be an adequate deterrent to persons repeatedly committing a similar offence under this Act. In the light of this it is being proposed in clause 3 that the said section 10 of the Aliens Act be amended to provide that any person shall, on a second or subsequent conviction of a similar offence, be liable to the existing penalty of a fine not exceeding R200 (or in default of the payment of the fine, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months), or to both such fine not exceeding R200 and such imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months, or to the said imprisonment without the option of the said fine. On a first conviction the person concerned will still, as is being provided at present, be liable to a fine not exceeding R200 or, in default of the payment of the fine, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months.

Mr. Speaker, that concludes my explanation of the proposed amendments to the provisions of the Aliens Act, and I shall now proceed to deal with the proposed amendments to the Admission of Persons to the Republic Regulation Act, 1972.

†Mr. Speaker, during May last year the Government decided in principle to relax to a certain extent the present control over the interprovincial movement by Asians. Even before unification in 1910 the admission to the former colonies of Asians was restricted and in some cases altogether prohibited, for instance in the case of the former Orange River Colony.

On unification this policy of restricting the admission of Asians to the various provinces was continued and a permit system was introduced to control the movement of Asians between the various provinces. This position continued throughout the years since unification and we still have the position today that Asians must apply for a permit if they wish to visit members of their families, friends and business associates in provinces other than the province of their domicile. These permits which are issued in terms of the Admission of Persons to the Republic Regulation Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder, are for temporary visits of 90 days’ duration, and in the case of Asians wishing to work in a province other than the province of their domicile, of one year’s duration.

The issue of these permits has now become an enormous task. Like all other nations in South Africa the standard of living of Asians has also increased. They travel more to visit their families and friends, to attend sporting events in other provinces and for many other reasons. Annually more than 25 000 permits have to be issued.

The South African Indian Council has also indicated that it would welcome a relaxation of the present permit system applicable to the interprovincial movement by Asians.

It is in these circumstances that it is proposed in clause 4 of the Bill to introduce a new section 19A into the Admission of Persons to the Republic Regulation Act, 1972. In terms of this new section it will be possible for the responsible Minister, the Minister of Indian Affairs in the case of Indians and the Minister of the Interior in the case of other Asians, to exempt Asians as a category of persons from the present permit system whereby the movement of Asians between the provinces is controlled.

It is further provided that the Minister concerned may withdraw in any individual case the exemption so granted to a category of persons. In such a case the individual concerned would again have to acquire a permit for travel outside his province of domicile.

The relevant provisions whereby visits by Asians to the Orange Free State, certain Northern Natal districts and the Transkei are, except in certain circumstances, restricted, will not be affected by the proposed new section 19A.

Mr. Speaker, the remaining clauses of the Bill I have to deal with are clauses 5 and 6.

Section 43 of the Admission of Persons to the Republic Regulation Act provides that any person other than a South African citizen by birth or descent who has been sentenced to imprisonment for certain specified offences may be removed from the Republic if by reason of the circumstances of the offence the person concerned is deemed by the Minister of the Interior to be an undesirable inhabitant of the Republic.

One of the offences specified in the relevant section is the offence committed by the sale or supply of or dealing in, or being in possession of any habit-forming drug in contravention of any law.

Section 13 of the Admission of Persons to the Republic Regulation Act specifies which persons shall be deemed to be prohibited persons to the Republic and who may in consequence not enter or remain in the Republic. Amongst such persons are persons who have been convicted of an offence detailed in Schedule I to the Act, such as murder, robbery, fraud, etc.

The said Schedule does not however contain any reference to the offence now included in section 43 of the Act of selling or supplying or dealing in or being in possession of habit-forming drugs in contravention of any law. This means that if a person has been convicted of such offence in another country he cannot for this reason be refused entry into South Africa since the offence does not appear in the said Schedule to the Act.

It is therefore proposed in clause 6 of the Bill that the offence of selling or supplying or dealing in or being in possession of any substance from time to time, referred to in Parts I, II and III of the Schedule to the Abuse of Dependence-producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Act, 1971, be included in Schedule I to the Admission of Persons to the Republic Regulation Act.

Because of the inclusion of the said offence in Schedule I to the last-mentioned Act, it is proposed in clause 5 of the Bill that reference to the said offence in paragraph (c) of section 43 of the Act be deleted. This can be done because in paragraph (a) of section 43 of the Act reference is made to offences mentioned in Schedule I to the Act. This means that a person, other than a South African citizen by birth or descent, who has been sentenced to imprisonment for an offence in Schedule I to the Act may be removed from the Republic if by reason of the circumstances of the offence the person concerned is deemed by the Minister of the Interior to be an undesirable inhabitant of the Republic.

The proposed amendment of section 43 of the Act is therefore consequential in nature. The effectiveness of the section will not be affected by the proposed deletion of paragraph (c) thereof.

Mr. Speaker, I venture to state that hon. members will agree with me that the Bill is not contentious in nature but is designed mainly to strengthen the control of aliens in the Republic, and to provide the Ministers concerned with the authority to relax the permit control over the interprovincial movement by Asians.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has concluded his remarks by suggesting that this Bill is not contentious. That may be correct but there is a good deal in this Bill which needs clarification and I wish to draw the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attention to some of these points. Sir, whenever one has provisions dealing with aliens—and in this case we are dealing with aliens who are in the Republic legally in terms of the laws applicable in South Africa—one always has to be careful that one is not creating a situation or a picture or an image of reluctant host to persons whom we might wish to have in this country, and as many of them as we can, particularly as far as our tourist trade and the development of the country is concerned. It is therefore necessary for us to examine this Bill in the light of the needs of the country in that regard and to see whether there are not perhaps aspects of this Bill which we might improve or amend at a later stage. In saying that I want to assure the hon. the Deputy Minister that we on this side of the House will support the Second Reading of this measure, but I have various observations which I wish to make in regard to the provisions contained in the Bill.

It is clear that aliens in this country, or aliens who may be in the Republic—here I exclude those who are illegally in the country—fall into four categories. In the first category we have the alien who has been granted a right of permanent residence in South Africa. The persons who fall into this category are in the majority of cases those who have applied for permanent residence and who have a desire to live in this country and to make their future in this country. They have been granted a permit to stay here on a permanent basis and enjoy all the privileges, such as seeking employment and freedom of movement, which are enjoyed by the citizens of this country. Of course, such a person does not have citizenship, but we look to all these persons who have permits for permanent residence to become full citizens of the country eventually. When one looks at that category of persons, those who have come to this country to make a future, one realizes that he must be protected to the extent that he is not prejudiced in that future life which has been made open to him in South Africa, by illegal or irregular actions by persons who do not have the same privilege. That is where I think this Bill is particularly useful in that we have the recognition of this different type of alien who may be in this country. The first category of aliens therefore comprises those with permanent residence permits.

The second category of aliens whom we have in this country comprises those who have temporary residence permits in terms of section 5 of the principal Act. This permit restricts the holder thereof as to the time he may stay in this country and may also restrict the holder as to the area in which he may reside and whether or not he may take employment. Even the type of employment and the employer in whose service he may enter may be restricted.

In the third category of aliens we have the alien who, as some kind of dignitary, is individually, or together with his family and his employees, exempt by special action of the Government. He is allowed free movement in the country.

Finally there is the fourth category of aliens. Aliens who fall into this category are the exempted class under section 7bis of the principal Act. In dealing with this class of alien, the hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned citizens of the United Kingdom and so forth. I should like him to be good enough when he replies to the debate, to elaborate on the question as to who the persons or groups of persons are who are thus exempted or to which nationalities they must belong in order to be exempted under section 7bis. I think it is as well that we direct our attention to this issue. These persons are exempt from the necessity of having visas or having residence permits, whether temporary or permanent. I should be grateful if he could elaborate on that.

At the present time the only person who incurs the displeasure of the law in South Africa, if there is a breach of the conditions of a permit for temporary residence, is the holder of that permit himself. As the law stands at the moment, he is the only person who can be penalized and can have his right of residence withdrawn if he acts contrary to the conditions upon which he has been allowed to come into this country on a temporary basis.

The Bill we are now considering seeks to introduce a new aspect and that is that not only the alien himself who is guilty of a contravention of the conditions of his permit of residence, is to be penalized, but also any citizen of South Africa who, if I may put it this way, aids and abets him in so far as that contravention is concerned. The Bill is aimed at those persons who may aid such an alien to the extent that he employs him, or deals with him or harbours him contrary to the terms of his permit of residence. This always raises the problem, when it comes to legislating, as to how far the ordinary citizen must be involved with the State.

Order! Is that hon. member reading a newspaper?

Mr. Speaker, I am not reading a newspaper; I am reading a report in connection with a commission on which I myself served. This specific part …

Order! I did not refer to the hon. member. The hon. member may resume his seat. The hon. member for Green Point may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying a few moments ago, one has to determine the extent to which the ordinary citizen is involved with the State in the application of the laws of the country by the State. We now have the position that the ordinary citizen becomes involves in the implementation or the carrying out of a measure which is applicable to aliens and their residence in South Africa. We may on occasion from this side of the House—and we frequently do—oppose legislation which is introduced by the Government of the day. I believe that once legislation is adopted by this House it becomes by democratic process the law of the country. Once it is so adopted there is justification for an involvement of the ordinary citizen to see that that law is carried out in the interest of the country as a whole. For that reason I believe that in this instance we are justified, in the circumstances which are apparent from the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech and of which we are all aware, i.e. the difficulty we have in controlling persons who come into the country and act contrary to the terms of the authority to be here, to request and to expect the ordinary citizen of the country to participate in the enforcement of the law that is applicable in South Africa. It is for that reason that we will support this legislation although it does introduce a new form of offence so far as the employer, the harbourer of or the dealer with an immigrant is concerned. The long title of this Bill rather euphemistically says that it is to provide for the prohibition of the performance of certain acts in co-operation with or in respect of certain aliens. That is a rather euphemistic way of saying that a new offence is being created that can be committed by any person who commits these offences in so far as aliens are concerned, e.g. who co-operates with them in effecting a breach of the terms of their permit to be in South Africa. Nevertheless, we on this side are prepared to accept it. We agree that the principle of this Bill is a sound one. Therefore we will support the introduction of this form of offence.

I do not believe that this requirement of checking on an alien or checking on a person whom one takes into ones employ is an unnecessary hardship on any employer. One would imagine that in these days any cautious employer would satisfy himself as to the identity of the person whom he is taking in his employ. The fact that he is asked to present his credentials by way of his identity documents or passport, or in some way or another, is not an undue hardship on the employer. It is certainly not an undue hardship on any legitimate alien who is here with authority to work at a certain place and for a certain time. I also believe that it is not unreasonable to expect that a precaution of this sort should be taken by the employer in the interests of the security of the country as a whole. I believe that this also justifies checking on the identity of an alien and on his right to be employed by the employer; it is justified that the employer should verify this.

I want to come to clause 1 of the Bill before us. I have difficulty in regard to the new subsection 5ter (1)(b) which is being inserted by clause 1. If the hon. the Deputy Minister will be good enough to look at subsection (1)(b) of the proposed new section 5ter, he will see that it reads:

That concerns a person who is not in possession of a temporary residence permit, a permanent residence permit or one who is not exempted in terms of section 7bis; in other words, he is an alien. I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that I believe that the intention there is to deal with such a person in the Republic of South Africa, but that is not what subsection (1)(b) says. I believe that it will have to be amended if that is the intention of the hon. the Deputy Minister, for as it stands, it reads that no person shall enter into any agreement with an alien who does not have any of these four qualifications, if I may put it that way. What is the position of a South African citizen who enters into a business agreement in order to utilize in his business a patent which is held by a German national, if he wishes to utilize those patent rights in South Africa? In the light of the wording of subsection (1)(b) as it stands here, that would constitute an offence for because that contract will be entered into in South Africa. Although I know it is not the intention of the Government, clause 1 would also restrict any agreement entered into whereby finance is introduced into a business operating in South Africa by a foreign business house on the continent or by a foreigner or alien. There is the question, too, of the foreign manufacturer who appoints an agent in South Africa and of a South African manufacturer who enters into a business arrangement with an alien in any foreign country in connection with our export trade. I believe that, if the hon. the Deputy Minister will look at this clause as it is drafted, he will see that all those types of contracts will be hit by this clause as it stands. I believe it will be necessary to amend subsection (1)(b) so as to restrict it in some way to include only cases where there is active involvement of the alien in person in the conduct of the business in South Africa, that is to say in the actual physical conduct of the business of South Africa. In other words, the clause must stipulate that his presence is necessary in the Republic and that it does not apply merely when an agreement is entered into between a South African citizen and an alien. I believe that the co-operation, as I have said, must involve the physical presence and physical participation of the alien in the day-to-day management of the business in which he is taking an interest in South Africa; otherwise, it will constitute a prohibitive transaction, and the South African industrialist or businessman at least, will be subject to penalties in terms of this particular clause. That being so, I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will give it some consideration. Perhaps if we have time enough between the Second Reading and the Committee Stage, we may have an opportunity of suggesting an amendment to the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to clause 1.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, I believe that there is a rather unsatisfactory provision in our laws at the moment. Section 7bis(3) of the Aliens Act of 1937 reads:

I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister, as he is now concerned with the control of aliens and matters of that nature, will give some consideration to a clearer definition of the circumstances under which the exemption of, for instance, a subject of the United Kingdom can be withdrawn. I do not believe they have been tabulated or made known. There are, for example, instances where a United Kingdom citizen applies for permanent residence and that permanent residence application is turned down. The Department of the Interior then immediately steps in and says: “since the Department of Immigration has turned down your application for permanent residence, how long do you intend to stay here? You must make arrangements for obtaining a temporary residence permit”. This provision which is contained in section 7bis as it stands is a wide and ill-defined power and I look forward to the hon. the Deputy Minister possibly clarifying that provision in dealing with further amendments in the future. It is, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has mentioned, correct that these permits are issued not necessarily on the application of the individual concerned, but to prevent the automatic application of the harsh provisions of the Act itself which virtually amounts to that man becoming at that very moment a prohibited immigrant and as such subject to the harsh provisions of the law dealing with prohibited immigrants. We welcome this change whereby the certificates of temporary residence can now be granted.

I now come to the question of the amendment of section 13(1)(a) of the Admission of Persons to the Republic Regulation Act of 1972. I think it would be impossible to find legislation which is more inappropriately worded for the present time than the particular provisions of section 13(1)(a) when applied to the Asian community of South Africa. Referring to prohibited persons, section 13(1) states the following:

How one can in this time and in this age suggest that Asians should be confined to a particular province of this country on the grounds that they fall within these categories that their “standard or habits of life” are unsuited to another province of the country is unbelievable. But that is the law as it now stands. The hon. the Deputy Minister and the Government with this legislation are taking a very timid step forward to relieve Asians of these restrictions. Whilst we welcome it, and whilst we realize that this particular measure will be in the hands of the Minister of Indian Affairs in terms of the 1971 proclamation, and not in the hands of the Department of the Interior, we want to urge as strongly as we can to the hon. the Deputy Minister that this antiquated restriction should be repealed and removed from our Statute Book in so far as the Asian population is concerned, as soon as possible. The situation as it now stands is that under section 19(1) of the Act individual Asians can be exempted. Now we are going to have reverse process and a whole category can be exempted, but then the exemption can be withdrawn from individuals within that category. The matter is becoming impossible and I was interested to hear the hon. the Deputy Minister say that they are issuing up to 25 000 permits. The position has been intolerable for employers of Indians. When I talk of employers of Indians, one wonders what would happen to the hotel industry in South Africa if it was not for the Indians who are employed in this industry. But, Sir, what happens? At the present moment an Indian may be employed in a responsible position in a hotel in Cape Town. He is expected to return to Natal and there to apply for a permit so that he can come back to the hotel and work for the following year. This is the intolerable position which has arisen in regard to the question of Indian movement. I am glad that this step is being taken to relieve it, but I would like to hear more about the plan to use this permissive power which is now being granted to the Minister of Indian Affairs. I would like to hear a statement from the hon. the Deputy Minister, not in the general terms in which he has stated it in his speech, but in more specific terms as to what he means by “categories of persons” and how he is going to apply it in regard to Indians. That sort of statement is long overdue.

There is another vexed problem which I must draw to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attention when dealing with this free movement of Indians or the relaxation of movement as regards the Asians, namely the total inadequacy in certain parts of the country of areas available to these people for residence. In the Cape Peninsula, for instance, if one were to allow free movement to the large number of Indians who could well obtain employment here, it would not be of much avail, because there is only a small area set aside for them on the Cape Flats, in Rylands Estate where ground is as expensive per square foot, because of its scarcity, as the best sites in Constantia. If the Government is going to give real effect to this proposed amendment of releasing the Asians from some of the restrictions, most of the restrictions of movement, it must simultaneously see to it that there are more adequate facilities for residence and home-ownership in the areas where Asians can be employed and where they can set up their homes without having to pay the prices that are applicable today to ground in these areas. This is a move which we welcome, because it will greatly assist the hotel industry in areas other than Natal, to employ these Indians who have a particular ability, are particularly suited to and are exceptionally effective in assisting in the management and running of the hotel business.

Other speakers on this side will deal with one or two other questions with which I have not dealt in regard to the remaining aspects of this Bill. With these remarks, I wish to say that we support the Second Reading of this Bill, and we look forward to hearing from the Deputy Minister answers to the points I have raised, particularly with regard to those provisions which need to be redrafted, and perhaps we can then discuss them further in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is important in the sense that it supplies certain deficiencies which exist at present in regard to the admission of aliens to this country, and that it also supplies deficiencies in other measures, so as to eliminate in this way bottlenecks and difficult problems which have been experienced in the past. Therefore it is encouraging that the Second Reading of this legislation is also supported by hon. members of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, an analysis of this Bill, as the hon. the Deputy Minister also said, indicates, in fact, that a twofold responsibility is being created here, in the sense that not only may the alien who gains admittance to the country by some illegal means or other, be charged, but that the person within the country who helped the alien to enter the country, may also be brought to book. I think it is essential that this person be held responsible in loco, because in the first instance the alien is very often a person who is not conversant with local circumstances. He is not a person who is conversant with the legislation of the country, and although this cannot be accepted as an excuse, he still tries to plead ignorance as a defence. In most instances the person who works for him or who provides accommodation is in fact the person who is behind the whole plan; he is the planner behind the whole scheme and in fact the principal offender. For that reason I believe that it will be generally agreed that it should be possible to charge this person, who is really the principal offender or criminal in this instance and who ought to know better. There is a general tendency to disregard the position here completely and to adopt the attitude that it does not matter under what pretext an alien enters the country; that it does not matter what methods are used to get him into the country; that once the alien is here, everything is in order again and then ways and means will be devised, whether they be legal or illegal, to keep him here. These illegal actions, these illegal procedures, have also resulted in the establishment of illegal organizations in the country—we know that this happens and the Police know this happens —organizations which have as their goal the smuggling of aliens into this country under all manner of pretexts. These organizations assure these people that they are coming here legally and that they will provide work for them, etc. Today there must be thousands of strangers in the country who have entered the country illegally in this way. After all it goes without saying that it would eventually make a total farce of our whole immigration policy if we were to shut our eyes to this illegal procedure and allow it to continue on a progressively larger scale, and it is for that reason that I believe that it is so essential for us to come to grips with the position at this stage by means of this legislation and that the necessary legislation in this connection be approved. It causes certain problems for the Government and for the Police when an illegal alien of this kind has once obtained vested interests in this country, for example business interests. One is then really presenting the authorities with a fait accompli, and they are bound to the extent that the actions they take could entail hardship and inconvenience, and everything that is associated with that. As I have said, the authorities are presented with a fait accompli. This country, South Africa, is a much-sought-after country. I do not believe that we have any problem in attracting a good type of immigrant, whether permanently or temporarily, to this country. Therefore I do not think that we need welcome the kind of person who enters this country illegally.

Sir, at this stage I wish to move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.