Mr. Chairman, I move—

Mr. Chairman, I rise to address you on a point of order. In view of the binding precedent which your ruling may create in respect of the proceedings of the House, I would like to address you in relation to the Standing Orders and ask you to rule the motion moved by the hon. the Leader of the House to be out of order in so far as it restricts the debate to the reply by the Minister. Sir, it is my contention that we should examine this motion against the Standing Orders and particularly against Standing Order No. 89, Standing Order No. 88 and Standing Order No. 213. Order No. 89(1)(f) does make provision for the Committee at any time on the motion of a Minister to revert to any vote or head, and although there is no reference to a qualification at the time when the Committee reverts to a vote or head— the order is silent on this—it is quite clear that in the motion before us there is a qualification to the extent that the debate is limited to the Minister’s reply. One must decide whether it is in order for that limitation to be placed on the debate which would ensue, and in order to decide whether it is in order I believe that we have to look at Standing Order No. 88(lXa) and (b), because subsection (1) says—

Sir, here the House is reverting to the Committee of the whole House to consider an Appropriation Bill, and Standing Order No. 88(lXa) saying specifically that where the House does revert to the Committee of the whole House to consider Appropriation Bills, members shall not be limited in regard to the number of times that they may speak.

Are you a Whip?

Sir, in the motion which seeks to limit the right of members to speak when reverting to the Committee of the whole House, there is an attempt to defy the provisions of Standing Order No. 88(1)(a). The question is whether the House is entitled to negate the provisions of its own Standing Orders. Quite clearly the House is entitled to do so in certain circumstances. But then I think we have to see under what conditions the House is entitled to negate the provisions of its own Standing Orders that there shall be no limitation upon members. Sir, if one refers to Standing Order No. 213, one finds that it lays down the conditions under which the House in Committee or otherwise can negate one of its Standing Orders. Standing Order No. 213 says—

Mr. Chairman, no notice has been given of the amendment of this Standing Order. Quite clearly, what is proposed by the hon. the Leader of the House is in conflict with Standing Order 88(1)(a) for it can be amended but only by a motion of which notice has been given. No notice has been given of the amendment of the Standing Order. Secondly, it can be suspended by motion without notice, provided it is a case of urgent necessity of which the Speaker may be the judge, and with the unanimous concurrence of this House. Sir, here is a notice or motion which, does negate Standing Order 88(1)(a). The House can amend the Standing Order but it must do so either upon receiving due notice, and notice has not been given or, if it is a matter of urgent public importance which Mr. Speaker adjudicates to be so, subject to the unanimous concurrence of this House. Sir, I put it to you that this motion is a negation of Standing Order 88(1)(a), that the due procedure for notice has not been fulfilled, and as it is not a matter of urgent necessity it cannot be acceded to without violating the Standing Orders of this House.

Mr. Chairman, I want to take a different point of order in regard to Standing Order 89(1)(f). As there is a specific provision for the diversion to a particular Vote, that procedure should be adopted without any restriction upon what the effect is of reverting to that Vote. It is not competent, with respect, to limit what might take place when that Vote is reverted to. In other words, once a motion is moved and a Vote is reverted to, then the Vote is open and the debate may not be limited only to the Minister.

Order! I have listened very carefully to the points of order taken by the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Sea Point and I have also given the matter prior consideration. Standing Order No. 89(lXf) gives the Committee a general power to revert to a Vote which has not been disposed of and the Committee has now before it a motion to revert for the specific purpose of allowing the Minister to address the Committee. As the Committee is to revert for this purpose only, I cannot allow another hon. member to address the Committee. The Committee in agreeing to the motion is imposing a limitation for which it must take responsibility. If the Committee does not wish to accept such a restriction, it can of course negative the motion. I do not consider, however, that I can prevent the Committee from adopting this procedure and I therefore regret that I cannot uphold the points of order. As regards Standing Order No. 213, I consider that the Committee is not suspending a Standing Order, but is acting in terms of Standing Order No. 89(1)(f). As far as the hon. member for Sea Point is concerned, he referred to Standing Order No. 88(1)(a). It must also be borne in mind that in adopting the motion the Committee is not depriving members of their rights to speak on the Vote because the Vote has been agreed to and members can no longer speak to it. The motion is merely giving the Minister the right to address the Committee.

Question put,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: J. P. C. le Roux, A. van Breda, A. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Question agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 31, Loan Vote G and S.W.A. Vote No. 19.—“Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations” (contd.):

Mr. Chairman, I find it extremely interesting …

Why did you not reply yesterday evening? Surely it was your responsibility to reply.

Apparently the hon. member for Durban Point feels he must talk. I want to suggest that he does not do so now, since this is my opportunity to speak, but elsewhere. I find it highly interesting that those who sat here yesterday evening and who know the rules of this House very well, did not participate in a debate for which there was still an hour left. It is the prerogative of a Minister to reply to a debate or to speak at intervals during the debate if he has any statements to make.

Were you asleep?

The hon. member for Yeoville, who is waxing so eloquent now, should rather have seen to it that one of his speakers who was on the list was not walking around in the Lobby when he was expected to speak here.

That is not true.

I realize only too well that hon. members on the opposite side will now have a passion for speaking, after having let the opportunity slip yesterday evening because some of them were asleep, not only figuratively but literally as well, because they did not hear the Vote being put. Once we have reached the stage where hon. members wish to manipulate a debate to deprive the person who has to reply to it of the prerogative to do so, and then wish to force him to reply when they do not feel like speaking any further, what becomes of our system?

Mr. Chairman, is it in order for the hon. the Minister to make personal attacks on members when the debate has been specifically reopened for him to answer on the debate?

Order! That is not a point of order.

This party, the members of which are now squabbling to such an extent among themselves, should rather have had the courage of its convictions yesterday evening already, after two speakers on the Government side had risen to keep the debate going, and have participated in a debate for which there was still an hour left. In any case, I had very little to reply to. I shall now, however, try to reply to what I heard.

May I ask the hon. the Minister why he did not reply last night?

I am not obliged to answer to the hon. member on when I should rise to furnish a reply here. I decide that myself, according to the nature of the debate, and the standard of the debate as conducted by hon. members on the opposite side of the House, which was so poor that I was still, at that stage, waiting for hon. members opposite to raise more points. [Interjections.] The hon. members will not be allowed now to make the speeches which they wanted to make yesterday evening, and which they could still have had an opportunity of making today. The hon. members will therefore not create a precedent or a procedure here which could place Ministers in a difficult position. I have said what I wanted to say about this matter, and I just want to add that it is a completely incorrect impression that the Minister did not have the opportunity to, or did not want to reply. That is a completely false impression. The position is that he has the right to rise to reply when he thinks the time for the debate has elapsed and he has something to which to reply. Nevertheless, I have an obligation to this House and this I wish to fulfil now if the sensitiveness of members about having squabbled with one another and ended in this dilemma does not, from time to time, get the better of them. I think the hon. members should grow up.

This morning it was my privilege to open the first meeting of the second session of the Coloured Persons Representative Council. For me it was an exceptionally interesting event and it gives me great pleasure to inform hon. members that things went well there and that, as far as I am concerned, I have every hope and confidence that things will go well with this second Council. The reasons for my referring to them, however, is to say from this House, just as the hon. the Deputy Minister did, that I wish these people and these representatives of the people themselves everything of the best for the years which lie ahead.

†Mr. Chairman, I come to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. He was the first speaker yesterday. He had misgivings about the fact that we sit in this Parliament in the absence of Coloured representatives. This was something that perturbed him. He said that we should talk with one another. Without going into this matter too deeply, I would like to tell him that this is what we are really doing, what we have been doing and what we are going to do increasingly in future. We are going to negotiate and consult increasingly with these people in time to come. We have been doing that over the past couple of years, and I think that it has borne a lot of fruit. The Government is, however, not dogmatic about the way in which we are going to liaise and about the ways we are going to adopt in our negotiations and consultations with these people, provided they are meaningful consultations and not confused consultations as one would expect in committees of Parliament and the CRC. The basis for negotiation has been broadened by the Prime Minister’s proposal for an inter-Cabinet Council. At this stage this is all I would like to say about this matter. I will come back to it later.

The hon. member raised other matters, mainly matters concerning the socio-economic sector. Apt replies have been given to this by many of the members on the Government side who spoke last night, amongst them the Deputy Minister, the members for Oudtshoorn, False Bay and Malmesbury. I wish to thank them for their replies.

*The hon. member said that the report Beeld van Vooruitgang did not tell the whole story about the Coloureds. I agree with the hon. member; in fact, it did not tell half the story. There are far better things which could still be added, but then the report would be too bulky.

Then I want to reply to questions asked by the hon. member, as well as by the hon. member for Walmer, the hon. member for Berea and other hon. members. The hon. member for Walmer discussed matters which do not fall under my portfolio at all. He tried to draw me into a matter which is being decided at high Cabinet level. He wanted me to express opinions on matters which have been explained very clearly to the public, matters such as theatres. Further explanations followed and therefore there can be no doubt in this regard. So I do not want to allow myself to become implicated in this.

My department is a liaison department. I am there for the interests of the Coloureds, and I shall look after their interests. However, I have no power of decision over matters such as those, and I think the hon. member ought to know along which channels that should be done. He ought to be aware of that at this stage, even though he has only been in this House a short while and even though he still has quite a lot to learn. The hon. member for Berea discussed education. I do not want to go into those aspects either, but I might just say that it would be better if I replied to him personally on the Wentworth matter. One cannot go into all the personal matters here, but I shall reply to him on what is being done there and I shall ensure that my department explains it to him.

†I can only say that a survey of the existing education facilities in Durban, including Wentworth, was made in September 1973 with a view to determining the educational needs of the various Coloured areas.

*In addition there are quite a number of schools in this area at which steps have in fact been taken. I should not like to go into the details, for these we could furnish the hon. member with on a subsequent occasion.

The hon. member for Von Brandis made a very interesting speech, in which he discussed housing and the availability of land.

He said that land ought to be made available, and that the purchase of houses should be made possible. I agree with what the hon. member said. I also want to tell him that if there are problems in Johannesburg, this matter is not really my responsibility, but that of the Department of Community Development as well as the Johannesburg City Council. I think the hon. member knows on which door to knock in cases such as those. The report to which I referred earlier presents a very fine picture of the socio-economic progress of the Coloured people. There has been real socio-economic progress, and political progress has not lagged behind. As far as political progress for the Coloureds is concerned, we cannot progress so rapidly that it amounts to a revolution, for where there is a revolution and where there is unnecessary haste, tremendous uncertainty could arise. Not only does this report tell of an unfolding administrative policy, but also of development in the rural areas. It tells of the enormous housing effort, of the phenomenal development in education and also of the care of our Coloureds in general. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into these achievements, for the facts speak for themselves. However, the story behind it is important. It is in fact this socio-economic upliftment which has progressively brought our Coloureds to a stage where they have developed a strong class of leaders. They are the leaders of a strong middle class in which a consciousness of its human dignity is awakening. We have not failed to notice this and we do in fact realize that they are beginning to become conscious of a human dignity which, previously, was not always present in them to the same extent. In addition political leaders have developed among them, people who can speak for themselves. In fact, I feel that these people can in fact speak for themselves better than hon. members of this House. Consequently they are speaking for themselves. Today they are able to accept responsibility. We have helped them to accomplish this, and they are still developing. All these things are, after all, the consequences of the policy of separate development. Hon. members may say that this could have happened in any case, but I maintain that with a policy in terms of which everyone looks after himself and no attention is given to the interests of the group behind the individual, the poor only become poorer and the rich richer. As we have seen elsewhere in the world, such a policy leads to never-ending disturbances. There is a growing political awakening among the Coloureds. Because all of us in fact agree now on the necessity for socio-economic upliftment and because we are, with the means, the manpower and the material at our disposal, doing everything we are able to do—hon. members may level criticism in this regard for all of us are struggling to do the best we can in this respect—I should prefer to return to the theme which has dominated the debate, particularly on the Opposition side, viz. the political development of our Coloured people.

If there are hon. members to whom I have not furnished specific replies, I shall, if necessary, reply to them in writing. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central raised certain aspects here, but failed at the same time to take cognizance of certain other facts. If he has problems in this respect, we could explain matters to him. As in the case of the hon. member for Sea Point, his percentages were not correct. If he simply considers the figures which appear under the Coloured Relations Vote, he does not obtain a complete picture. The Coloureds are also receiving a great deal of money from the Department of Community Development, from the Coloured Development Corporation, and from other bodies. They do not necessarily obtain money only under the Coloured Relations Vote. The percentages mentioned by the hon. members are therefore not correct. Other members raised matters which were of a more local nature, and they must pardon me if I do not go into these in detail. I shall refer to them in passing, and if there are other matters which we can clear up for hon. member in writing, we shall do so.

It was repeatedly emphasized on the opposite side, particularly by the hon. member for Edenvale and the hon. member for Rondebosch, that the CRC cannot fully satisfy the political aspirations of the Coloureds. I could also say this, for I have had more practical experience of this than those hon. members. How will it avail us then to argue about that isolated fact? I myself said at Saldanha seven months ago that the CRC is really a starting point for the political development of the Coloureds, and not an end point. It has never been said that this is an end point.

What, then, is the end point?

We are progressively effecting changes, but changes which transfer important political responsibility also require knowledge, responsibility and integrity, it requires a class of leaders. Let us be fair about this now. In the world around us we see how people are trying to force leader groups to maturity. Is it not then your duty and our duty to make certain that these changes will take place gradually? As I have said, the CRC represents a starting point and not an end point. The Coloured leaders know this; they have been told this. We are dealing with an unfolding political structure, and not with a structure which is of such a nature that one could simply incorporate it. If we were to do that, we would have the kind of chaos which we so frequently observe around us. I am talking about evolution and not about revolution. Let it be rapid evolution, but we must bear in mind that the socio-economic upliftment of people and the opportunities which are created for them in this way may subsequently have a snowball effect. In other words, the pace is more rapid towards the end than at the beginning. I think all of us are familiar with that scientific fact. However, I believe that the facts in respect of what happened in the past, should be repeated, even though this almost amounts to tautology. Today I am simply going to repeat what we have done and what the hon. the hon. the Prime Minister has said since November of last year. We had made a start with this matter previously. With the Theron Commission we felt that something drastic had to be done, but based on facts and on an expert investigation, and not on emotions or on political expediency to ensure that one has the people on whose backs one can return to the Government benches. The hon. the Prime Minister said on 8 November last year that the Government accepted, firstly, that orderly government—and this is important—was the only guarantee for progress or positive change in the economic, social and political spheres. In addition he said that the Government accepted that the Coloured population should be offered the fullest opportunity to achieve self-determination, parallel to the White population within general geographic boundaries of one national territory, yet without abandoning the right of self-determination of the White population of our country. When we say this, hon. members must not think that I am dealing with a concept which does not exist. The whole idea of being a nation —as my hon. friend for Edenvale set out yesterday in an academic and, I almost want to say, scheduled manner—is evidence that there is nation-forming and tendency to nation-forming among people within a geographic area. This is not purely territorial but is related to the peoples historic latency, to their culture, to their religion, to their language and to their view of the future. I found what the hon. member for Rissik remarked yesterday quite appropriate, i.e. that one got the impression that when hon. members said this—for example, the hon. member for Sea Point and a few others—they were not here to think also of the dilemma which the White race will be facing in future. They approach the matter only from the point of view of people who, according to them, are the oppressed people.

That is where the hon. the Minister is quite wrong.

I think it is a negative approach which is deeply rooted in the hon. member. He should try to uproot it. It is perhaps necessary to observe again here, as I have already observed, that certain hon. members see this matter correctly, and that others do not. We need not argue whether the Coloureds are a nation or whether they are not a nation. As far as I am concerned—I am not ashamed to say this—these are academic speculations. They have in fact become an identifiable proof, and they would not have won the election if it had not been for Coloured nationalism. One of the factors which makes people into a nation is to suffer hardships together. The hon. member admitted this yesterday. They won this election on the grounds of Coloured nationalism. Therefore we need not argue about whether they are a nation, or an embryonic nation, or whatever they may be; to me this is an academic question. But when the hon. member stated: “They cannot be that”—he is welcome to look at his Hansard—I think he was being just a little too clever, and went a little too far. It is not for us to say what they should be; it is for them to discover what they can be, and it is our duty to help them along that road. The hon. the Prime Minister, as the basis for his unfolding …

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

I am not going to reply to any questions. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister does not wish to reply to any questions.

I am here to furnish my reply to what was said by the other hon. members.

Will the hon. the Minister allow the Coloureds to … [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, if the other speeches have been made, I shall, with your permission, proceed.

Order!

As a basis for his unfolding of the political development of the Coloureds, the hon. the Prime Minister took as a fact that, on the one hand, we have mainly Coloured interests in certain spheres. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is looking at me. It is he who raised this matter yesterday. We have, on the other hand, White interests mainly in their own sphere, and then we have many common interests in between. I want to agree with the hon. member, and I think that there are, numerically, more common interests. Numerically speaking, the common interests are more than the separate interests which one could perhaps administratively, be able to handle easily if this were done separately. But have hon. members ever asked themselves with what type of interests one is dealing here? You are dealing here with the more intimate, specific things which makes you one of the plural groups. Surely this is how we identify the various interests. It does not matter whether it is seven or eight or three or two. The question is whether it is a kind of interest which one can separate. In addition to the fact that we separated the interests in this manner and determined which interests are common interests, the hon. the Prime Minister introduced the consultative Cabinet council. Sir, we should not speculate about this now. There is a time for everything. This consultative Cabinet council can only reach finality after we have discussed it thoroughly with the Coloureds themselves. We cannot decide this matter here in Parliament. Surely hon. members will agree with that. We can only decide it in our talks with the Coloureds. But secondly, the hon. the Prime Minister referred to an adjustment in the fiscal policy. This is imperative. Hon. members who have already attended the proceedings of the CRC will know that the Coloureds’ principal complaint is “that they do not get enough of the economic cake”. Sir, hon. members on that side who occupy themselves in the capitalistic direction, will know that this talk of an equal distribution of the economic cake is nothing but a tendency to total socialism. I try to explain to the Coloureds when I speak to them, that the main point here is that the Coloureds should be afforded the opportunity of acquiring, so that they may receive their rightful share. They should be afforded the opportunity of acquiring, through their own strength, so that they may receive their rightful share. This idea that one should simply distribute the cake among everyone, is a completely socialistic approach. It is an approach which has, in the rest of Africa, led to very grave problems for the people of Africa. It has indeed led to revolution. I think that hon. members will agree with me that we do not tend, except where the State has no choice, to take over matters which the private sector is in fact able to manage, and in which individuals may be remunerated for their labour according to the amount of energy, etc., they put into it. The hon. the Prime Minister spoke of Cabinet status, of reorganization of the administration, of control of urban areas and of the appointment of Coloureds to boards and commissions. All these matters have to be discussed, and have to receive attention. This is a fact. We should like the CRC to be expanded. This is the body from which we began. We want to get our teeth into this matter, and I can inform hon. members that we have made considerable progress during the past few months. The Bureau of Economic Inquiry of the University of Pretoria is engaged in investigating the entire fiscal aspect thoroughly, to convince the people that they should receive their share. They ought to receive their share. Sir, in this way we are also working out precisely what type of function we can separate, and what we cannot separate. In other words, we are moving in an evolutionary way, and where it is inevitable that we will have to do things together, then we will of course inevitably be forced to do those things together. Sir, hon. members should not regard this as integration, for it is not integration in the full sense of the word. It is a question of admitting that the facts of reality in this country force us to get together on a high level. Then one can have decision-taking with consensus. Most decision-taking is in any event carried out with consensus on a high level. Sir, let us not make simple little calculations on democracy here; let us return to the question of how these things are really being done by people on a high level. The facts of reality will force us to do so.

Mr. Chairman, in the last place I just want to tell you what the reaction of the Coloureds to these proposals was. I want to say at once that I do not think that these people have studied the matter very thoroughly. Nor has there been an adequate opportunity to thrash out the matter in full. National matters of this nature, particularly when one is receiving new dispensations, are not so easy to handle. One may state the general principle, but in practice one is faced with a number of problems which one then has to solve with sound common sense and with mutual understanding. But we are not being afforded that opportunity or will not be afforded that opportunity if it is up to some of our Press friends and some of our friends on the opposite side. They want to kill even before it has begun. That is what they would like, and one’s ambition can become so great that one’s ambition, like that of the hon. member for Yeoville, is far greater than that of the students to whom he referred, who after 27 years now, cannot but become a dangerous organization like Nusas. We must be careful that our ambitions to govern do not become that great. But I have a compliment for the hon. member. At least he also said that if it were in South Africa’s favour, he would support the Prime Minister. The Coloureds reacted as follows to these proposals: Representatives of all the parties involved in a majority poll on 18 November, regardless of whether or not they were elected—that is not the point because constitutionally they were the majority—held talks with the Prime Minister and submitted a memorandum. Now I just want to tell you that the approach in this memorandum is to me characteristic of what is happening everywhere among the Coloured people.

What was the date?

21 January. The speech was made on 8 November, and then their reaction was recorded in this memorandum. They said they were submitting this memorandum, and had the following to say about it—

In other words, their motives are pure—

That happens when one promises a person socio-economic and social equality and incorporates him in an integrated community. Then one has this bitterness and disillusionment. The Coloured leaders described the advantages of the Coloured Persons Representative Council as follows—

These are factual statements. Sir. They went even further and stated that this situation did not comply in full with the requirements, and they admitted that they too. had been won over to the majority opinion that they should have representation in this Parliament, and that was also how they put it here. But, they said, it is a question of a person’s politics; one looks to see which way the wind is blowing, as my hon. friend opposite also knows very well. But I do not want to insult him now because all of us sometimes look first to see how the wind is blowing. [Interjections.] In any case, Sir, these people also said—

That is true. They have participation in the sovereign authority, which in this case virtually amounts to the Cabinet, at this stage too. I have already told you that this is the starting point. Here we now have a further development. I quote further—

But these things do not fall from the sky. One has to discuss this. It has to take place in an orderly and legal manner, and it is necessary to get together. We cannot stand at a long remove from one another and discuss this and then reject it summarily at the instigation of people who would like to have conflict between Whites and non-Whites in South Africa. It was also decided that we would nominate a committee, consisting of the Coloured leaders, and under my chairmanship, which would go into the practical implications of this matter. But then it was also felt, very wisely: “On 19 March there is an election. There may be a new dispensation. Why compel these people to this now, considering the fact that there is a feeling among them that they do not want to co-operate? Wait until the election is over and talk to them then.” After the Coloured elections on 19 March the Labour Party came into office. Hon. members know that they have a policy of non-co-operation with this Government. There was jubilation in certain circles at the election results. People jostled one another to conduct dialogue with the new office-holders, as if the Government of the country had suddenly been overthrown. I can also say that I conducted a dialogue with them, but I did not try to break the record for the hundred yards to get there, for everything ought to take place in an appropriate manner. These people also have self-respect. Hon. members on the opposite side have self-respect too, and they ought therefore to recognize these facts. The Government decided to accept this election, and it was then felt: “Give the people a chance. This is their will and desire. This is our own institution; we created it. We must bear the consequences of it, whether the consequences sometimes seem strange to us, or whether the consequences sometimes seem better to us. We have to accept that responsibility, because we have to accept the responsibility for this country.” That is why the chairmanship was offered to Mr. Leon. That is why a number of Labour members were also nominated to this Council. But it was also felt that we should nominate people outside politics. Seven or eight of them who are not involved in politics were then nominated. Surely this is evidence of the Government’s goodwill towards these people. We want to afford them an opportunity of governing. We want to offer them this opportunity so that we can make contact with the problem, so that we can become involved in it and so that we can discuss and settle this matter, instead of remaining at a distance, and once again allowing suspicion of one another to flourish. This is what this Government and many Coloureds desire, and these people would not have voted if they had not been convinced that the CRC was worth something to them. One does not merely vote blindly. One expects something for one’s vote. When it comes to the roof over one’s head, the clothing one wears and the food one eats, one expects that the person for whom one votes will do his best for one. In what way is he able to do this now if he does not have a forum, and if he does not have a place from which he can speak? This old story of “destroy the CRC” is therefore being used in a figurative sense; in a literal sense we may as well forget it.

It is a fact that we now have to think of the road ahead. This morning the new CRC convened. The new governing party elected the executive. They elected all the office-bearers. Mr. Leon is already the leader and the chairman of the executive. I have already had talks with him on more than one occasion. As the new chairman, he will have great responsibility. Apart from what has already happened between us, I just want to inform hon. members that these people are not such dragons as some people think. Nor are they to such an extent purely or summarily anti-government people as hon. members think. They think for themselves, and they also regard the concern of certain people for their political rights as a form of paternalism, whether they say it or not. I am going to hold talks with the members of the Executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council, for they are the leaders, and I am certain that they will come and that we will discuss matters, for we are dealing with reasonable people and every person has the right to express his opinion and to differ with another person. I shall also inform them of what happened on 8 November, and prior to 8 November. I shall make them fully conversant with this, so that they will at least know what the Government is offering them and is able to offer them at this stage. They must take into consideration that although approximately 60% of the Coloureds voted for them, approximately 60% of the Whites voted for us. Our 60% voted for a clear mandate and they say that their 60% also voted for a clear mandate. As leaders we have to find a satisfactory course, and we will find that course. These people will be afforded the opportunity of studying the documents. Then we have to hold further discussions. If they are desirous of proceeding, they can constitute a committee and we can then discuss the entire matter like sensible people. The CRC has to decide on the constitution of such a committee. Whether the CRC wishes to allow only Labour Party members to serve on it, and whether they want to include Federal Party members as well, is their own affair. However, such a committee should be representative, so that talks may take place. But they can appoint the people they choose to appoint. The principal idea behind this, and with this I shall conclude, is that the future dispensation for our Coloured people, as we have gradually been preparing it, will be planned in consultation and effected in co-operation with these people. Whether or not we are, together, able to work out a meaningful future dispensation is entire up to them.

Forget about our squabble among ourselves over the question of whether this system or that is so particularly effective now or whether this system or that goes far enough. If hon. members were to make a thorough study of this they would see that we are dealing here with positive political development which will afford these people a great deal of power and authority and will create far more opportunities for them in the direction of eventual full-fledged citizenship, which no one can deny them. As an hon. member there put it this morning, this is something for which one need not supply a lot of definitions. One must feel that, in one’s own country, one is at all times being treated in a dignified manner, and that one has certain rights, but, and this is very important, that if a large section of one’s people is not yet able to appreciate those things, there is an educational task rests on one’s shoulders. Then one should also, in respect of rights which one grants to a person, expect certain duties from him before one can arrive at that ultimate stage.

I have tried to explain why this system can work and what we are going to do. In respect of specific matters I could perhaps have replied in greater detail, but as far as these matters are concerned, I should prefer to communicate directly with hon. members and furnish them with the replies in that way.

Votes agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members know, it is customary, when social pensions are being increased, to consider the position of persons in receipt of compensation for occupational diseases as well. Hon. members will remember, too, that social pensions were increased from 1 May and again from 1 October last year. As against this, pensions in terms of the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act were increased only once, from 1 October 1974. Since this Act came into operation on 1 October 1973, however, the one-sum benefits have not been revised and increased. Since that date there has been a considerable rise in the cost of living and inflation has considerably reduced the purchasing power of money. In the meantime, however, wages too have risen in all sectors, and for this reason it is only fair and logical that relief should be granted to beneficiaries in respect of occupational diseases as well. Accordingly I take pleasure in announcing that the Government has decided to grant a general increase of 10% as from 1 July this year in compensation payable or being paid in terms of the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act. This increase applies to pensions as well as one-sum benefits, and it applies equally to all population groups.

Hon. members will recall that the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act makes provision for two groups of beneficiaries. The one group includes persons who were in receipt of pensions before 1 October 1973 and who have retained those pensions. The second includes persons who first became entitled to benefits after 1 October 1973 and who were awarded one-sum benefits and not pensions. However, pensioners, with the exception of widows and dependent children of deceased beneficiaries, were given the choice of having their pensions converted into one-sum benefits. At the moment the remaining pensioners are as follows:

Mineworkers: 2 944.

Widows: 6 380.

Children: 1 338.

With the 10% increase, which will be calculated up to the next full rand, pensions will amount to—

1. (i) 20% to 50% disablement—R61 p.m.
2. (ii) 50% to 75% disablement—R110 p.m.
3. (iii) More than 75% disablement—R159 p.m.
4. (iv) Widows—R83 p.m.
5. (v) Children—R36 p.m.

In every case, a Coloured person receives half the White person’s pension.

It is understandable, of course, that one-sum benefits which have already been awarded and paid out cannot be increased retrospectively. For this reason the 10% increase in one-sum benefits will apply only in respect of persons who are certified for the first time after 1 July 1975. At present the benefits in respect of Whites are R12 000 for a compensatable disease in the first degree and an additional amount of R6 000 for the second degree, or R18 000 for an initial certification of second degree. Consequently the increase of 10% amounts to R1 200 for the first degree, which brings the amount up to R13 200, or R1 800 for the two degrees together, which brings the amount up to R19 800.

Pensions are paid from the State account and the State is consequently responsible for the increase in the pensions, which is calculated at R1,5 million a year. The mines and works are responsible for one-sum benefits, and it is calculated that the 10% increase in one-sum benefits will entail an additional burden of R1 million a year for the mines and works. Although an increase of 10% does not appear to be excessive or particularly generous, it does entail a considerable additional expenditure for the State and for mines and works. Generally speaking, however, I am convinced that the increases are fair, reasonable and I trust that they will give satisfaction.

The Bill contains a few other amendments in addition to those relating to the increase in benefits. The way paragraph (f) of the definition of “compensatable disease” in the Act reads at the moment, no disease can be declared to be a compensatable disease unless the certification committee has recommended that this be done. The way the Act reads at the moment, therefore, the Committee has the power to veto any declaration of a disease to be a compensatable disease, and thus the committee, whose functions in terms of the Act are merely executive, has a legislative or a policy-making function as well. It was not the intention to give the committee this power, since from the nature of the case the committee is not actively involved in research and is consequently not informed as to diseases which may arise as a result of risk work. In order to remedy this deficiency it has been decided to amend the provision concerned, so that the Minister of Mines will not be bound by a recommendation of the certification committee in declaring a disease to be a compensatable disease. The director of the Bureau is the person best qualified to advise the Minister on the diseases which should be declared to be compensatable diseases, by virtue of the Bureau’s involvement in research and medical examinations. The intention of the amendment contained in the Bill, however, is that the director should consult other persons and bodies, such as the National Research Institute for Occupational Diseases, if the Minister so requests. However, serious objections to this provision were raised by the employers, and I had discussions with them, and consequently I intend to move a further amendment to the clause concerned in the Committee Stage—as is already indicated on the Order Paper—in order to meet the problems in this way. I may say even at this stage that I have obtained the full co-operation of the employers for the amendment presently appearing on the Order Paper. This further amendment now achieves the real object, namely to leave the declaration of a disease to be a compensatable disease in the hands of the Minister, who will act on the advice of a committee consisting of the director and at least three other medical practitioners. Care could then be taken to ensure that true experts on the particular disease concerned be appointed to the committee to advise them. Such a committee of experts, which, would be abreast of research findings, would consequently protect the Minister against pressure and criticism on matters of a highly technical and scientific nature.

When a disease has been declared by the Minister to be a compensatable disease, however, it is the function of the certification committee to certify individual cases if the committee is satisfied that the disease is due to risk work. This is the legal function of the certification committee, and the amendment is consequently in accordance with the other provisions relating to the definition of a compensatable disease.

On remarriage, a widow in receipt of a pension presently receives a gratuity of 24 times her monthly pension, and the pension then lapses. Representations have been made to me to the effect that this position is unfair to such widows, and I readily concede that this is so. The pension obligations in respect of widows have been calculated on the basis of their average life expectancy. As a rule, the younger widows are the ones who remarry, and in most cases the payment of an amount equal to 24 months’ pension amounts to much less than the calculated pension obligations.

It has been found on close consideration that an equitable concession can be made to the widow of a pensioner who remarries without burdening the State with additional financial liabilities. Consequently the amendment provides for the following payments in the case of widows who remarry: (a) When a widow has been in receipt of a pension for at least six years, she receives 40 times the amount of her monthly pension, or a pension equal to the pension she would have received over a period of 2⅓ years; (b) when she has been in receipt of a pension for less than six years, but for more than three years, she receives 40 times the amount of the monthly pension or an amount equal to the amount she would have received over a period of 3¼ years; (c) when she has been in receipt of a pension for less than three years, she receives 50 times the amount of her monthly pension.

The Act presently provides that on the death of a beneficiary, unpaid one-sum benefits or benefits arising from the findings of a post-mortem examination are in every case to be paid out in the first place to the widow, and if there is no widow, to the dependent children, and if there are no dependent children either, to the estate of the deceased. However, cases have occurred where the widow of the beneficiary had been estranged from her husband and had been living with another man. In some of these cases, the dependent children had been in the care of their father and not of their mother. In such cases it would be unfair to pay out the full benefit to the widow and to leave the children uncared for. The amendment which, is now being made will give the compensation commissioner, who acts in consultation with the advisory committee, the discretion to award such a benefit after the beneficiary’s death to the widow or to the dependent children, according to circumstances. This is in the interests of the people concerned. Representations for this amendment have been made by the trade unions, and I readily concede that it is a reasonable request and that it will be to the advantage of beneficiaries and their dependants.

†A further amendment relates to the investment of funds in the Research Account. As the relative provision stands at present, funds which have been levied for research purposes and which are available for investment, must be deposited with the Public Debt Commissioners. These funds can, however, earn a much higher interest if invested with private, approved financial institutions, such as commercial banks, building societies, etc. These funds are not State funds and it is felt that the mines and works from which these funds are levied, should receive the benefit of the better rates of interest which can be obtained from investments in the private sector. I may mention that compensation funds in the Mines and Works Accounts are invested in the private sector. It is right, however, that funds in the Government Account which are available for investment, should be invested with the Public Debt Commissioners. The amendment, therefore, relates only to research funds which cannot be regarded as State funds.

Finally, the Bill contains an amendment to section 133 of the Act. This section provides for the payment of a service gratuity to officials of the former Miners’ Phthisis Board and Miners’ Phthisis Bureau who, when these institutions were brought within the purview of the Public Service in 1946, for some reason did not become members of the Government Service Pension fund. Although the formula of this service gratuity was changed in 1973 to improve it to some extent, the revision and considerable improvement thereafter of the Government Service Pension Fund has rendered the service gratuity completely inadequate and unrealistic. In addition, inflation and the continuous erosion of the value of money have made it necessary to review the basis of calculation of the service gratuity to bring it more in line with the benefits payable upon retirement or death from the Government Service Pension Fund. The amendment, therefore, revises the formula for the calculation of the service gratuity and provides for the addition of five years’ service in the case of death in service.

Only three such officials were left. One died recently, so there are only two left now. The relative amendment is made effective retrospectively in order to give the widow of the deceased official the benefit thereof.

*These few amendments are fairly simple. However, they are necessary, because in every case they involve better benefits for persons suffering from occupational diseases and their dependants. I therefore trust that the amendments and the increase in benefits will meet with general approval.

Mr. Speaker, we have before us this afternoon a Bill amending the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act. The Bill contains a number of adjustments which we welcome. We believe that conditions have changed to the extent that improvements are required in the original. Act. There are, however, a number of matters which arise out of the amending Bill which I would like to raise at this stage. I may say that, apart from the minor improvements brought about by the amending Bill, there are two principles involved. The one principle is contained in the Bill itself while the other principle is of an overriding nature which. I believe, now deserves the attention of Parliament because of the problems which are likely to arise if this principle is not reviewed.

Let me begin by just looking very briefly at the contents of this Bill. It provides for an increase in benefits payable in terms of the principal Act in respect of benefits and special awards. In fact, the hon. the Minister has provided generally for an overall increase of 10% in the benefits payable. In view of the inflationary effects within our economy we have no objection to these increases. We feel that it is only reasonable that an improvement of this nature should be made.

The next point I want to mention is that the principal Act is being amended so as to effect an alteration to the definition of “compensatable disease”. In fact, compensatable disease is the name of the game so far as this legislation is concerned. The term “compensatable disease” refers to what is in effect the key to the Act, the key to the compensation of mine workers in respect of occupational diseases. The definition of “compensatable disease” is tantamount to a form of patronage. It can become tantamount to a form of political patronage, to a kind of grace and favour at the behest of the hon. the Minister. I was delighted to discover this afternoon when the hon. the Minister moved the Second Reading that clause 2 of this amending Bill is in fact to be amended at the Committee Stage in terms of a proposed amendment to that clause by the hon. the Minister which has just appeared on the Order Paper. As the Bill stands at the moment, the definition and, in fact, the certification would have been very largely in the hands of the hon. the Minister. The proposed new paragraph (f) of the definition of “compensatable disease” in the amending Bill reads as follows—

That is to say, the Minister is now being substituted for the certification committee—

This would have placed very arbitrary powers in the hands of the hon. the Minister. It would, in fact, have placed in his hands the right to determine certain matters without necessarily accepting the prior advice, the official or expert advice of the certification committee. As I say, we are delighted that the hon. the Minister has agreed to amend this provision to the effect that he must act in accordance with the advice received from the certification committee. This puts an entirely different complexion on the matter and I believe that we will have no difficulty in accepting the proposed amendment which reads—

This is a very great improvement and to a large extent meets the first objection in principle which I had intended raising in discussing this amending Bill.

The amending Bill goes on to deal with certain other matters and in the main we have no objection to these amendments. There is provision for the investment of moneys in the Research Account, for the regulation of the disposal of unpaid benefits on the death of certain beneficiaries, the regulation of the awarding of benefits to certain beneficiaries, and the cessation of pensions awarded to certain dependants. These are matters which merely improve the machinery or working of the legislation and we have no objection to them I come now to another matter which I believe to be an important overriding principle and which needs to be looked at when we are discussing an amending Bill of this nature. Implicit in the principal Act—I shall not discuss it—and implicit in the whole of this body of legislation is a very important principle. Let me put it to the House in this way. The industrial development of South Africa began round about the turn of the century, in the late 19th century, with the mining industry. This was the first manifestation in South Africa of true industrialization and it centered around the gold mining industry mainly on the Reef or Witwatersrand area. Sir, it was a good many years later—almost 40 years later—leaving aside a few ancillary industries which grew up to serve the mining industry, before there grew up in South Africa a true, independent, indigenous industrial complex. We have had, very largely during and after World War II, the growth of an industrial complex in South Africa which has been transforming the face of the country. The position has now been reached, to use very round numbers, that something less than 30 000 White mineworkers are employed in the mining industry, and the number is still increasing. I am speaking now of the gold mining industry, leaving aside the new base mineral industries. In the new, growing industrial complex of South Africa there is a very vast number of industrial workers, including White industrial workers, running into some hundreds of thousands. Sir, to cope with these two situations, we have had two different kinds of legislation. In dealing with workers in the mining industry, which was the original and unique industry in South Africa, we had a certain philosophical approach to the question of compensatable industrial disease, and these dangers, these risks, these compensations, were embodied in a series of legislative measures, part of which we are considering here this afternoon. Quite separately from this, Sir, there has grown up in South Africa another body of legislation which deals with industrial disease in general, with industrial risks, with industrial compensation, arising out of tasks which are quite independent of the mining industry. We have two different codes, two different sets of regulations, two different sets of compensations, two different forms of practice in relation to two kinds of industry. When one looks more closely at this, Sir, one finds that these industries, although one is classified as mining and the other one as ordinary industry, have in fact got much in common. One finds, for example, that many of the risks that one runs in a mine or in a factory are the same risks. One finds, for example, that a miner extracting asbestos incurs the same kind of health risks as an industrial worker working in an industrial plant which employs asbestos as a material. Miners and industrial workers often run exactly the same kind of risks. In many cases they work with the same kind of gas. They work with, the same kind of industrial material, the same kind of acids, the same kind of poisons. They incur many of the same overhead risks, many of the same lung risks, many of the same health dangers, and it has become impossible in many cases to distinguish between one kind and the other. In fact, Sir, in the mining industry, particularly with the beneficiation of ores in the mining industry, which is a great new welcome development in our industry but remains integral with the mining industry, one finds a great part of the mining works in factory buildings above ground. One finds that in factory buildings above ground they are dealing with mining occupations. It is an extension of the mining industry but in factory conditions, which are indistinguishable in nature from the kind of conditions in which factory workers operate in industrial premises at Vereeniging or anywhere else you like to mention. In dealing with these people, whose tasks and dangers and health risks are interchangeable and very often indistinguishable, we are dealing with them by two separate codes, two separate regimes. Sir, it is a situation which is really beyond defence by any logical argument. It is merely an accident of history that this has happened, and it has been perpetuated because this is perhaps the nature of the way in which we tend to legislate, but nevertheless it has reached a point where it is virtually indefensible. It has got to the point where pensioners or widows or beneficiaries of workers in the industrial occupations write and say: “Why is it that that man who is a miner and has in fact suffered less harm, less illness, than my husband, who is an ordinary industrial worker, is compensated so much more favourably?”

There are many inequalities which exist in the treatment of these two cases, in the compensatory diseases relating, firstly, to mining and, secondly, to ordinary industry. There is now such an overlap between these two industries that it is not reasonable or logical to distinguish between them. Nevertheless, we perpetuate this differential treatment between the two kinds of diseases. Sir, I believe it is time that we had a good, hard look at it. While we are not going to oppose the improvements which the Minister has introduced in this amending legislation, and while we realize that the hard look I am asking for is going to take time, we would tell him that if we do not oppose him and allow him to take stages, if he wishes to take the Bill further today, we would, nevertheless, seek an assurance from him that he will take a hard look at this problem. When I say this I am mindful of course of the fact that a commission of inquiry has been appointed and I would just like to remind the House what the terms of reference of this commission are. This is the commission known as the Erasmus Commission and which was appointed earlier this year. The terms of reference of the commission are to investigate precisely the things I have been speaking of this afternoon, and include the following—

Occupational diseases, Sir, without reference to special industries and without distinction as to the mining industry as compared with other industries. Secondly—

1. (b) the extent to which existing statutory measures and existing facilities may be wanting or overlapping with reference to the effective protection of industrial and other production workers.

I draw attention particularly to the word “overlapping”. One might well have had references also to “contradictions” and “inconsistencies”, because there are such things also which need to be looked at in very close detail. I hope that the hon. the Minister will, in fact, look at these things. I do not know whether I need to convince the hon. the Minister of the very favoured position in which the mineworker is in relation to other industrial workers. I have with me this afternoon a copy of a report published by the Medical Bureau for Occupational Diseases, and there is reference at some length—T believe my colleague will deal with it—to the common assumption in the mining industry that a miner who has served, shall we say, 20 years or 25 years in his occupation, often as an ordinary industrial worker in the mining industry, is entitled not only to his ordinary pension but also to a very high degree of compensation merely because of the fact that he has been a miner, irrespective of whether he has a real health injury in consequence of that occupation. Sir, I could go on at some length to elaborate this point, but I am sure the hon. the Minister has himself read this report and is aware of the situation that has arisen and of the complaints which are raised by the Director of this bureau in pointing out the misconceptions which have arisen in the mining industry and about these extravagant rights to which claim is being made. These rights are far beyond any comparison with the claims of a man in ordinary industry. The ordinary industrial worker would not dream of making the assumptions or claims which the Director of the Bureau says he is regularly receiving from mineworkers. In fact, since we introduced the last Act, he reports that there has been a phenomenal increase in the number of benefits claimed. The committee has been obliged, in terms of the present legislation, to increase the number of certifications, i.e. approval of compensation, by a very large number. There was last year an increase of 64,7% in certifications. Now, one is happy and grateful that the mineworkers are recognized and compensated in this manner, but let there be some measure of proportion. Let there be some measure of reason and logic in the application of the laws of this country in relation to industrial diseases and the compensation that people may expect. Let there at least be justice in the manner in which compensation is assessed and given, as between one class of industrial worker and another class, because it is quite obvious particularly with the development of mining in this country, that very often the overlap is greater than the differences between the two kinds of industries.

T want to conclude by making an appeal to the hon. the Minister. I think he is aware of the matters of which I have been speaking this afternoon. I think he is aware of the inconsistencies and the illogicalities of the situation. I believe that in agreeing to the appointment of this commission—because he must at least have been a party to the agreement that a commission of this kind should be appointed—he should use his best endeavours to ensure that this Erasmus Commission is given all the information it requires, and all the encouragement it may need, to investigate the matters we have been talking about this afternoon and to ensure that these inconsistencies and, in certain cases, these injustices, are eliminated from our Statute Book. We should introduce in South Africa one embracing, comprehensive, simple and logical form of industrial consultation without these discrepancies and inequalities which now exist in the law.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. the Minister will give us the assurance that this is also his intention, we shall raise no further objections of importance when the remaining stages of this Bill are taken.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Von Brandis raised a few very sound ideas here this afternoon. They are all ideas to which I believe the hon. the Minister will reply and which he will go into. I think that many of the points which he mentioned, will reward the effort of investigating them. I want to thank him for the constructive contribution which he made in connection with these people.

Last year, during the Minister’s Second Reading speech, on the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Amendment Bill, he referred to the Budget Speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance, in which the increase in social pensions with effect from 1 December 1974, was announced, and said that the pensioner to whom this Bill refers, would not be forgotten. I want to thank him very much this afternoon for the fact that we have an amending Bill before us once again, within a matter of two years, which contains great benefits for the mineworker and his dependants. I am grateful to the Minister and the Government for the fact that in terms of this measure which is before us, an increase in benefits is held in prospect with effect from 1 July. Sir, 10% should serve as compensation for the rise in the cost of living. Perhaps it could be said that we could concede more, but, as an old mineworker—and I believe this applies to hon. members on both sides of this House as well—I believe that this is a reasonable and good measure to provide relief to the different workers. The hon. the Minister has already explained what this increase implies. The increase applies of course, to all population groups, White and non-White, employed in the mining industry.

In addition to the increase in benefits, a few other amendments are being effected, for which we are also grateful. I refer in particular to the amendment to paragraph (f) of the definition of “compensatable disease”. This definition is being amended in such a way that the Minister may declare a disease to be a compensatable disease after consultation with the director of the bureau and a committee, consisting of three medical practitioners, appointed by him. Consequently I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has announced this amendment and is going to amend the Bill in this respect. At the moment a disease can only be declared compensatable if a medical certification committee recommends that it be considered an occupational disease. This amendment can only be to the advantage of workers in mines and works. I am also grateful for the proposed amendments to sections 81, 82 and 83 of the principal Act, the sections which make provision for the awarding of unpaid one-sum benefits at the death of a beneficiary, or benefits which become payable on grounds of post-mortem findings. According to the present wording, such benefits can be paid to widows in any event. However, there are deserving cases. I have had to deal with such cases myself. I had to deal, inter alia, with the case of a mineworker, who at the time of his death was divorcing his wife, who had been married previously and refused to have anything to do with his children. In the past week, I submitted another similar case to the department. The department is, therefore, aware of these problems. I am grateful that the Act is being changed. In terms of the Act as it stands, the widow receives the benefits and only if there is no widow do the dependant children receive them. If clauses 4, 5 and 6 are passed, the Compensation Commissioner for Occupational Diseases will have discretionary powers to award the benefit, according to the circumstances, to the widow and the children, in consultation with the advisory committee, established in terms of section 59 of the Act. Another very important amendment is that to section 106 of the principal Act, as contained in clause 10 of this Bill. A Bantu person will now qualify for tuberculosis benefits, if he has performed risk work for at least 200 shifts. If the certification committee is of the opinion that such person was already affected by tuberculosis while he was performing risk work, or is affected thereby within 12 months after he has performed risk work for the last time, compensation may be paid to such a person. This is also a great improvement in respect of Bantu persons which is being effected here. In the present Act, there is a further qualification, viz. that at least 100 shifts had to be worked within six months immediately preceding the date on which he performed such work for the last time. We are inclined, especially in these circumstances, to talk only of the White mineworker at all times. Perhaps he is also the first person to whom one should give attention. However, we must not forget either that there are thousands of Bantu mineworkers who perform the same risk work and that we must also look after their interests. The latter qualification is being revoked and a Bantu person who has been performing risk work for many years will qualify for compensation, in the circumstances which I have already mentioned. The hon. member for Rosettenville has often spoken about those persons who suffer from these diseases and whom we cannot trace. I know a major shortcoming exists in this regard, but I believe that the mines are doing everything in their power to trace those persons whose addresses they do not have. As the hon. member knows, we are very dependent on Bantu whom we import from other neighbouring states to work on our mines.

The other amendments are reasonably simple and I am grateful that the hon. member for Von Brandis also said that the Opposition support the amendments wholeheartedly, except for the one point which he mentioned. I want to express my thanks towards the hon. the Minister for the amendments embodied in this legislation and to assure him that the amendments, and especially the increased benefits, will be popular everywhere. I believe that we are fortunate—I speak on behalf of the mineworkers—to have received after so short a period a large-scale revision of the compensation already offered. I am grateful for that, and once again, it is an honour for me to support the hon. the Minister as far as the proposed amendments in this legislation are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with much of what the hon. member for Stilfontein has said. He is a very experienced man in these matters and we have to take note of what he says here.

I want to follow on what the hon. member for Von Brandis has said about occupational diseases in general. First of all, I trust that the hon. the Minister will carry out the suggestions which have been made by the hon. member for Von Brandis. To me it looks as if this is now the time for change. When we deal with occupational diseases, we have to alter our present concept in regard to the recognition of diseases, their treatment and compensation. All these things have got to be changed. We should not have to deal with, a disease which occurs in the mining industry, in the mines or in works as defined in the present Act, differently from a disease of a similar nature in a factory which is not so defined. It is rather serious in the light of the growth of industry in the country that we have so many anomalies. I see no reason why this present investigation being undertaken by the Erasmus Commission, should not be fully supported by all of us in this House. We have at the moment the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the Occupational Diseases Act in Mines and Works Act and then over and above this, we have the diseases and accidents which occur on the Railways but these are all treated differently. We have to have new legislation brought in which will cover all these workers. We have to find a method whereby all the health problems which arise out of working conditions, irrespective of where they occur, can be dealt with similarly. We must see that one Minister deals with these cases under one Act. If we can do that, I feel that the worker will feel assured that he is going to be well looked after if he is involved in an accident or if he contracts a disease because of his work. The present concept in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, for instance, is totally different to the concept which we have in the Mines and Works Act. Accidents occur in mines and works and diseases are contracted in mines and works. When a disease is contracted in industrial work the case is treated entirely differently to that in occurring in mines. For instance, I have sent an asbestosis case to the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. The man contracted asbestosis whilst working in a factory. I have the greatest difficulty in getting this man compensation although he has been certified as having asbestosis by the Bureau for Occupational Diseases which is run by the mines. I am having great difficulty in getting compensation for this man. If he was a mineworker and did not work in an asbestos factory, I am sure that his case would have been settled two years ago. This is the sort of anomaly that we have to put an end to. The changes that are taking place in industry today are so rapid that I doubt very much whether we are even geared to meet these changes. I doubt very much whether even the medical profession is geared to meet them. In some respects it is but in many it is not. We have to sit down and find ways and means of looking to the future when we deal with the effects of the present changes which are taking place in industry. Let us look at what is happening. We get workers from rural areas who come into the urban areas for the first time in their life. They have been leading a pastoral life and they virtually go straight from the pastoral life into an entirely different atmosphere. When I talk about atmosphere I do not only mean that they may be going into a dust-laden atmosphere in a mine. Their whole mode of life changes. Their eating habits change, their recreation is different and they have to adapt themselves to a new environment. They lay themselves open to many diseases which we might not recognize at present. It was the custom in the past to recruit Black workers from the reserves and to put them to work underground. What was the result? The result naturally was a high percentage of pneumoconiosis and tuberculosis. As I have said much of this had to do not only with exposure to dust but also with the new environment in which they were living. Think of a Bantu who is living in his homeland and has a free and open way of life. When he comes to work in the city he lives in a hostel for the first time in his life. He is an adult; he has not been brought up in that environment. He gets put into that environment for the first time. It is no wonder that these diseases are occurring. What do we have to do? We have to gear ourselves to prevent these things happening to the workers when they come in from the rural areas. It reminds me very much of what took place in the industrial revolution in England where the same sort of thing happened. There they had cases of tuberculosis occurring for the first time only when industry started to make great strides forward. They had the cottage weavers who processed the cotton in their cottages. They spent part of the day weaving and the rest of the day on their little plot of land. They were always well-fed and they always had the fresh air that they required. They had their own recreation. When the industrial pressure came on, these cottage weavers were taken out of their cottages and put into the factories with looms, etc., and what happened to them? Then there was sickness and degradation. All sorts of things happened. We must now allow that to happen in our country because I think that we are going through another industrial revolution in this country and we have to be aware of it. The mining industry is at the core of all this. They started it and it has resulted in the establishment of secondary industries, indeed, secondary industry itself has now become primary industry and is in turn being helped by other secondary industries. The worker is being exposed to all sorts of new methods of production. The hon. member for Von Brandis mentioned the new gases and metals that are appearing. I do not want to say too much about this because it is obvious from what we have been saying here this afternoon that something must be done now for the future. I wonder whether the new machines brought into factories are geared to the wants of the workers. They are not so geared. The worker has to gear himself to the new machines. Irrespective of his age and his physical ability, the worker now has to adapt himself to the new machine that is introduced. If he does not, he falls by the wayside. It is in respect of these matters that we have to ask ourselves whether we are treating the people properly who are working for us in this country.

I think the hon. the Minister has to work hand-in-hand with the Minister of Labour. That is a first requirement. Whether the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Mines should look after the health of the worker, is doubtful. I do not doubt their ability at all, but I think there should be a separate division to deal with industrial diseases. Whether such a division should fall under the Minister of Mines or under the Minister of Labour or whether it should be handed over to the Minister of Health, is something we can sort out later on. The point is that someone must deal with, this matter and it should be a person who is separate from the Department of Labour and the Department of Mines. That is why I am advocating that at this stage the Department of Health should look after the health of the worker while he is at work. I may be wrong; the law may be so complicated at the moment that it may be virtually impossible to make these changes, but I think now that the Erasmus Commission is sitting, something ought to be done to try to influence the people sitting on that commission to see whether it is not possible to take the responsibility for the health of the worker out of the hands of the Department of Labour and of the Department of Mines and to place it in the hands of the Department of Health.

The hon. member for Von Brandis mentioned one or two anomalies that are occurring. I wonder, for instance, how much mercury is being used in industry today. Do you know, Sir, if a man gets mercury poisoning today while he is working for industry, he is treated entirely differently to the person who happens to be an amalgamator on a mine?

That is a point that is being considered by this commission.

I know.

Then why talk about it?

Do you know all about it?

The commission is considering it. You are wasting time.

Order!

I am bringing this matter to the notice of the House so that all of us here can hear about it. I am not arguing that this matter is not being looked at the moment, but I am saying that we as members of Parliament should assist the commission of inquiry. That is what we want.

Why do you not give evidence before the commission?

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get involved in an argument with the hon. member. I want to point out to the House what we have been advocating for years and years.

Why not merely dissolve Parliament?

This is not the first time we have spoken about this, but perhaps the hon. member across the way is bored with what I am saying.

Read my speech under the Labour Vote.

You see, Mr.

Speaker, one experiences this mentality on the part of some people who, if one is trying to do something for the worker, say that it should be done only under the Labour Vote …

No, I did not say that.

… and if one does something for a worker under the Labour Vote and it is a matter which could possibly refer to Mines, they want to know why one does not mention it under the Mines Vote.

I said read my speech on the Labour Vote.

Order! The hon. member for Brakpan must please contain himself.

I am not interested in that speech. I am merely giving the views of this side of the House in order to impress upon the hon. the Minister that we feel, as he does, that something new must be done now for the worker. If it is not done, then we are going to make ourselves heard. However, I feel that the hon. the Minister as a reasonable man is going to do something about it. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that if there is a worker on the mines—he need not be in industry—who has been working in a mill for years and goes deaf, he is a person whom, when I have recommended him for compensation, I have had to certify was not deaf when he started working on the mines. Some of these people have been working on the mines for 20 years. One therefore has to say:“When I first saw this man, he was not deaf”. If one does not do this, then one experiences difficulty in certifying that that man’s deafness was due to the fact that he was working on the mine. He may have been working in thé batteries or somewhere else. That is the sort of thing that is happening today. We also have the other conditions which I am pleased will now be met through the introduction of this amending Bill. The hon. the Minister is also going to include other diseases which could be certified as having arisen from working on the mines.

Do you support it?

We certainly are going to support the amendments.

There is one matter which was brought up by the hon. member for Von Brandis and which I think it is very important. The hon. member spoke about the 67% increase in certifications. I think the hon. member for Stilfontein referred to this as well. The fact that there has been a 67% increase in certifications is to my mind a very, very important one. I look at the matter in this light. Why should there be so many people who are now having to be certified? Is it because of the latitude that has been given to the mine worker or is it because the conditions under which he is working have deteriorated? These are the things that I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us. Is it because of increased exposure? Is it because of deep mining? Is it because of the fast that risk work is now more risky than it was previously? These are the things I want to know. I hope that the hon. the Minister will tell us when he replies why there has been this 67% increase in certifications.

Finally, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether in all cases where there are increased benefits to Whites those increases will also be reflected in the benefits payable to Coloured, Indian and Bantu workers on the mines?

Mr. Speaker, I should like to return to the amending Bill before us. This Bill deals specifically with the health of thousands of workers rather than specifically with the running and development of the mines. We are dealing here with the health of a vast number of workers in this country. To a large extent the amendments are non-contentious and of a procedural nature and we will support this Bill.

In terms of specific comment, the 10% increase in the benefits and awards obviously takes cognizance of inflation and this is to be commended. One wonders whether it would not be preferable to allow increased awards, without alteration to legislation in future, by allowing a greater flexibility in this matter and by not confining the increase to 10%.

Sir, just a question on clause 1. It is notable that in the case of special awards the amount of the increase is at the discretion of the commissioner in the case of White workers and at the discretion of the Bantu Affairs authority in the case of Blacks, it does not seem to me that there are any clear criteria as to how large the increase is going to be, and one wonders whether a discrepancy could not creep in here if the one decides to grant an increase of 10% and the other decides to grant an increase of 7½% or 5%. I understand that the maximum increase allowed is 10%. Sir, then just another question, also under clause 1. No increase is to be made in respect of the one-sum benefit. I wonder if the hon. the Minister would give a little more clarification as to why these folk are to be excluded from these increases.

With regard to clause 2, reference has already been made to the amendment by the hon. the Minister. We will certainly support that amendment, which is a very great improvement on the wording of the Bill as it is before us at the present time, so there is no need for me to say anything at all about clause 2.

Clause 4 contains a number of amendments. This clause deals with the appropriation of benefits, due to a deceased person, between his widow and children. There is only one thing which concerns me here. I can well understand and follow the argument of the hon. the Minister in his presentation of the Bill, but it does seem to me that the present wording suggests that there you have a mutually exclusive benefit, either to the widow or to the children in some instances. While, of course, this allows for cases where children are being neglected and it is therefore very important that this provision should be made, I wonder if this could not be worded differently so as to make it perfectly clear that the benefit will go to the widow and the children, and not necessarily to the widow or the children. The same, of course, applies to the wording where it speaks of other people who are the responsibility of the deceased worker. I think these mutually exclusive alternatives in the present draft could be improved upon.

With regard to clause 7, which amends section 75 of the principal Act, as the section stood originally a widow on remarriage forfeited her pension subject to a lump-sum payment equivalent to 24 times the monthly pension. Sir, I wonder if the hon. the Minister could tell us in his reply whether the lump-sum payment is to be taxed in the year of receipt. I ask this because it would seem to be fair that the tax should either be spread over a number of years so that the maximum benefit could be gained by the recipient, or that the rate applicable be averaged in order to ensure the incidence of tax in the year in which the lump sum is received is not too onerous a burden for the recipient. I think this will be very fair.

Sir, there is no need for me to dwell at any great length on industrial medicine or industrial workers. We on these benches welcome this Bill and will support it.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to react to what the previous speakers said, but I cannot allow the opportunity to pass, with reference to the pleas which the hon. members for Von Brandis and Rosettenville made, of addressing a plea to the hon. the Minister not to concede to the request which these two hon. members made by implication, i.e. that this whole question of compensation of our workers in the different industries be put under one blanket, and actually, by implication, also under the supervision of another hon. Minister. I have no hesitation in saying here this afternoon that not only this side of the House, but also every worker in South Africa, has utmost confidence in the way in which the hon. Minister of Mines and the hon. Minister of Labour are seeing to the interests of the workers in South Africa, We are all satisfied that the interests of these people are very safe in the hands of these two Ministers and for that reason there is no reason why another arrangement should be made now. I found it rather regrettable that the hon. member for Von Brandis saw fit this afternoon to play off the very good intentions of the hon. the Minister of Mines against what was being done for our workers by the hon. the Minister of Labour.

You are seeing spectres.

That is the impression which was created, and I am sorry that it happened. We are dealing here with a very delicate situation and I believe that it is in the best interests of South Africa and of the workers that we confine ourselves to what is before us and not come forward with new ideas at this stage. I accept the good intentions of those two hon. gentlemen, but this is a matter which simply will not work in practice.

In respect of the higher compensation for mineworkers which is now made possible by this legislation, I should like to associate myself with the sentiment which has already been expressed by my colleague the hon. member for Stilfontein, and say that I am very grateful for this higher compensation. I must say that I regard it as a shortcoming of the contributions made by the other two hon. members that they did not express appreciation for this higher compensation which will now be paid to the mineworkers. But in this connection I should like to deliver a plea in respect of two matters. The first is that as far as this higher compensation is concerned, an arrangement should be made so that it need not be necessary to arrange this by means of legislation. These people have the bad end of the stick, because there is usually some delay before legislation can be introduced. As a result of the rising cost of living it can happen that increases have to be made in the recess and that such increases have to be delayed until the matter can be given attention at the next session of Parliament. I wonder whether an arrangement cannot be made that, as far as future increases are concerned, an increase can be made by means of regulation and with the consent of the State President. The hon. the Minister would still be able to ask the approval of this House. That is the one matter.

The second matter is this. You will have deduced, Sir, from the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Minister that the pension benefits are being increased to a certain amount. In the usual circumstances, it would mean that if such a person had no other earnings, he would qualify for a social pension over and above this compensation. Now it is my plea that consideration be given, for the sake of the people who are involved in the matter and for whom we are surely all very sorry, that increases of this nature be excluded from the means test so that increases of this nature will not lead to these people having to forfeit another social pension. I make this plea because in my own constituency, I have many deserving cases of people who are detrimentally affected by even a slight increase in that it precludes them from getting another form of pension.

Next, in respect of clause 3, where reference is made to the question of a research fund, I should like to put the following to the hon. the Minister. I assume that that research fund is actually used, inter alia, to establish the link between the work which is done and the disease which is contracted. However, it is true that there are certain diseases, for example heart diseases, which we can all contract and which, up to now, have not been classified as compensatable diseases in terms of this legislation. Now I want to ask whether it will not be possible to give more attention to research to establish the very link between the work which people do underground, and the disease which they then contract, such as, inter alia, heart diseases. It is true that people who go to work in the mines have to be certified as extraordinarily healthy also, inter alia, as far as heart diseases are concerned. Now it happens, innumerable times, that it is found in practice that such people contract this disease in which case they cannot receive compensation. I have mentioned heart diseases merely as an example; there are many other examples. I want to ask whether instructions for a special inquiry cannot be given, in view of the funds which are available, to establish the link between the work and the disease, so that these people may also qualify for compensation at an earlier stage.

Finally, I want to ask the hon. the Minister what is being done to establish what effect underground work over a long period has on the health of a person. We have innumerable cases of people who have worked underground for 30 or 40 years complaining that although their health has been affected by that, they can receive no compensation because the trouble cannot be pinned down as one of the compensatable diseases. While this legislation now provides far greater scope than has been the case in the past, I want to ask whether steps cannot be taken to establish whether someone who has worked underground for so long a period does not possibly have a greater claim to compensation when he stops working as a result of the influence of that work.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Springs made a very good suggestion indeed when he spoke about the readjustment of compensation to be paid. He suggested that such an adjustment should not be subject to the amendment of the relevant legislation. In fact, that is one of the points I want to make. I believe that an equitable and fair scheme could be worked out by the Minister whereby compensation could be tied directly to the cost-of-living index, rather than that it should be subject to special amending legislation. After all, it is true that all persons who have to exist on the compensation which is paid in respect of diseases of this nature, live very close indeed to the breadline. It is only fair that suitable and adequate adjustments should be made when they become necessary, in order to prevent these people having to live in very difficult circumstances. When one considers the 10% increase which is suggested in terms of this legislation, one wonders whether this 10% can in any way compensate for the loss in the value of money over the period concerned. I feel that this increase of 10% cannot be considered to be adequate or equitable in the light of the increase in the cost of living over that period and in the light of the decrease in the value of money due to inflation. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the suggestion made by the hon. member for Springs should be given very serious consideration by the hon. the Minister. I should like to add to that that the hon. the Minister should consider tying this figure to the cost-of-living index.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members have already raised all the valid points. There is just one further point I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister. When a widow who receives financial assistance in terms of this legislation remarries, that financial assistance ceases. Can the Minister tell us whether in fact provision is made for any children of the deceased husband of such a widow? I am a little worried about this situation, in that not all widows marry well, and I feel that the legislation should ensure that the children from the previous marriage are adequately looked after.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased about the discussion we have had here this afternoon and I should like to express my thanks and appreciation to all the parties concerned for their support of this Bill. This underlines once again that when mining interests in this country are at issue, this House is unanimous about these time after time. One is really very grateful for this. Various hon. members asked questions and made points to which I should very much like to react.

The hon. member for Von Brandis spoke about the question of the small committee which will consist of three medical practitioners to assist the Minister of Mines in declaring a specific disease to be a compensatable disease. I want to make it clear that it is my intention to do this in the following way: I shall ask the employers, i.e. the Chamber of Mines, to recommend a doctor to me whom they would like to have on such a panel. In the second place, I shall ask the trade unions to recommend a doctor to me and, in the third place, the Minister himself will nominate a third doctor. I think that hon. members will readily agree with me that in that way there should be no problem in obtaining the best possible advice for the Minister of Mines as to the question of whether or not a disease should be declared a compensatable disease. I wanted to state that very clearly and correctly in the first place. The hon. members for Von Brandis and Rosettenville also spoke a great deal about “two set-ups to deal with industrial diseases and mining diseases”. This is a problem which is really as old as the hills in South Africa, and it has had a great deal of attention in the past. In addition to that, I want to tell hon. members that many difficulties are involved in a matter of this nature. That is why the Government appointed the Erasmus Commission, viz. to go into the whole matter. I do not want to take up the time of this House by elaborating in detail about this whole matter, but I just want to point out one of the problems in this connection. Nobody will deny that while my sympathies lie not only with the mine-workers, but also with the industrial workers—and there must not be the least doubt about this—the nature of the work of a mineworker who works underground for 30 or 40 years at a depth 10 000 metres or 12 000 metres, is surely very different from the work of most industrial workers, even if they do work with asbestos which may also have certain detrimental effects. There are qualitative differences which cause problems and which cannot be overlooked so easily. Even in the Bible, there is talk of people who work in the “bowels of the earth”. Through the centuries it has been recognized that people who have to work in the bowels of the earth, work in exceptional circumstances and dealing with that requires exceptional measures. This fact should not be overlooked by this House. I know hon. members on the opposite side do not mean it in that way either. I want to make this point very clear.

A second point which I want to make clear, is that it is perfectly possible for me to accede to the request of both the hon. members for Von Brandis and Rosettenville, viz. the request, as the hon. member for Von Brandis put it to me, that “he would like me to say and to see to it that the Erasmus Commission gets all the information they require”. I can give hon. members the assurance that we shall furnish the Commission with all the particulars it would like to have. My department has already promised the Commission its full co-operation and has also undertaken to share with it all the knowledge about occupational diseases which we have at our disposal. We are also prepared to give evidence before that commission. Therefore I share the view of those hon. members, viz. that we, the people involved in mining, must act for our part in close cooperation with the commission. We are doing so and in the light of the hon. member’s request this afternoon and my undertaking to do so, I shall see, to it that we do this to a greater extent than we have perhaps been doing it up to now. We should like to give our fullest co-operation, since we realize that there are problems here. That is why we should like to lend a hand in obviating any problems. I hope that the hon. members are completely satisfied with this answer.

I want to mention a third point in this connection. As Minister of Mines it is obviously a very great pleasure and privilege for me to look after the interests of the mineworkers. It is something which I very much like doing. When I promise co-operation to this commission and say that I shall see to it that such co-operation will be given to the maximum extent, there is one condition which I impose. Whatever is done or found by this commission, I should like to see to it that nothing takes place which is to the detriment of the mines and our mineworkers. I shall resist anything of that kind since I think it would not be right. There must be improvements for the industrial workers as well—I am in favour of that and I shall give my full support to that—but these must not be effected at the expense of the mineworkers, the people who have become accustomed to a particular system over the years and things must not be taken away from them in consequence of such improvements being effected. To my mind, it would not solve any problems, but only create new problems. I am certain the hon. members will agree with me in this connection.

I am very appreciative of the hon. member for Stilfontein’s speech and the points which he made in it. It is true that important benefits for the mineworkers are involved in this legislation. I am very glad that the hon. member emphasized it and also that he referred to the fact that important benefits are included in this legislation for Bantu mineworkers as well.

I do not want to hold it against the hon. member for Rosettenville that he said certain things or quarrel with him across the floor of this House, but to compare the South African industrial worker, if I understood the hon. member correctly, with the worker at the time of the industrial revolution in Great Britain in a previous century is, to put it gently, an overstatement if ever there was one. Absolutely no comparison is possible. At one stage I went very deeply into the circumstances of that revolution in Britain and read reports about it into the early hours of the morning, and I want to tell the hon. member this, that anybody with knowledge of that matter would not make the mistake of drawing a comparison between the position in our industrial works in South Africa and the circumstances which obtained then. They are absolutely poles apart. One cannot mention them in the same breath.

Was that when you were writing your thesis overseas?

Yes, you are quite right, but I think I should rather not go into that, since the hon. member and I would perhaps be at loggerheads. However, the hon. member asked whether there had been an increase of 67% in certification. That is completely true. The hon. member wants to know what this is attributable to. In the first place, it is attributable to the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act, which became operative on 1 October 1973. A Select Committee, of which the hon. member was a member himself, proposed procedures, the effect of which would be an increase in certification.

†There is a wider range of compensatable diseases than in the past as a result of that Act and also to a certain extent as a result of improved methods and instruments used for detecting early signs of diseases.

*I want to advocate that, instead of being alarmed at the increase in the number of certifications, we should rather be grateful for the increase in certifications, because they are attributable, in general, to statutory improvement, instrumental improvement and to the fact that there is a wider range of diseases which are now compensatable. These are the reasons for that 67% increase. I know that the mineworkers are very grateful for it. In fact, I think that everyone who is involved in the industry is grateful for it. That then is my answer to that question put by the hon. member.

†The hon. member has furthermore asked me whether these benefits are also applicable to non-Whites. The reply is that these benefits apply to White as well as non-White beneficiaries.

*The hon. member for Pinelands asked me whether a widow who had received her money would have to pay tax on it.

†The reply is that section 130(2) of the principal Act makes the following provision:

This does not apply to the yield of the benefit when invested.

*The hon. member must just understand that well. I am glad the hon. member asked me that question. I read the relevant provision to him not only because it relates to the specific case to which the hon. member referred, but also because it relates to the general position. It is a good thing for hon. members to take note of the fact that the amount is exempt from income tax.

The hon. member asked one further question, viz. whether it will be “either to the widow or to the children”. I can assure him that the wording is absolutely clear and that it has a bearing on both. That is how he put it and he need have no doubt about it, because that is the law adviser’s explanation.

The hon. member for Springs as well as the hon. members for Pinelands and Bryanston asked me whether it was necessary to introduce legislation in connection with this matter of mine pensions. The position here is that I shall go into the matter and see whether we cannot introduce a change in this procedure. If a change can be made, I should very much like to make it.

†The fact is that the employers, the Chamber of Mines, have always insisted that increases should be freely debatable in Parliament. Therefore, before I can agree to the requests of the three hon. members, I must go back to the Chamber of Mines. Whether they will agree I do not know, but I shall go back and ask them for their opinion. I must confess that I am also of the opinion that it should not be necessary to come to the House to increase an ordinary benefit. But I shall take up this matter with them and the hon. members may assist me in this connection.

*I want to reply to another question put by the hon. member for Springs. He said that if a mineworker in receipt of benefits had no other earnings, he should be able to qualify for a social pension. It is an important point which the hon. member for Springs made in this regard. I want to make it very clear that this is a very complicated matter. If we were to allow this in the case of a mineworker, we would also have to allow it in the case of other categories of workers. Therefore, I am unfortunately unable to help the hon. member for Springs in this regard. You will be able to understand, Sir, that, if the mineworker also qualifies for a social pension over and above his normal pension, it will create many problems with regard to other categories of workers. We have spoken to the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions about this before, and it appeared that so many problems are involved in this that I am unfortunately unable to do anything in that connection.

Finally, the hon. member for Springs asked me another very important question, viz. whether it would not be possible for the research body of the Chamber of Mines to be of assistance in doing more research in respect of, for example, heart diseases and other diseases which mine-workers might contract but which other people might contract as well. I can just tell the hon. member that the research body of the Chamber of Mines is engaged in such research and that they can do no more than they are already doing in that connection with the funds at their disposal. They are also specifically engaged in, inter alia, doing research into heart diseases. The last time that I spoke to them, they told me that they hoped to complete that aspect of the research within a period of approximately 12 months. Then we shall see whether or not it possibly falls into the category of compensatable diseases.

The hon. member also asked whether it was not possible for proper research to be undertaken in respect of the influence of conditions in mines on workers who have worked underground for 30 or 40 years. As far as that is concerned, all the underlying legislation which makes it possible in South Africa to compensate mineworkers, relies on the fact that the necessary research in this sphere has been done and is still being done. I am afraid that more cannot be done in that connection.

In conclusion, I want to thank hon. members for the support which they have given to this Bill. I hope I have replied to all the questions.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer just briefly to subsection (1) (b) and (c). Under paragraph (b), the commissioner has the discretion, while under paragraph (c) the Bantu affairs authority has the discretion to determine the amount to be awarded. I wonder whether there is going to be any kind of liaison between the two different authorities so that no disparity will creep in in respect of the award. As regards subsection (2), I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would care to motivate again why no increase is given by way of any one-sum benefit. Subsection (2)states:

Can the hon. the Minister perhaps tell us why that should be excluded?

Mr. Chairman, we shall ensure the necessary liaison between the commissioner and the Bantu Affairs authority. I can clearly see that it is necessary that there should be liaison. If it is not yet there, I shall make arrangements for this to take place.

As far as subsection (2) is concerned, the position, if I understand your question correctly, is that the one-sum benefits in the one case amount to R12 000 and in the other to R18 000. In accordance with the provisions of this Bill, those benefits are being increased by 10%. In future a person who qualified in the first degree, to put it that way, and who would therefore have received R12 000, will now receive R13 200. In the same way the person who would have received R18 000 previously, will now receive R19 800. This is why the provisions of clause 1 are not applicable in this case.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr.Chairman, I move the amendment to this clause which appears in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. “(f) any other disease which the Minister, acting on the advice of a committee consisting of the director and not fewer than three other medical practitioners designated by the Minister, has, subject to the provisions of subsection (2), by notice in the Gazette declared to be a compensatable disease and which, in the opinion of the certification committee, is attributable to the performance of risk work at a mine or works;”.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, I should like the hon. the Minister to give us an explanation of the reasoning that lies behind the amendment contained in this clause. We have here the question of compensation that is paid to a widow who has been receiving a pension from the mines in respect of a mineworker and who then remarries. There is the introduction here of a principle which appears to be the reverse of the principle normally applied by the courts of this land. If a lady seeks compensation before our courts in respect of an injury or a loss, it is common for the judge to assess her age, to assess her looks and to award her compensation in inverse proportion to her good looks or her youth. If she is a young and good looking woman the judge will look at her and say:“I think your prospects of remarriage, of a good marriage and of a happy life are excellent because you are young.” He will then give that woman low compensation. If, on the other hand, she is a woman in middle age or of advanced years, and if, in fact, the question of her advanced years is complicated by plainness of appearance, the judge will award that woman high compensation because her prospects of improving the rest of her life by remarriage are correspondingly reduced. We therefore have a principle which is commonly applied in this country where a woman seeking compensation is awarded compensation in direct proportion to her age—the greater her age the greater the compensation and the lower her age the lower the compensation. The hon. the Minister is in this clause applying the reverse principle. A widow who has received a pension for a period of six years will now be entitled to an amount equal to 30 times the amount of her monthly pension. If, however, a person had been a widow for less than six years but more than three years, she will receive an amount of 40 times the amount of her monthly pension, if such a woman is even younger and is a widow who has been receiving a pension for a period not exceeding three years, she gets the jackpot. She receives an amount of 50 times her monthly pension. [Interjections.] I sympathize with the hon. the Minister. What I am interested in determining is why the hon. the Minister is applying a principle here which is the exact opposite of that applied by the courts.

Mr. Chairman, it is perfectly fair as it has been worked out here and as it has been done in the Department of Mines through all the years. The reason is not far-fetched or complicated. The reason is that, if the widow remarries, the State saves. That is why we have that built-in safety valve in contrast to what the hon. member has just mentioned. This is a very important safety valve which works well in practice. If a widow receives more money, it encourages her to remarry and then the State also saves! The position works out very well and very fairly.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Report Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments to this clause as printed in my name on the Order Paper, viz.—

1. (1) On page 2, to omit all the words after “price” in line 15 up to and including “is” in line 17 and to substitute:

   , interest or any other charges is or are

2. (2) on page 4, in lines 28 and 29, to omit “but does not include” and to substitute “including”.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to this clause standing in my name on the Order Paper, viz.—

1. (iC) a statement that the purchaser shall have the right in terms of section 72 of the Insolvency Act, 1916, Amendment Act, 1926 (Act No. 29 of 1926), to demand transfer of the land after payment of not less than fifty per cent of the purchase price, on condition of registration of a mortgage bond over the land to secure the balance of the purchase price and interest in terms of the contract, and that, if the seller is unable or fails or refuses to give such transfer within three months after receiving such demand, the purchaser may treat the contract as cancelled and may recover the portion of the purchase price paid by him together with such damages as he may have sustained.

Clause 3 deals with section 4 of the principal Act which section deals with the contents of contracts of sale. The proposed amendment also deals with the contents of the contract of sale. I think that I am on very safe ground when I say that the sale of land in the contract records in writing the finalization of the verbal negotiations between seller and buyer or their agents. The law stipulates that the agreement must be in writing and the clause records in detail what must be contained in the deed of sale. The clause also details certain requirements because it is the intention of the legislature that there should be absolutely no doubt in the mind of either the buyer or the seller as to their contractual obligations towards each other. As the hon. the Minister knows, many deeds of sale are stereotyped. All one has to fill in are the names of the buyer and seller, their addresses, the purchase price and a description of the erf and so on.

The proposed new paragraph (iC) inserted by paragraph (b) of clause 3 deals with the rights of the purchaser under section 72 of the Insolvency Act, 1916, Amendment Act 1926 (Act No. 29 of 1926). This paragraph gives the impression that the purchaser only has partial rights and must seek reference to his other rights under the aforementioned Insolvency Act, 1916, Amendment Act, 1926. The hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that in practice neither the seller nor the buyer is aware of the contents of this Insolvency Act that was passed some 59 years ago. In terms of section 72 of that Act, there are two rights conferred upon the purchaser. They are of such fundamental importance that I believe both of those rights should be incorporated in the contract and in all deeds of sale. The one right is the entitlement of the purchaser to demand transfer after he has paid 50% of the purchase price and after he has made arrangements to secure the balance by way of a bond. In regard to this right, I feel that the hon. the Minister will not want me to motivate this matter any further because he himself agreed to this particular right. It is incorporated in this Bill. In regard to the second entitlement of the purchaser. I would like to see a compulsory detailed entrenchment of this right in the deed of sale. The effect would he that the purchaser would have it pertinently brought to his attention that if a seller fails or refuses or is unable to give transfer within three months of receiving notice, the purchaser may treat the contract as cancelled. The purchaser who then treats the contract as cancelled has the option of either recovering the portion of the purchase price paid by him, or he has the option to cancel the contract. The right of the purchaser to mitigate his potential loss by prompt action should be brought to his attention, and this would be pertinently brought to his attention if the hon. the Minister agreed to accept this amendment. The average buyer of property in terms of this particular clause, as the hon. the Minister knows, is a man who cannot buy for cash and who does not get registration of transfer and a bond immediately. In other words, he has to work very hard to save the deposit. He and his wife have perhaps slogged for many years to save the deposit in order to buy this property on this particular basis. I think it would be a tragedy if we did not go out of our way to try to protect the purchaser under these circumstances. I know that the hon. the Minister is going to tell me that you cannot always protect a person against his own gullibility and against every eventuality, but in this particular case it is very simple to protect him. I believe that this amendment would also assist the seller because it would make the seller aware of his very real contractual obligations towards the purchaser. It would draw his attention pertinently to the fact that he has these obligations towards the purchaser. I think the seller should be made patently aware of the remedies of the purchaser, and in the circumstances I do not think that the hon. the Minister should have any difficulty in accepting this particular amendment.

Sir, in my opinion the hon. member for Walmer is making this clause unnecessarily complicated. Personally. I feel that his amendment on the Order Paper is somewhat impractical. If the seller is not even able to take a first mortgage bond of 50% of the purchase price in his favour, then I simply cannot see how he can effect the repayment of the other 50% should the purchaser claim it.

You did not follow me.

The proviso in this amendment reads very clearly “if the seller is unable or fails or refuses …” If he is not in a position to give transfer and a mortgage bond for 50% of the purchase price in his favour, then we can deduce from that that the seller himself still owes more than 50% of the purchase price on that property. In other words, the purchaser is in difficulties. Consequently I do not think it is practicable to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member. If the seller fails to give transfer to the purchaser and accept a mortgage of 50% in his own favour, then I think the seller may have ulterior motives: he may want the purchaser to cancel the contract of purchase and claim repayment of the purchase price. Perhaps the seller then has another purchaser willing to purchase at a higher price and he wants to compel the purchaser, in one way or another, to cancel the contract of sale and reclaim that part of the purchase price he has already paid. I think that the seller must realize at all times that the purchaser has the right to claim specific compliance. It will put him on his guard at all times against going bankrupt. You will realize that the purchaser can demand compliance with the contract any time, viz. that he can demand transfer. We must realize. Sir, that in most of these cases the sellers are speculators in land, and if they can get a higher purchase price, they will use any legal method to obtain it. In my opinion the amendment moved by the hon. member does in fact give the seller a loophole to have the contract of sale cancelled. I think that we shall have the least difficulty if we accept the clause as it stands in the Bill at present.

Sir, let me say at once that I am quite prepared to accept amendments that will improve the Bill. I do not want to advance a long argument now about the amendment moved by the hon. member for Walmer. I am aware that what the amendment moved by the hon. member really amounts to is that we should include section 72 of the Insolvency Act in this legislation.

That is correct. Therefore the hon. member for Potgietersrus was wrong.

The amendment moved by the hon. member creates no new rights for a purchaser. All it does it repeat statutory rights that already exist, viz. the rights contained in section 72 of the Insolvency Act. In his speech, during the Second Reading debate the hon. member argued that we should really repeal the provisions to this effect in the Insolvency Act and include those provisions in this Act. The reply to that is necessarily that this Act concerning the sale of land is of limited scope, whereas the Insolvency Act has regard to wider purchase and sale rights than has this legislation. I want to say at once why I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment. Sir, what are we trying to do when we lay down what must appear in a contract of sale in this set of circumstances? In the first place, we try to ensure that the parties to the contract will be aware of their contractual relationships with each other, and that is why it is laid down what must appear in this contract. We go further. Notwithstanding the legal presumption that people must know the law, what we are trying to do here is to draw peoples’ attention to their rights in terms of other legislation, and in these circumstances we say in terms of clause 3 that there must be a reference to the rights afforded a purchaser by the Insolvency Act in terms of section 72. My submission, with respect, is that it is unnecessary to repeat the section in this legislation, because if we were to accept that as a principle, then it would mean that in legislation of this nature, we should have to repeat all references in other legislation in toto. If we were to do that, I maintain that the legislation would become so unwieldy as to be totally incapable of implementation.

Sir, the last point I want to make is this: The hon. member argues that the seller would know what his obligations were if we were to repeat the provisions of section 72 of the Insolvency Act word for word in this legislation, but in my opinion the hon. member is arguing from a totally incorrect premise. He argues that in practice people read the details of these contracts. That is not correct. There is a relationship of trust between every person and the attorney handling his affairs, and in my opinion the onus, in the first place, is on the man who prepares the contract to explain the provisions of the contract to people and, in this specific instance, the reference to the Insolvency Act.

Sir, the hon. member for Potgietersrus obviously did not read this Bill or the amendment very carefully. I want to put it quite clearly to the Committee that there is no difference between the hon. the Minister and myself in regard to the two fundamental rights. The only difference is that I would like these two fundamental rights to be incorporated in the deed of sale, whilst the Minister only wants to incorporate one in this Bill and the other one by way of a reference to this Bill. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that in view of the fact that he has agreed to incorporate one of the fundamental rights in this Bill, why not incorporate the other one as well? Having incorporated one, he might as well incorporate the other one. As I have mentioned before, all these deeds of sale are stereotyped and there is no problem, if you incorporate one, in incorporating the other. I should like to appeal to the Minister to agree to this particular amendment. I see absolutely no difficulty at all in this regard.

I want to refer to this clause and to the amendment. The amendment now introduces a second facet, namely that the seller must give transfer to the seller within three months. Sir, in my submission, this amendment is entirely impracticable. I think the hon. member is adopting the premise that the seller gives transfer to the purchaser, but that is not so in the sense that it is a direct transaction. There are intermediary transactions. I think I am dealing with the right clause.

You are wrong. That is already in the Act.

Just wait a moment. I have before me section 72 of the Insolvency Act. But whatever the case may be, if I am wrong in that regard, then I shall resume my seat. But the fact of the matter is that I agree with the hon. the Minister—that we cannot repeat in one Act everything that is stated in another Act. What is more, here, too, we have intermediary transactions that we must bear in mind. We cannot confuse the whole matter and approach it solely from the point of view of the purchaser. We must bear in mind that there are a number of intermediary transactions as well. I cannot but agree with the hon. the Minister that it would be impossible to repeat and confirm the provisions of other Acts in this legislation.

I hope it is unnecessary for us to take the matter further. The primary right created by section 72 is the right to demand transfer of the land in certain circumstances and subject to certain conditions. That is the primary right. I think the hon. member will agree with me that the other part he wanted added will not create new rights but only a repetition of existing provisions. All I have done now is to propose, in regard to what must appear in a contract of sale, that it must include a reference to section 72 of the Insolvency Act of 1926, emphasizing the one right that derives from it, without also including in the contract the other conditions attached to the exercising of the right. I hope the hon. member will be satisfied with this.

I must say initially that I did not feel very strongly about the amendment moved by the hon. member for Walmer, because I felt that a reference to the Act might be enough, but I must tell you, Sir, that if anything has persuaded me that I should support the amendment of the hon. member for Walmer, it is the fact that two members of this hon. House quite obviously do not know the provisions of the 1916 and the 1926 Insolvency Acts. It is quite clear that if you are going to draw people’s attention to it, then they should know what it is to which their attention is being drawn. The ordinary man who gets a deed of sale, does not walk around with the 1916 and a 1926 Statutes in his pocket I think that in the circumstances it is desirable to incorporate these provisions in the deed of sale, because it does not require an awful lot of work or an awful lot of printing. I do not believe, contrary to what other hon. members seem to think, that there is any difference of opinion between the hon. member for Walmer and the Minister in regard to what the law should be. The law exists at the moment; it has been there for decades, and nobody is suggesting that the hon. member is seeking to amend the law. Sir, I would appeal to the hon. the Minister, now that he has seen the display here this afternoon, with great respect to my learned and hon. friends who are lawyers in the House, to accept the amendment. If these hon. members themselves did not know this, how can we expect the ordinary member of the public to know it without again going to consult a lawyer and going to additional expense? I think in the circumstances I must say that I have been persuaded to support the hon. member for Walmer. This is a most reasonable request in view of the fact that the public do not know the provisions of the law. I would appeal to the Minister. It is not a matter of great principle which is involved here. It is merely a matter of the convenience for the public, and I would appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Walmer.

Mr. Chairman; the hon. the Minister in his reply said that the parties can have their rights explained to them when they go to see their attorneys and when the deed of sale is drawn up. As has been mentioned, two hon. members on the Government side who spoke about this matter are attorneys by profession, I believe. The problem is that if the buyer and the seller had gone to see those hon. members they would have been unable to explain their rights to them because they do not understand those rights themselves. Merely to alleviate this sort of situation, I would like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to accept the amendment. After all, nothing much turns on this. I am not asking the Minister to change the law. I am asking him to allow, in a stereotyped deed of sale, the incorporation of this clause which will make the law understandable even to attorneys who do not understand it now.

Just reacting to the hon. member for Yeoville, it is quite obvious from the arguments he advanced here this afternoon and also from his behaviour in other respects that he seems to be easily persuaded.

That is childish.

I do not know why the hon. member for Jeppe is getting so upset. Perhaps he wants to follow the hon. member for Yeoville in his persuasion. In that case he had better start moving. I think the arguments of the hon. member for Walmer in reply to the arguments of the hon. members on my side are completely irrelevant and unjustified. I have said before and I want to conclude the argument by just reiterating, that there is only one right which is created by section 72, and that right is to demand transfer from the seller under certain conditions and subject to compliance with certain other conditions. That is the only right. There are not two rights created there. There is only one right created in terms of that section. The others are qualified, namely under what circumstances the purchaser has the right to demand transfer, or alternatively, to demand cancellation of the contract.

The right to damages.

That is a common law right. Sir, I suggest that the hon. member accept that for the purposes of this Bill, it is not necessary for the Act to be re-enacted, because that is in fact what he is trying to do.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to move the two amendments standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 6, in line 32, after “the”, to insert “then prevailing”,
2. (2) on page 6, in line 37, after “subsection” to add the following proviso:

I believe that the hon. the Minister will realize from my speech during the Second Reading that we are unhappy about this clause as it stands at the moment. We maintain that as the clause stands now, it creates a sense of uncertainty. I should like to refer the hon. the Minister in the first place to his Second Reading speech, where he said that there were two difficulties created by this particular clause. He had this to say (Hansard, col. 4220)—

I presume that what the hon. the Minister was referring to there is an alteration in the interest rate during the term that the contract runs. That, I believe, arose as a result of the wording of the existing Act where it refers to “the maximum rate which is then charged by any building society in respect of a loan secured by a first mortgage bond over land”. In point of fact, what is going to happen now is that with the present wording of this amending clause, it means that the seller shall stipulate for or demand interest at a rate which is not higher than the rate prescribed by the Minister of Economic Affairs by regulation from time to time. The operative words here are “from time to time”. We believe that what it is going to mean now is that the sellers are going to stipulate in their contracts of sale that the interest will be the rate of interest which is simulated or prescribed by the Minister of Economic Affairs by regulation from time to time. This will mean in fact that neither the seller nor the purchaser will know in advance what interest will have to be paid during the currency of the deed of sale, because during the currency of that sale the hon. the Minister may well change the rate of interest. We believe that this is unsound. We do not believe that this should happen, and we feel in any event that what should happen is that the rate should be the rate prevailing at the time that the contract was entered into. That is the main purpose of the first amendment I have moved.

Is it the hon. member’s intention, in moving this amendment, to achieve the result that that prevailing rate of interest must then be the rate of interest for the whole term of the contract?

Yes, that is correct. That is what we anticipate will happen if this amendment is accepted, because we believe that it is custom for the contract to stipulate the amount of instalments, usually in a lump sum figure, which includes capital and interest. It will mean that the purchaser will have great difficulty, from time to time, in establishing exactly how much capital he has paid off on his contract, because he will have to work from period to period, depending on when the hon. the Minister actually changes the rate of interest. We believe that there will be no real hardship to the seller or to the purchaser if this is accepted. We believe it is a good thing for the Minister to fix the rate, rather than that the building societies should do so, because it overcomes the difficulty of the different rates which apply in different building societies. At the moment, however, it seems to us as if this provision is clumsy. The public will not know whether they are entitled to change the rate from time to time where they have stipulated that it shall be changed from time to time or not. Therefore, in order to bring about clarity, we request the insertion of the two words “then prevailing” before the word “rate”.

I now want to deal with the second amendment which I have moved. I feel that it is sometimes difficult for a seller to stipulate in a contract an interest rate which is unrelated to the interest which he himself is paying on the bond covering the property he is selling. In order to try to obviate this difficulty, I have suggested an amendment which ties it up with a building society in order to narrow the scope. In other words, if a seller has a bond, perhaps with a private person or a financial institution other than a building society, the interest rate might be excessive. In order to protect purchasers against sellers who themselves have to pay extra interest because of the fact that they have had to raise money through financial institutions, we have narrowed the field by stipulating building societies, which is in the spirit of the existing Act. Although building societies do alter their interest rates from time to time, this is a situation which will not really affect very many people. We believe, however, that there should be this protection to the seller and purchaser. After all, when building society rates alter, the alteration is generally better known by the public than an alteration brought about by the hon. the Minister. In point of fact I would like to quote what the hon. the Minister said in his reply to the Second Reading debate. He was asked a question by the hon. member for Yeoville as follows (Hansard, vol. 11, col. 4693):

Will you also consider what the township developer himself has to pay?

The Minister’s reply was as follows:

I am sorry that I have to disagree with the hon. the Minister. I am almost certain that building societies do not grant loans to parties owning bare land. If they do, this is a very singular occurrence. In other words, there are very few building societies that lend money at the moment to people who own land. This amendment that I move will therefore be giving protection to people who are selling properties on which buildings have been erected. One will find that people selling properties with buildings on them are genuine sellers. The are probably not speculators. Usually they are people who want to dispose of a certain property rather than a number of properties. The objection the hon. the Minister praises here is not applicable to them because they are not developers. That is the point I want to make. I therefore feel that we should give that type of person some protection.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would give us further clarification on what he said in reply to the Second Reading debate when he was answering questions, not only from me but also from a number of other members, about this interest rate which is going to be prescribed by him. He made two basic points. He stated the following (Hansard vol. 11. col. 4692):

As far as this is concerned, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister why it is necessary for him to prescribe this in the first instance. There are, of course, as he is well aware, maximum interest rates that can be imposed. This comes under the Limitation and Disclosure of Financial Charges Act. The Minister of Finance lays down maximum interest rates which can be charged. Currently this is approximately 14%. If the seller, is given that maximum which is described as reasonable and which is obviously adjudged to be so by the Minister of Finance for all other transactions, could the hon. the Minister inform us why an exception is made as far as this particular form of transaction, i.e. the purchase and sale of land, is concerned? As we view the matter now, we cannot see the intention as anything but a form of subsidy. Obviously, if a purchaser could obtain finance at a lower rate than that which the seller stipulates, then, surely, he would go ahead and do so. We look to the hon. the Minister to answer that. Honestly, I do not quite follow his remark in reply to the question from the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. the Minister said that he could recover the interest if there was an element of subsidy in the sense that he was not getting the rate which he was paying himself. The question was whether the hon. the Minister would also consider what the township developer himself had to pay. The hon. the Minister then said that the developer was able to recover his cost of development of which interest forms part in ways and means other than by the interest rate. He could recover it by means of the price for which he sells his plots. In one sense that is absolutely true, but in another sense—as the hon. member for Langlaagte will know—any sophisticated purchaser will look at it in exactly that way. If the interest rate suddenly appears to be 6% and if we were offered a loan at 6% in present times, I would be inclined to look at what the purchase price was in order to work it out. I can see from the hon. the Minister that he takes the point and I wonder if he could explain it to us.

Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively this afternoon to the hon. member for East London City. It is very clear to me that that hon. member does not quite follow the drift of this Act. In fact, I discovered this afternoon that there are a number of attorneys here who do not follow it. In any event, other attorneys have told me so. The hon. member refers to interest and states that if the hon. the Minister of Finance determines an interest rate, then it must only apply to that contract. In normal practice it is a fact that when one purchases a house, it appears in one’s contract that if the interest on the loan changes, then one pays more or less. Why then, does the hon. member for East London City not want this to be laid down in this legislation? When we say that contract A will be 7% and in six months time the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs finds that it should be 7½%, then that person is trapped. If this were to be the case, then this should also be done as far as building societies are concerned, viz. that when a sale is concluded and the building society charges interest of 8%, then that should apply for the duration of that contract. We must be consistent as far as contracts are concerned. The paying off of land on instalments is just as much part of housing—as the hon. member said—as a building which someone purchases. Another matter that troubles me is the fact that the hon. member for East London City speaks about the seller who makes the profit. The hon. member must always bear in mind that at one time or another a seller was also a purchaser. If anybody is being exploited, then he too was at least once exploited by the seller. Please, we must accept that these things are so …

Has anybody had the chance of exploiting you?

Well, many have tried, but they have not succeeded yet.

*The point is that in this legislation, the hon. the Minister is trying to do one thing and that is to try and maintain a reasonable price for land and make it available to the public in that way. The Minister is not trying to identify or label a purchaser or a seller. It is necessary to bring down prices of land in South Africa and the hon. member for Johannesburg North—I quite like him because he is starting to speak better about these matters—states that the interest paid on land that is purchased is getting higher all the time. That is true, but we must not make the mistake of forgetting that the piece of land being purchased is farm land. That is why an interest rate of 15% and more is paid, because that land has not yet been subdivided. However, after the land has been subdivided, the interest rate ought not to be higher than the prevailing interest rates charged by building societies or the interest rates determined by the Minister because then there is security as regards the subdivided land. The man who grants a mortgage bond now, has the land as security and therefore I, too, plead that we should not cause this interest rate to be excessive but that we should leave it in the hands of the Minister of Economic Affairs for him to control.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for East London City because it does not achieve the purpose for which the hon. member intended it. His aim, in the first instance, is to establish a better relationship between purchaser and seller, and consequently he states that the interest rate that must apply during the period of a contract of sale should be the interest rate which applied at the date when the contract was entered into. At first sight this lends security to that specific contract. There is no doubt about that. However his amendment will not have that effect, because in terms of his amendment he wants to insert the words “then prevailing” (interest rate) whereas the “then prevailing” (interest rate)is not defined. This would mean, therefore, that it would still be the interest rate determined by the Minister from time to time. Consequently I am unable to accept the amendment in its present form. I want to ask the hon. member not to continue to insist on this in order that I may consider during the recess whether I can have the matter attended to. I say in all honesty that I shall have a look at that. The second point the hon. member wants to make is that there may be circumstances in which a seller pays an interest rate higher than the prevailing one. He wants the seller to be able to negotiate an interest rate higher than that laid down by the Minister, but not higher than the interest rate of a building society.

†I think those are the two points that he wanted to make. Let me say immediately that the second amendment of the hon. member brings back the uncertainty which existed.

The good that is done is better than the evil thereof.

Let me take it further, and in replying to him I also want to reply to the argument of the hon. member for Johannesburg North. The Act as it stands now always had as its intention that the prevailing interests should be the rate of interest being charged by building societies. The only motivation for the amendment is the fact that building societies charge different rates of interest. They charge different rates of interest in respect of the types of property on which a bond is being registered. Bearing that in mind, it must be quite obvious to hon. members that there is no question at all of suggesting that there should be a subsidized rated of interest. It is for the Minister to determine from time to time what the rates of interest should be. The hon. member for Johannesburg North went further and asked me why the Minister of Economic Affairs was now going to determine the rate of interest whilst another Act stipulated the Minister of Finance. I think the answer is to be found in the fact that the Minister of Finance is determining rates of interest in respect of money lent in advance, whilst in this particular legislation one often deals with the balance of purchase price which, as the hon. member would know, was not subject to the provisions of the old Usury Act which only applied to a contract where money was lent in advance by one party to another.

*I want to tell the hon. member for East London City that as his amendment reads at present with regard to the prevailing interest rate—I investigated this matter with the legal advisers—he will not achieve his aim in any event. As far as the second part of his amendment is concerned, I have already replied to that. I now ask the hon. member to be content with my explanation and give me the chance to reconsider the clause. I shall consider whether there is another method that can reconcile both standpoints.

Mr. Chairman, I have a serious problem with what the hon. the Minister has just said. When we discussed this matter at the Second Reading, I asked the hon. the Minister whether the rate of interest which developers would have to pay, would be taken into account. The hon. member for Johannesburg North has referred to his reply to that question. I, for one, was under the impression, and I think other hon. members as well, that the building society rate on its own would not be the guiding factor in the exercising of his discretion.

I did not say that.

Let me go back to what the hon. the Minister has just said. He said that the only reason why this law was being amended, was that the building society rates differ from building society to building society and that, therefore, one wants to achieve a degree of certainty. It is no use the hon. the Minister throwing his hands up in horror, because that is unfortunately what he said.

I said it in a particular context.

Let me just get it quite clear in my mind; perhaps I did not understand it quite correctly. It is no use the hon. the Minister sulking about it. It is a simple point: Either all the factors will be taken into account when he exercises this discretion or he will be bound only by what various building societies are charging. With, great respect—I hope the hon. the Minister will apply his mind to this—the moment one interferes with the market mechanisms in respect of interest rates, whether they concern money-lending transactions or the sale of land, one disturbs a pattern, and one has to be very careful what one does. The position is that the people who borrow money to finance townships, in the main do not borrow from building societies but from insurance companies, private investors and all sorts of sources of finance and, with great respect, one cannot be guided by building societies in that respect. It is also not sufficient to say that it can be added to the purchase price, because what is happening in the modern economy today, is that the interest rate keeps changing. The hon. the Minister can wave his hands and say it is nonsense; that may be the result of shortcomings in his knowledge.

I…

The hon. the Minister is making funny noises there. He is getting quite hysterical about what is a perfectly logical, normal and ordinary piece of legislation to which one should apply one’s mind objectively. If he does not want to listen to contributions of members of the House, let him get up and say so.

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

Sir, with great respect, the hon. the Minister has a duty to listen and to exercise his responsibilities here. If he thinks it is unimportant what people say, he should say so. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must please speak only on the clause.

It is absolutely ridiculous. The hon. the Minister takes the view that only he knows what is going on.

Harry, Helen will not have you.

What I am trying to suggest to the hon. the Minister, if he will listen, is that interest rates vary, escalate and change. The hon. the Minister is now creating a situation where the seller may find himself in an awkward situation as a result of that. The clause we are enacting says:

The important factor which arises is that, while one may be stipulating a legitimate rate of interest at one time, it may no longer be the legitimate rate of interest when one receives it. That is why one has to cater for changing interest rates as developments take place. That is what I ask the hon. the Minister to apply his mind to.

Mr. Chairman, I shall reply very briefly. If the hon. member had listened to the reply I furnished to the questions put by the hon. member for Johannesburg North, he would have known that my reply in respect of building society interest rates was furnished in a specific context. However the hon. member does not listen to the speeches made by other hon. members; he only listens to his own voice and then argues in the air. The fact is that the market mechanism was already interfered with as far as interest rates are concerned when the Act was adopted in 1971, because it was provided then that the interest rates would be those of the building societies: The only reason why an amendment should be moved now is that there were various rates and that people want to be sure about their rights.

Mr. Chairman, I would be very grateful if the hon. the Minister would give me an interpretation of the clause as amended, because I believe that if he were to interpret it, he would probably find that he would create uncertainty in so far as the purchaser is concerned. I believe that it is the intention of the hon. the Minister in introducing this amending legislation to bring about a measure of certainty in so far as the purchaser is concerned because, after all, it is the purchaser whom he wishes to protect as far as possible. What is going to happen? I believe that the hon. the Minister, if asked to interpret the clause now, would have to say that what in effect it means is that when a purchaser purchases at a stipulated interest rate, that rate of interest shall we the rate which he as Minister has determined, and if he as Minister at any time during the currency of the contract determines a higher rate, the purchaser shall have to pay that higher rate. I should like the hon. the Minister to nod if he agrees that that is the interpretation he would give, because if he nods, then I believe I am quite correct in saying that this clause is not an improvement. [Interjections.]

Carry on with your argument.

The hon. the Minister says he is not nodding. I believe nevertheless that the hon. the Minister is introducing an uncertainty, which is to the detriment of the purchaser and that is what we do not want; we want certainty. I believe that is what the hon. member for East London City is trying to achieve. He wants to have the clause amended to provide that once the Minister has determined a rate of interest at any time when a contract is entered into, that rate of interest will be the rate at which the purchaser shall pay interest throughout the currency of the contract. That gives certainty, and that is what the hon. member for East London City is trying to achieve. If the hon. the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, then the hon. the Minister would be making things uncertain for the purchaser. After all, what he says he is trying to do is to create certainty for the purchaser so that the purchaser will know exactly what he is in for. What is going to happen is that when the Minister fixes the rate of interest at 5% a number of purchasers will purchase, because they will say: “What is 5%? We can manage to pay that.” However, if the Minister decides, after the first five years of the contract period of 25 years have elapsed, that the rate of interest is going to be 10% then the purchaser will have to pay 10% and the purchaser will then say: “But I never went in for this contract on the basis of 10% interest.”

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.